GOLIATH that argues the current Israel is ruled by ‘far-right’ imperialist monsters. And Philip Weiss runs a popular site that details the daily problems of Israel’s Occupation of remaining Palestinian territories. And increasing numbers of young Jews have become vocal supporters of the BDS movement. And even in Jewish journals and websites, it isn’t uncommon for some Jews, especially younger ones, to voice opposition to Zionist policies. Some Jews expect, with hope or fear depending on one’s ideological leanings, that the majority of future Jews will not be supportive of Israel. But then, maybe younger Jews today will grow more identitarian and pro-Zionist as they gain in years. Who knows?
But one thing seems certain, and that is today’s young Jews are not as pro-Zionist as young Jews of past generations. If you were young and Jewish in 1970, 1980, or 1990, you were likely to have been more pro-Zionist than a young Jew today. Of course, there is also the fact that, especially since the 1960s, many Jews have intermarried with non-Jews, and many of today’s Jews may be only half-Jewish or quarter-Jewish. So, even if they still identify as Jewish, they will have gotten Jewishness from only one side of the family.
Anyway, what could be the bigger reason for young Jews’ relative lack of interest in Zionism? By ‘interest’, I mean pro-Zionist sympathies. After all, one could be interested in Zionism in the most negative way. David Duke and Patrick Little are certainly interested in Israel and Zionism, but it has nothing to do with sympathy. And Max Blumenthal and Philip Weiss surely know more about Zionism than most Jews do, but their interests are harshly critical. Whether positive or negative about Israel, there’s a spectrum from fanaticism to indifference. A pro-Zionist Jew could think of Israel 24/7 . Or he could say he supports Israel but do little or nothing and hardly think about the topic. Likewise, anti-Zionist Jews range from men like Max Blumenthal who’s on an all-out crusade against the Jewish State to people whose positive impression of Israel has dimmed over the years but who don’t get worked up over what’s happening in Gaza or West Bank. It’s likely that the majority of pro-Zionist Jews and anti-Zionist Jews are generally indifferent about the issue. They don’t care enough to organize FOR or AGAINST Israel and lobbies like AIPAC.
People like Norman Finkelstein and Philip Weiss would like to believe the decrease in the enthusiasm for Israel among young Jews is the result of disillusionment with Israel’s mounting human rights abuses, mainly vis-a-vis Palestinians but also in the Zionist manipulation of US foreign policy to cause trouble all over North Africa and Middle East, now especially against Syria and Iran. The idea is that increasing numbers of young Jews are morally outraged by what semi-theocratic Israel is doing to Palestinians who are just hanging by a thread in Gaza and living under ‘Apartheid’ conditions in the West Bank. Thus, feelings and attitudes of young Jews are motivated mainly by Egalitarian Humanitarianism, i.e. Jews must live together with Palestinians as fellow brothers and sisters, as equal members of humanity. Supposedly, these younger Jews are moving from supremacist domination to egalitarian justice. I’m sure some Jews do sincerely feel that way.
But could the bigger reason for growing disinterest in Israel and Zionism be the result of Elitist Cosmopolitanism, aka Elysiumism or Elysianism? After all, more than 50% of Jews earn more than $100,000. Given the levels of Jewish power and influence, it is difficult to see Jews being motivated by genuine egalitarianism. Indeed, most Jewish talk of Equality is merely rhetorical, or it is a means of misdirection to fool people, especially non-whites, into thinking that the real problem of America is WHITE PRIVILEGE and that noble Jews are hard-at-work in trying to fix the problem by pushing for more ‘inclusion’ of non-whites into white-dominated domains and institutions. By using the smokescreen of White Privilege, Jews are able to gain even more fortune and power. As the bulk of moral outrage and ideological hate is directed at Whiteness, the forces of ‘Social Justice’ end up berating middle-class and working class whites far more than Jewish elites that truly run and rule America. Indeed, why would intelligent, ambitious, and contemptuous Jews be interested in real equality? Why would Jews want to be on the same plane with Dumb Polacks, stupid schvartzes, ‘white trash’, hillbillies, Mexican Gomezers, and other riffraff?
When Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe arrived in the US with little more than the clothes on their backs, they felt some degree of camaraderie with the ‘have-nots’ as they arrived in the same boat and had some ways to go to make the climb from the bottom to the top. But, especially in the years after the 1960s, Jews were on the up and up, and now, they are the undisputed(and also unmentioned) ruling elites of the US. Jews are now addicted to power, privilege, prestige, elitism, and even supremacism. The idea that most Jews would sincerely be interested in equality is ludicrous. If the US were truly egalitarian, Jewish representation of media would be 2%. Jewish control of Wall Street, Law firms, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley would also be only 2%. What Jews would want this? Indeed, Jews seem hardly troubled by the fact that they, who comprise only 2% of the population, control 40% of the wealth in the US. And 95% of the media. And most elite institutions. Jews also rake in most of the cash from casinos and other vice industries. Jews also use Big Pharma to hook so many people to drugs, the side effects of which require the patients to become dependent on yet more drugs. With so many Jews having so much, why would they care about most of humanity except as a publicity stunt or political strategy? After all, even tyrants, monarchs, and autocrats claim to care about the People as they carry out self-serving policies. If Jews were honest and spilled the beans on their insatiable greed, a lot of people would wake up to Jewish influence and act accordingly to challenge it or even bring it down. So, it has been in the interest of Jews to keep feigning their role as one of the Holy Victim Groups forever associated with Shoah and Emma-Lazarusean Immigration.
Because Jews arrived as Poor Immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is as if their eternal identity is Immigrant-Americans. Even though most American Jews have multi-generational roots in America, even young rich Jews act like they just got off the boat and are standing in line at Ellis Island. Because of this association as Immigrant-Americans, Jews pretend they are spiritually united with all New Immigrant folks. So, if a new batch of folks arrive from the Middle East, India, China, Africa, or Latin America, they are fellow Immigrant-Americans along with Jews. And even though many immigrants now arrive with lots of money, lots of luggage, knowledge of English & the American Way, and even well-established connections in America, we are to believe that every generation of Immigrants arrive with the Lazarusean dream of yearning to breathe free. You could be a millionaire Hindu arriving in the US with a good job awaiting you, but as an Immigrant-American, you are shrouded with the Ellis Island myth. This way, the well-established, rich, and powerful Jewish-American community, as the original Immigrant-Americans, becomes forever associated with the 'humble dreams' of ever newer batches of Immigrants who, in turn, are ennobled by the Emma & Ellis myth as the ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ even though many of them arrive with good amount of cash, advanced college degrees, and extensive knowledge of modernity & American Living.
Jews feign at Egalitarianism and Humanitarianism, but their main position in the world is as Elitists(even supremacists) and Masters(over inferior goy humanity). Most privileged Jews have a Master Race mentality(even if hidden and unstated), though it ranges from the Anglo-Enlightenment Model to the Neo-Nazi-Model. One school of Jewish Master Race ideology believes that Jews should rule like the Anglo Imperialists of Old. They should have the ultimate power but treat the goyim with modicum of justice and conscience. A Jewish variation of the White Man’s Burden. This school of Jewish Master Race ideology isn’t particularly hateful though it is arrogant and can be overbearing. It’s no wonder some Jews sound like schoolmarms always telling us how to think, what to say, what to do. There’s an element of Neo-Victorianism in this strain of Jewish Worldview.
The other school of Jewish Master Race ideology is truly Nazi-like, and it’s not far-fetched to label such Jews as Judeo-Nazis. These Jews are filled with contempt and virulence toward goyim who are seen as subhuman, cattle, servants, and cannon fodder. These Jews look upon goyim the way the Nazi Germans looked upon Russians and Slavs in general: as Human Cattle that exist to serve the superior ‘Aryans’. If both groups of Jews have something in common, it’s an anxiety(or even aversion among some of them) toward race-mixing. If some Jews are hostile to race-mixing altogether, other Jews are very selective in their race-mixing strategy, and this is especially true among Jewish men. If Jews must mix with non-Jews, the important thing is to marry the upper echelons of goyim so that higher IQ goy genes will mix with high IQ Jewish genes. Also, the kids must be raised to identify and feel pride as Jews first and foremost. Jewish men especially feel this strategy is necessary. If in the past Jewish men married ‘shikses’ out of Portnoic lust, today they feel a need to marry non-Jews because too many Jewesses are either too obnoxious, nasty, or infected with out-of-control Jungle Fever. What with too many Jewesses acting like Lena Dunham and Chelsea Handler, Jewish men figure they need Nicer Women, and such are found among ‘Aryans’ and Chinese. Jewish men are tired of female version of Howard Stern who say stuff like, "I had an orgy with a bunch of Negroes with biggus dickus."
Jewish men are truly freaked by Jewish women who, furthermore, are trying to replace the Jewish Covenant of the Pud with the neo-covenant of the Poon. All this talk of Vagina-this and Vagina-that is essentially a Jewess-instigated movement that wants to swallow and destroy the Jewish pud and then take the Negro dongs until the Jewish Poon becomes like man-eating plant in THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS. Notice that the Plant opens up like a vagina but talks like a Negro. The Jewish bitches have come up with neo-covenant where Jewishness will be defined by Jewish Poon gone jungle. It is no wonder so many Jewish men are freaked and seeking refuge in non-Jewish poons.
Even though Jewish Elite Power is overwhelmingly pro-Zionist at the very top — consider donors such as Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, and many billionaire moguls of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — , it appears that many young affluent Jews aren’t so passionate about Israel. Or maybe they are but prefer to remain closet-Zionists in order to hide their ideological hypocrisy — "national for me but not for thee" — or to avoid confrontations especially with increasingly vocal BDS forces. After all, most highly educated affluent people tend to be ‘progressive’(if mainly for reasons of status), and it’s not very convenient to be labeled as Zionist at a time when Israel politics has veered so far to the Right. It mattered less in the past because Israel was, more often than not, ostensibly ruled by the ‘progressive’ Labor Party. Also, as the US was less diverse, Jews usually mingled with non-Jewish whites who, due to Shoah Narrative, tended to be extra-sensitive toward Jews. But as the US has grown more diverse, Jews are rubbing shoulders with non-whites who don’t share the ‘white guilt’ burden. Also, if white Evangelicals feel a spiritual connection to the Jewish State, non-whites feel no special attachment or sentiment for the Holy Land as they are neither Jewish nor Christian. And this means they are far less likely to be partial the Jewish-Zionist POV, not least because Zionism reminds them of Western Imperialism that had once ruled over their parts of the world. On the other hand, most non-whites don’t much care about Palestinians either. Ironically, whites are likely to be both more pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian. In a way, their pro-Palestinian stance is an offshoot of their commitment to Jews. It is precisely because they admire and love Jews so much that they are appalled by Jews acting so brutal towards a seemingly helpless people. If anti-Jewish voices on the Alt Right tend to express support for Palestinians according to the logic of ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’, certain Philosemitic types lean toward BDS and Justice for Palestinians because they want to believe in the Noble Jew. They hope and dream of a peaceful and lasting resolution between Jews and Palestinians because they want to believe in the myth of Jewish sainthood and wisdom. Surely, a people who suffered Shoah shouldn’t be treating people like dirt. Also, given that sanctioning South Africa in the 1980s and anointing Mandela as the holiest man after MLK came to define Progressivism in recent times, Israel became increasingly vulnerable as the New South Africa, an Apartheid Nation in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the Right seemed to have History on its side as the Communist Left spiraled into deeper abysses of inefficiency and insolvency. But if the Right ‘won’ the Cold War, the Left won what was, in some ways, even a greater prize: End of Apartheid in South Africa. Even though the world appreciated the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, there wasn’t much ‘idolic’ power among most Eastern Europeans and Russians. They were just more white people who, unlike their Western Counterparts, didn’t even have the ‘cool’ factor and had bad teeth. In contrast, South African struggle was black, and that meant a lot because the US, the center of the world, was heavily invested in the symbolism of black holiness. Also, as the main moral narrative in the US came to center around the Civil Rights Movement, many saw parallels between the black American struggle and South African struggle.
To the extent that ANC of South Africa had been closely allied with the PLO while white rulers of South Africa had Israel as its closest all, it was becoming ever more convenient for Progressives to notice parallels between the Original Apartheid State and the New Apartheid State(Israel). For white Progressives in search of a new passionate cause, something like BDS pushes all the right buttons. Even as its agenda is hostile to Israel, supporters of BDS can claim that they protest Israeli policies because they believe in the goodness of Jews and are traumatized that Jews, a people associated with the ‘Holocaust’, could act in such a manner. Indeed, most White Progs who protest Zionist policies against Palestinians are not ‘racially’ hostile to Jews in the way that some on the White Right are. If some on the Right see the struggle between whites and Jews as essentially one of blood-and-culture, the those on the White Left tend to see it in terms of Hawkish Bad Jews enabled by crazy Evangelicals & the War State VERSUS Dovish Good Jews allied with White Progs and People-of-Color. Some on the White Left fetishize Jews as a holy people to such an extent that they are terribly triggered by the sight of Jews acting like New Nazis. They are so used to the image of Jews as saintly victims(like in SCHINDLER’S LIST) that it bothers them to watch images of Jews as ruthless victors against a helpless people. Others on the White Left don’t have a particular fetish for Jews as holy-schmoly and simply expect Jews to fully embrace the Rules of PC. So, if UK, Ireland, Germany, and Sweden should go into post-national mode and become like Morocco or Venezuela, Israel should do likewise and be Third-World-ized too. (Granted, Israel does have Third World Jews — those with lower IQ and ability than European-Ashkenazi Jews — , but they are all Jewish, thus bridging First Worldism and Third Worldism in Israel. It’s like Italy has First World Italians in the North and Third World Italians in the South, but they are bound together by Italian-ness. It goes to show that shared ethnic identity goes a long way in easing socio-economic divides.) But the Jewish Problem is difficult to resolve because the supposed Dovish Good Jews(with the good kind of political allies) are really no less identitarian, tribal, and supremacist than the Hawkish Bad Jews. The former are better at hiding their true agenda. Even so, there is increasing pressure on Dovish Good Jews to distance themselves from Hawkish Bad Jews. Bernie Sanders whose main base comprise White Progs has come under increasing pressure to speak out for Palestinian rights against Israel, thus reversing his long history as a hypocritical Jew whose modus operandi was ‘nationalism for me/we but not for thee’. The pressure on Jews is even greater in European nations, not least because the European ‘Left’, utterly committed to the racial-and-cultural extinction of Europe and fully allied with Muslims and Africans, demands that Israel also drop its guard against Muslims and Africans. While European government elites still support Zionism, European intellectual and cultural elites have become, by and large, very critical of Israel and its alliance with ‘far right’ forces in the US. Openly Right-wing Jews are alarmed by this and even forge an alliance with European Rightists. Left-wing Jews try to walk the tightrope in a balancing act in making all the correct noises about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ while doing their darned best to make sure that EU remain solidly behind Israel.
Of course, this is one reason why Jews have been so eager to push Homomania. A decadent Western Ideology(and even neo-religion) that is bound to turn off many Third Worlders, especially Muslims, while winning the hearts-and-minds of so many deracinated and decadent whites in a state of cultural degeneration, its effect is to boost support for Israel as the outpost of Homo ‘Pride’ in the Middle East. (It’s interesting that so much of National Degeneration is associated with sex. When Spanish mixed with natives in Latin America, it led to racial dissipation and cultural degeneration. When North African Caucasians mixed with Negroids, their cultures became less stable and more barbarian. When the West began to celebrate ‘gay pride’ and homo fecal penetration, its culture and values became degraded. Pushing tranny business on little children has made things even worse. It has expanded the number of boys who, urged by parents and pop culture, act wussy and girlish to win more affection as having ‘woke’ sexuality. And West’s support of Feminism and Jungle Fever has led to rapid decline of civility. Spread of Negro genes increases levels of savagery and chaos in the white world. And Jungle Fever turns white women into mindless ‘mudsharks’ and turns white men into wussy-ass cucks who’ve lost the respect of their women. Among Muslims, the degenerative factor is cousin marriage. All that semi-inbreeding has led to lower IQ and host of genetic diseases. So, sexual values, habits, and practices are intimately associated with the decline of civilizations.)
Anyway, I would argue that the main pressure on Jews isn’t egalitarianism and humanitarianism but elitism and cosmopolitanism. Young Jews may be moving away from Zionism because they want to be with the top winners. Currently, Jews are the top winners of the US and the World, but in the coming years, the elites of the West are bound to be ever more diverse, made up of not only Jews and whites(mostly Progs) but Yellows, Hindus, mulattoes(not least due to Affirmative Action), and even Muslims. Thus, a kind of caste system is forming in the West. It won’t be as rigid and strict as the one that congealed in India, but the end-result could be that people will identify mainly with their neo-caste status than anything else. This Coming-Apart(the separation of Winners and Losers as expounded by Charles Murray) is affecting all peoples. Granted, moving to America creates a temporary Coming-Together effect among Immigrant Communities. So, Asian Indians of various stripes(and even Pakistanis) who never saw eye-to-eye on anything back in the Old Country find themselves to be part of the Asian-Indian-American Community. And the various kinds of ‘Latin Americans’ — whites, mestizos, Indios, mulattoes, and of different nationalities, e.g. Mexican, Venezuelan, Brazilian, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and etc. — who never had much in common in their own nations suddenly find themselves as members of either ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’ community. Being newcomers and minorities starting anew, they feel a need to pool together with others who are more similar to them. The effect of this is Coming-Together, but it’s not very long-lasting. After all, the ‘dream’ of immigrants is to climb up the social ladder and join the elite club of wealth and privilege. Over time, it means the creation of a Diverse Elite Community where various members feel more as Elysians than as people of any particular tribal or ethnic affiliation. Consider Joe Biden, Billy Boy Clinton, John McCain, Nikki Haley, Fareed Zakaria, Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Amy Chua, Nicholas Kristof, Marco rubberboy Rubio, Francis ‘End of History’ Fukuyama, Walter Russell Mead, Lawrence O’Donnell, S. E. Cupp, Niall Ferguson, and etc. All they care about is belonging to Elysium. Indeed, their pro-Diversity and pro-Inclusion ideology only furthers status and neo-caste as the main basis of identification. If Lawrence O’Donnell felt strongly as a Drunken Irish, he might be less obsessed with status because he would feel closer to all kinds of Irishmen as his fellow ethnic kin: Rich Irish, middle class Irish, working class Irish, poor Irish, super-drunk stupid Irish, and etc. But having no such ethnic sense in the name of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’, what is the only meaningful mode of identity and belonging left to O’Donnell? Wealth and Status of course.
After all, we know it’s impossible to identify with ALL OF HUMANITY. There are too many ethnic groups, too many cultures, too many languages, and too many competing & conflicting narratives. For example, if you claim to love Saudi Sunnis and Iranian Shias equally, how do you resolve the conflict between their competing religious agendas? If you claim to love Turks and Armenians equally, who do you side with on the issue of the ‘Armenian genocide’? If you claim to love Zionists and Palestinians equally, which side is right on the issue of West Bank and Gaza? Thus, all this talk of ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ is meaningless as a source of identity. It’s no wonder that so much of Multi-Culturalism’s emphasis is on Food because peoples of all cultures can agree on culinary delights. (Even so, even the Politics of Foods is fraught with dangers because Muslims don’t eat pork, Hindus don’t eat beef, and Chinese/Koreans/Vietnamese eat dogs. As yet, the US will not allow dog-eating as part of celebration of Multi-Culturalism though, perhaps, that could change as some might argue that laws banning the eating of dogs is culturally discriminatory and ‘exclusive’.) So, what happens in a society committed to deracination and ethnic bleaching? What happens when people realize that they cannot identify with All of Humanity. Indeed, consider the recent Refugee Issue. So many White Progs expressed sympathy and even identification with Muslims. Some even donned burkas and played ‘Muslim for a day’. But identity-for-a-day or identity-based-on-faddish-agendas is shallow and fades as easily as it appears. It’s more like mushrooms than trees. It has no roots. Too much of Current Cult of Makeup Identity is about Mushroomism against the traditional essentialist identity of Treeism. Anyway, the Muslim-for-a-Day craze was as vapid as could be because it was based entirely on political expediency: Let’s Get Trump! It was also morally risible because the very people who suddenly showered sympathy on Muslims and Liinda-Sarsours of the world had been utterly silent when Obama and Hillary were wreaking havoc in the Middle East and North Africa at the behest of Israel and Jewish-globalist supremacists.
Prior to the rise of Diversity in the West, elite power essentially came down to Jews vs Wasps. In the end, Jews won, and Wasps were eager to play the role of partners and underlings of Jews. What advantaged the Jews was the control of Narrative, especially as they gained a stranglehold of media and academia. Jews also became experts of Lawfare to defend their interests(and any interest that subverts white power) and to threaten or destroy their rivals or would-be-enemies with lawsuits. Before the Rise of Diversity, Elite Power meant Jews on top using White Guilt as the paralyzing agent to ensure that Wasps will serve and obey and BUGS(Busy Urban Globalist Semites). That was the one big advantage that Jews had over Wasps. The Guilt Factor. Because Wasps were steeped in the Christian mindset of atonement & redemption(and pride through such), they could be artfully manipulated by cunning and crafty Jews. Jews could invoke the Holocaust and Slavery to morally shame and disadvantage whites. Also, by showering praise on Good Whites committed to redemption, Jews made White Guilt the basis of New White Pride. Paradoxically, white pride could only come by the way of White Guilt. By prostrating themselves before the Magic Negro and Holy Jew, the Good Whites could gain an element of pride, especially by bashing the Bad Whites who weren’t as born-again showy in their expressions of atonement. This is why White Guilt has produced not only sappy wussy whites but angry & violent ones. If White Guilt gave whites No Chance of atonement and redemption, whites who swallow the bitter pill would just keep their heads bowed and feel sorry. However, White Guilt allows whites to confess their ‘sins’ and partially cleanse their souls. This fills them with a neo-Christian kind of Pride. Thus, they go around barking at Bad Whites who refuse to sufficiently cleanse their souls of White Guilt. This is why so much of PC goes after not only whites who are obviously anti-black or anti-Jewish but those who aren't sufficiently pro-black and pro-Jewish.
But if such a psycho-political strategy worked wonders with whites(especially Wasps who tended to be more conscientious than other white ethnic groups), it was bound to fail with non-whites. After all, most of humanity had nothing to do with World War II and Shoah. If anything, most non-whites around the world came under White Domination or Western Imperialism in some form or another in the past four centuries. Thus, they could claim victim-hood under the Current PC. One could argue that Arab Muslims did enslave black Africans, but Muslims don’t have the Guilt-Complex thing that is so integral to Christianity. Also, many black Africans converted to Islam and took on Arab culture and did a lot of enslaving themselves. Furthermore, Arab slavery was less ‘racist’ in the sense that they enslaved peoples of all races, and that supposedly made their form of slavery less unjust. Latin whites(and Jews) could be accused of mass genocide, rape, and slavery over the indigenous peoples of the New World, but the current Narrative says that because of extensive race-mixing among the whites, indigenous folks, and blacks in Latin America, they are just a mass of one Brown Folks. Via race-mixing, White Guilt has supposedly been ‘washed clean’(or stained holy) in Latin America. It means that Latin whites were less ‘racist’ because they deemed non-whites as worthy of ‘rape’. Besides, even if substantial number of Latin Americans are whites, Jews need them as allies against White Americans, and so, there is the charade that even light-skinned Latin Americans are part of ‘People of Color’.
Over time, due to greater infusion of Diversity into elite ranks and further globalization of cosmopolitan elite culture, Jewish elites will increasingly come under pressure to choose between Elysianism and Tribalism. In the past, cosmopolitanism had a national(if not nationalist) flavor. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, when the elites, intellectuals, and artists got together at festivals devoted to arts, culture, or film, there was an undeniable sense of national origin. So, despite the cosmopolitan spirit of the occasion, each person knew where he came from and to what group or tribe he belonged to. Such sense is far weaker today because so many non-whites have studied in the West(and feel closer to Western institutions and associates than with their own), air travel has gotten cheaper, global communication is instantaneous & virtually free(especially via the internet), and because white elites have been conditioned not to have an identity(which serves as a model for all would-be elites; multi-culturalism is less a 'celebration' of different cultures as an insistence that non-whites all sign on to PC centered around Holocaustianity, Homomania, and Magic Negro Cult; it explains why non-whites who claim to be multi-culti tend to be more obsessed about Homos and Negroes than their own identities and cultures, most of which have zero idolic, let alone iconic, value in the West). As the West embraced Diversity and Inclusion, the ideological emphasis has been to deracinate, dilute, and genericize Western Identity, Culture, & Values to the point where they can easily accept and apply to just about anyone. In order for something to appeal to everyone, it must be ‘disinfected’ and ‘de-toxed’ of anything might be offensive to anyone. Suppose you have an ethnic dish that your people love but may be strange or weird to people of other cultures. In order to make it appealing to more and more people, you would have to remove spices, sauces, and ingredients that might offend anyone. In the end, you end up with something bland and dull.
There have been two main strategies to make the West more ‘welcoming’ of non-white folks. One was to genericize the West into White Bread. After all, anyone can eat white bread. The other strategy has been to urge exoticism on white people. It’s like all those foodie-explorer shows where some white guys travel to other nations to try all sorts of pungent local flavors and loves it. Whiteness must be made as bland and generic as possible even as white folks are encouraged to become attracted to exotic flavors and aromas of other cultures. The paradox makes perverse sense. After all, if whites are pressured to abandon all the particular elements of their identity and culture that make them unique in order to be more ‘inclusive’, then it means whites will grow bored with their ‘white bread’ selves. Thus, they will seek color and meaning in OTHER peoples and cultures. Then, it is no wonder that Prince Harry was attracted to Megan Markle. In the New Britain where white folks, top to bottom, are not allowed to emphasize what makes the British uniquely British, deracinated & de-tribalized white people have come to feel dull, boring, bland, and without direction. Thus, they must latch onto the Other to feel any sense of Purpose and Meaning. If whites cannot be proudly white, they must seek tribal pride by associating with other races. (But then, if Megan Markle is so proud of being black and is such an inclusive egalitarian, why did she marry a white guy and into a Royal family? What a phony bitch-whore.) Of course, it isn’t much different in the US. Because whites are not allowed to feel pride of identity, they must get their tribal kick by yammering about ‘Muh Israel’. And there is always Homomania, a kind of replacement identity for whites. A white person can’t feel pride in whiteness, but he can feel pride as a homo or as a 'believer' in Homomania. Indeed, what used to be called ‘gay pride’ is now just called ‘Pride’, as if homosexuality is synonymous with pride itself. Narcissistic and vain homos not only stole the term ‘gay’ but now even ‘pride’. What will blacks do? Claim ‘great’ for themselves?
Thus far, Jews have done their best to educate, pressure, and reward Diversity elites into serving the Jewish Globalist Agenda. So, we have the likes of Nikki Haley shilling for Israel and saber-rattling at Russia and Iran. We have the likes of Fareed Zakaria praising Trump for lobbing missiles into Libya. We have Francis Fukuyama serving George Soros when it comes to Hungary and Poland. We have Amy Chua shilling for Zionist imperialists and being showered with book deals and praise. We have Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Huma Abedin serving Jewish Power. Because Jews have the ultimate power in finance, media, academia, law, and Deep State, the new members of Diversity elites are mostly servile to Jews, just like cucky-wuck Wasps are. The vain-and-ambitious know the rules of the game. If you want to make it in America today at the highest echelons of power, you have to serve the Jews... just like, in the past when Anglos were dominant, you had to serve Wasp interests to have doors open to you. But how long can this go on? (For personal gain, greed, and ambition, even non-whites who don't care for Israel and Jews profess to do so. For the time being, open hostility to the Zionist Agenda or Jewish Power can lead to the fate of Rick Sanchez or Helen Thomas. So, even anti-Jewish non-whites must swallow their personal pride and play fetch-and-roll-over for the Jewish gatekeepers of Elysium. But as more and more of Diversity enters elite institutions and industries, there will be increasing clamor as to why People of Diversity must always think in terms of Israel First, Jews First, and Holocaust First, especially since Jews seem to be the New Wasps. It was one thing for Jews to morally browbeat whites by invoking the Holocaust and the Jewish-Black Alliance in the Civil Rights Movement, but the same strategy won't be so easy with Diversity as elite institutions fill up with non-whites who suspect white-shoe Jews have rigged the system to ensure Jewish domination. In time, White Privilege may be understood to be (((White Privilege))). Once that happens, the Power dynamics will go from non-whites professing love of Jews & Israel to enter Elysium to Jewish elites professing end of Jewish Privilege to keep their own personal positions in Elysium. In either case, it's about choosing, when push comes to shove, personal privilege & prestige to group power & strategy. Jews, as the New Wasps, may have to play the game that members of Wasp elites mastered so well. If you can no longer maintain Group Power, do whatever necessary to salvage personal privilege. So, Tom Brokaws and Joe Bidens of the World rose higher in profession and privilege in the Name of Diversity while abandoning all vestiges of white or European identity.) Francis Fukuyama was born in 1952, and Fareed Zakaria was born in 1964. So, their formative experiences took place when the US was firmly controlled by Anglos or Jews. But the changing faces in elite educational institutions portends a very different kind of future. The Current Power of the Establishment reflects Demography of Past America where most people who attended elite educational institutions were white or Jewish. Since then, the share of non-Jewish whites have plummeted in percentage terms in many elite schools. Jews welcomed this in the conviction that Diversity will better serve Jewish interests, i.e. Jews could ally with Diversity against White Power and then pit various goy groups against one another. But there is one serious disadvantage for Jews in the decline of whiteness in favor of Diversity. Whites have been reliably pro-Jewish due to either cult of White Guilt, Shoah as neo-religion, or conviction that Judeo-Christian Values have forged a special covenant between Jews and Christians. So, even though many whites suck up to Jewish power for cynical and opportunistic reasons, the reason why whites are so amenable to the Jewish Way goes beyond mere materialism. There are serious moral, cultural, and/or spiritual issues involved.
In contrast, Diversity’s shilling out to Jewish power seems to be mostly self-serving, especially among blacks and Hindus. Blacks, brash and nasty, resent the fact that white ‘honkey-ass’ Jews get to compete with blacks for the victim sweepstakes. Many blacks feel that Jews have been just as(if not more) ‘racist’ and exploitative toward blacks as whites have been. But because Jews control the media/entertainment and make a big stink about the ‘Holocaust’, they get to play Eternal Victims even though they too be a bunch of ‘honkey-ass motherfuc*as.’
As for Hindus, they are an astute, cunning, savvy, and slithering bunch of ‘dotkins’. Used to haggly-waggly social gamesmanship, one never knows where Hindus are really coming from. After all, India, with its many castes and cultures, hardly developed an organic sense of unity. Instead of Trust, Integrity, and Honor, the key was trickery, deception, and negotiation. So, like a multi-headed elephant, a Hindu may say one thing but mean several other things. This is why, if there is ANY GROUP that might be able to outsmart Jews, it is the ‘dotkins’. While some Chinese or other East Asians may be reasonably smart, they lack the 5D-Chess mentality of the Hindus because East Asia, being more homogenous and harmonious, have developed societies of relative trust and order(at least when compared to India). A Chinese in China or a Japanese in Japan is more likely to feel as an organic member of the community. So, the ideal psycho-social norm & preference for such peoples is to go with the flow. But such feelings are always absent among Hindus(and Muslims) in India who don’t have an organic connection with peoples of so many castes and cultures. Thus, from cradle to grave, the ‘dotkin’ thinks in haggly-waggly terms of "What can I do to find or keep my place in this crazy-quilt cultural order?"
As today’s establishment Jews retire and die out, what will happen to future elite culture in the US? Many Jews today attend schools with as many non-whites as whites. They form friendships with Diversity, and many Jews may have closer bonds with non-Jewish kids than with Jewish ones. Also, young Jews find it difficult to browbeat their Diverse peers with Holocaust Guilt. And forget about ‘white guilt’, though it seems some East Asians are stupid enough to appropriate it. (East Asians are so eager to be the Other Whites that they even follow whites in Guilt and self-loathing. If Jews and most non-whites practice anti-white-ism by blaming whites for everything while making themselves out to be pure-as-snow, dog-like East Asians, in their earnestness and servility, seem to believe that they must be ashamed and self-loathing of similar ‘sins’. So, if whites are guilty of white ‘racism’, then yellows must be blamed for yellow ‘racism’. We rarely see blacks berating other blacks for failing to live up to PC standards, but it’s quite common for yellows to not only attack white ‘racism’ but yellow ‘racism’. What this shows is that Racial Personality is very important. Though considerably different from whites, yellows have more of that Earnestness Gene that make them swallow the PC pill straight. In contrast, Jews, Hindus, blacks, and Latin whites pretend to swallow but spit it back out. They believe only suckers swallow the pill whole.) With Diversity and Inclusion as such catchwords in the Current Year, the role of Affirmative Action will loom ever larger in society. Standards will be lowered to allow more blacks and browns. And even Muslims. As the system grows less meritocratic, Jewish elites will have to rub shoulders with more Diversity. And much of this Diversity will be indifferent to the Holocaust Cult, especially as they will notice that Jews are the most privileged people in the US. And to pressure Jews to relinquish and share more power and wealth with Diversity, non-whites will increasingly warm up to the Palestinian cause and BDS. And because of the internet, it will be harder for Jews to control the Narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Many young people today get much of their news and information from various internet sources than from ‘Mainstream News’ that is controlled by media conglomerates(run by Jews). Granted, there is a genuine alliance between Jews and non-whites on One Issue: Immigration or Mass Invasion. Non-whites want to leave their own nation, culture, & people and move to the West, especially America. They want access to white land, white laws, white institutions, white sex, and white everything. And non-whites, especially the smart ones, know that Jews have been the most significant factor in opening the West to the Rest. So, as long as non-whites feel that Jewish Power is the key to Western Open Borders policy, they will pretend to side with Jews. But suppose Open Borders become a permanent feature of the West that is destined to become swamped by the Rest? Under such circumstances, non-whites will no longer feel that they must maintain the alliance with Jews. If non-white access to the West is assured for the foreseeable future, non-whites will focus on how to get more concessions from Jews-as-the-most-privileged-whites. Thus far, the alliance of Jews and non-whites have been predicated on the proposal, "If you non-whites side with us Jews, we will help you take more from whitey", but once whites totally lose out and there isn’t much more to take from them, non-whites will have to turn to Jewish wealth and power for goodies for themselves.
As competition for elite spots heats up with more Diversity, future successful Jews will have to choose between Jewish identity & tribalism and cosmopolitan meritocracy or ‘progressive’ Inclusion. Jews must choose between ethnos and ethos, between tribe and status. Jews will also come from increasing pressure to choose between the two by white people who’ve been ‘red-pilled’. They will demand Jews to choose either ‘Nationalism for all white peoples’ or ‘Nationalism for no white peoples’. So, if Jews insist that Jews deserve a Jewish Homeland in Israel, they will be pressed to answer why such is not okay for Hungarians and Poles. And such questions will embarrass Jews in front of Diversity. If Diversity is supposed to feel grateful for Jews for opening the Gates to the West, why do Jews act so cruelly and brutally toward Palestinians who are kept behind walls or in caged territories?
If young Jews really were pressed to choose between Zion and Elysium, which will they choose? I’m inclined to say the latter because when, push comes to shove, people will take success, money, and status above all else. It just feels so much better to have the good life and social approval. In yrs to come, having strong Zionist sentiments will likely lead to social opprobrium and moral stigma. It could be that Jews will be put in the same position that whites in South Africa were. Jews have been able to get away with the problems of Zion for a long time because the Holocaust Cult paralyzed whites into obeisance and acquiescence to the Jewish agenda. Also, as Palestinians weren’t black(like the majority folks of South Africa), their suffering simply didn’t register in the Western Imagination. As the US became the center of the world, not only did it export movies, music, and chewing gum but its own hangups, neuroses, and guilt complexes. Yes, the Imperialism of Guilt. So, if whites feel especially guilty about blacks, the rest of the world must do likewise. But since Americans never felt much guilt or any nice feelings about Palestinians or Arabs in general, Jews could treat Palestinians with impunity. They could do to Palestinians what White Rule in South Africa couldn’t dream of doing to blacks without severe international condemnation. But, this may be finally changing as the West becomes more Diverse and less responsive to White Norms of Political Conscience. If anything, Jews could end up feeling ever more defensive about Zionism and their power/privilege as Diversity increasingly feels immune to Jewish Tricks. Jews are partly to blame for this. Having taught Diversity that there is no greater evil than White ‘Racism’ and ‘White Privilege’, it is only logical that Diversity will one day see Jews as White People too, indeed the richest and most powerful white people who must also relinquish much of their power and privilege to give non-whites a chance. Also, as the fall of Anthony Weiner and Eric Schneiderman showed, Jewish outrageousness and chutzpah will be seriously curtailed by increasing PC and rising power of feminism. And, as so many Jewish women are now wild and into Jungle Fever, more Jewish men will marry outside the Tribe, and their kids will grow up with weakened sense of Jewishness. Under such conditions, the ONLY thing Jews will have left to cling to is wealth, status, and privilege. So, in the future, Jews could end up dropping Zionism not so much out of a humanitarian sense of equal justice but because, under the pressure of rising power of Diversity, they will have to choose between Tribe and Status. Also, as they will grow so addicted to wealth and status, their main identity could be neo-caste-oriented than tribal. Why not attend fancy parties and go on yacht trips with elites of all color than lose sleep, respect, and friends by sticking with reactionary Jews for whom tribalism is a crutch for their lack of comparable success in life? India and Latin America are more about caste-status than tribal affiliation. Indeed, the caste, in and of itself, constitutes a new kind of identity. In the future, the only choice may be Haute Diversity of the Winners or Hovel Diversity of Losers. Haute Diversity in the West will have more Jews, Latin whites, Hindus, mulattoes, Asians, and Wasps. Hovel Diversity will have more blacks, mestizos, Muslims, and ‘white trash’. But both groups will be Diverse. Because all classes/castes will be Diverse, there won’t be a clear association between Tribe and Caste, as had once been the case in Apartheid South Africa. In the New Order, you could be white and very rich or very poor. You could be whatever and be privileged or mired in poverty. So, what will matter most is status itself. This pressure may be so great that even Jews may have to choose between Tribe and Class.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
How did the Boomers, the Counterculture and Peace Generation, produce So Many Warmongering Nihilists?
For those who subscribe to such a view, Populism is most ‘unfair’ and ‘dangerous’ because it gives the majority both the power of volume and voice. To many Jews, Donald Trump is dangerous precisely because he is the Vocal Leader of the Voluminous Majority(though white numbers are fast declining as share of the overall US population).
If capitalists and leftist radicals have one thing in common, it is an hostility to populism. Capitalist entrepreneurs(especially the big ones) are vastly outnumbered by disgruntled workers and dissatisfied consumers, and so, it is in their interest to control the means of information to maintain some kind of balance. No wonder then that all the Big Media are owned by oligarchic powers like Gail Wynand(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD). And even though Charles Foster Kane began as a millionaire populist, his empire eventually grows more cynical and elitist.
Though communists spoke of People Power and Social Justice, the fact is the majority of workers in most nations never wanted communism. As such, the radical left constituted an ideological minority in most societies. What they lacked in numbers, they hoped to gain with vociferousness. The Left had to shout louder, march harder, and make a bigger nuisance of itself to get people’s attention. They had to crank up the noise to be heard. And of course, Jews have favored both the elite commercial class(especially the Advertisers) and the Radical Left because both, in their own way, waged war on the Great Majority. And Jews also did everything possible to suppress Populism of both Right and Left. Nationalist Populism could mean a real challenge to Jewish Power. And Leftist Populism could mean strong opposition to Jewish capitalist elites. Thus, Jews have favored both elitist Right and elitist Left. In America, the elitist Right doesn’t speak for the People. It speaks for ‘low taxes’ and ‘liberty’ so that the rich can grow richer. And the elitist Left has, over the years, increasingly altered Progressivism from a broad movement to a fractured movements of various identities fired up by radical intellectual(often pseudo-intellectual in character) theories that have no hope of making much sense to most people. And even when a certain ideology gains support of the great majority, the effect is to favor minority-over-majority interests: Majority of Americans support Zionism and Homomania, but this isn’t Populism because it’s about the Majority being manipulated and goaded into supporting Minority Privilege and Supremacism.
Anyway, the Boomers who gained the most Power were those on the Left. There were several reasons for this. Jews, the most intelligent and ambitious group in the US, were overwhelmingly on the Left. Having Jews on your side in competition for Elite Power was like a sports team having blacks. Jews had increasing presence in media, academia, finance, and law. Another reason was that the American Consensus since the Great Depression was leftist-liberal for decades after WWII. Granted, what passed for leftism and liberalism in the 1930s and 1940s was different from their manifestations later, especially beginning in the 1960s, but a kind of proto-End-of-History outlook had set in during the FDR yrs and after World War II. Incredibly, FDR was elected four times, and even after Conservatives regained the presidency with Eisenhower, Congress was solidly in Democratic hands until the 1990s. With expanding federal power and vast government projects that came to be associated with social betterment, economic justice, necessary regulation(to prevent another Great Depression), and America’s role as World’s reluctant but necessary policeman, there was no going back to the Conservative or Classic Liberal ideal of ‘small government’. Even Dwight Eisenhower expanded government, which grew bigger still under Richard Nixon beginning in 1969. So, no matter which Party won the Presidency, the ideas of Keynes and Galbraith were deemed essential. Even though the Boomers rebelled against much of traditional Liberalism and Orthodox Leftism, the leftists among them were regarded more favorably by the Older Liberal Establishment. Even though moderate Liberals may have had more in common with moderate Conservatives, they tended to lean more to the Left than side with the center-Right. Part of this had to do with Leftists being more committed and passionate(even if delusional and foolish), a fact that made Liberals feel morally inferior due to their ‘bourgeois’ preference for moderation and compromise than total commitment to (the cult of)Justice.
Another reason why the Leftist Boomers were advantaged was due to the WWII Narrative and problem of Race in America. The main villains of the war were deemed as the ‘far right’: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy. The Allies were Liberal Democracies and Soviet Union. Also, Japan was no ordinary enemy but one that ambushed the US navy at Pearl Harbor. And Nazi Germany wasn’t just an authoritarian power(as in WWI) but an evil empire led by a psychopath under whom some of the most ghastly crimes-against-humanity had been perpetrated(especially against Jews). This gave a huge moral boost to the Left in the US, even more so in Europe. Granted, the Cold War and anti-communism aided the Right, but the Soviet Union wasn’t recklessly aggressive like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For one thing, the Soviet empire was already vast, and they last thing they needed was more land. Also, communism’s role in the Third World was morally ambiguous. On the one hand, it meant another part of the world falling under Leninist-Stalinist dictatorship, but on the other hand, it meant the hope of National Liberation & resistance against European Imperialism or American ‘Neo-Imperialism’. Thus, Cuba and Vietnam turned out to be a net moral negative for the US. Fidel Castro, for all his tyrannical whims, was seen as the proud Latino who’d stood up to Yankee-CIA-mafia imperialism. Anti-communism also led the US to support or even install(via CIA dirty tricks) brutal right-wing regimes that used any-means-necessary(even 'death squads') against ruthless radical insurgencies. US alliance with Shah of Iran and right-wing juntas in Latin America sullied its image around the world, not least among the influential intelligentsia.
And the Vietnamese came to be seen around the world as martyrs who stood up to US militarism. Also, many anti-communists were generally intellectually inferior to the thinkers and activists on the Left, and the media-and-military complex eventually found a way to bring down Joe McCarthy. Soon thereafter, Jews and Liberals in the media spun an elaborate hyperbolic Narrative that made those suspected of communist-espionage-or-sympathy as the prima donna victims of the ‘Red Scare’. This was especially important to Jews as their kind were disproportionately involved in spying for the Soviet Union and spreading radical leftist propaganda via media, academia, and government. To discourage any honest probe into Jewish role in radical politics, Jewish Narrative cooked up a wild hysteria about how the US under HUAC and Joe McCarthy had been rabidly and virulently hallucinating about communists-under-every-bed. By focusing the Narrative on the most ludicrous examples of Red Scare, Jews gave the false impression that the bulk of anti-communism had to do with paranoid fantasies when, in fact, there had been incredible amounts of pro-communist espionage and activity especially under FDR. (Not that FDR himself was pro-communist, but he was naive about Stalin and many people around him were either sympathetic to communism or even had ties with the USSR.) Another reason the Leftist Boomers were favored had to do with the Race Issue that came to the fore under Eisenhower and then totally exploded in the 1960s, especially under Lyndon B. Johnson. Billed as the Civil Rights Movement, it became the defining Moral Issue of the Decade(and thereafter). There was no denying the history of slavery and racial discrimination in the US, and of course, blacks bore the brunt of it because they were by far the most numerous minority. On the black issue, the Left was totally committed, and Liberals very much committed. On the Right, the attitudes ranged from moderate support to outright hostility. Granted, by the ‘Right’, it wasn’t necessarily a Republican vs Democratic affair because many Republicans back then were ‘moderate’ Eastern Establishment types and many Democrats were Southern Dixiecrats who were hostile to ending Segregation and granting blacks more rights. Even though the Left’s position on the Civil Rights Movement was either naive or cynical — the Left often supported any cause or movement that might subvert the nation, thereby preparing the US for the eventual Revolution — , it was presented as a coherent and forceful argument: Equal Rights for blacks. Against this, the Right could only mutter about State’s Rights, which was a weak moral argument because it basically meant States could deny certain people Constitutional Rights on the basis of race. There was a compelling argument against Racial Integration and Attempted Equality between whites and blacks — BAMMAMA Factor, or Blacks Are More Muscular and More Aggressive, thereby a threat to the physical and psychological well-being of whites — , but excessive White Male Pride prevented the white race from spelling out the understandable fear that Southern Whites had of blacks. Failing to address that fact, all confrontations between whites and blacks, especially in the South, was framed in terms of helpless innocent blacks asking for justice versus white ‘racists’ and ‘rednecks’ who just liked to call people ‘nigger’ and act like hooligans in front of the TV camera.
There was also the fact of Youth Culture, and even though much of this was just hedonism and not strictly political, it gave boost to the Liberals and Left because it was seen as part of the broader rebellion against The Man and The Order. Even though elderly Leftists were confused and even offended by 60s Youth Rebels(who seemed to indulge in the crass narcissism, hedonism, and materialism of Capitalist Consumerist culture), the Middle Finger of the Youth Movement was bound to offend the conservative elements of society more. Even though many of the key Rock figures of the 1960s weren’t particularly political or ideological, their neo-Romantic Dionysian immersion in revelry and ‘liberation’ endeared them more to the Left, which explains why the Left, far more than the Right, was so eager to recruit singers and other celebrities into the Movement. As with the English Romantics of the 19th century, the Boomer Dionysians were, in some ways, reactionary at least in the ecological back-to-nature sense. They were appalled by the excessive industrialization, materialization, and ‘plasticization’ of society. And as the war in Vietnam dragged on, the Antiwar forces gained greater traction and sympathy. Though originally a Democratic Party war, it came to be seen as Nixon’s right-wing military-industrial slaughter, especially as the war expanded into Cambodia and Laos in a big way. Though boomers were split 50/50 on the Vietnam War for most of its duration, the Antiwar forces gained greater validity as the war seemed unwinnable, America ‘war crimes’ sullied its image around the world(not least among its European allies), and men like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara came to be lionized even among Liberals as ‘freedom fighters’. (It is no wonder that Conservatives were so eager to re-fight the War in the Reagan 80s, not least with movies like RAMBO, HANOI HILTON, GARDENS OF STONE, HAMBURGER HILL, and UNCOMMON VALOR. John Milius’ RED DAWN even imagined American boys as the New Viet Cong resisting Soviet Occupation of the US. But then, the Leftist Boomers got the best of the Narrative when Oliver Stone appeared on the scene with PLATOON, followed up by BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. At the very least, Stone had been there, which couldn’t be said of Conservative revisionists who’d sat out the war with college deferments or strings pulled by their parents.)
Anyway, in the War of Boomers, the Left-Boomers won decisively over the Right-Boomers. In the end, men like Bill Clinton seemed far more impressive than people like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush. Sure, Billy Boy Clinton turned out to be one sleazy slimeball, but he was a true political visionary with the foresight and skills necessary to turn the Order upside down. That said, most politicians of both Parties are pieces of turds, hardly impressive material. Where the Left-Boomers really won the war against Right-boomers were in academia, media, entertainment, and law. Those institutions not only create, shape, and control the Big Ideas but the Idols and Icons. Academia, Media-Entertainment, and Law constitute the church of secularism. Control those and you end up controlling even your enemies or at least their children. Consider the children of George W. Bush and how they’re all for ‘gay marriage’. Why? Because even if they grew up under an Evangelical father, they were bombarded with pro-homo Pop Culture(that idolizes homos and trannies) and were educated in elite institutions where over 95% of the professors are PC scribes and priests. If PC won’t get you, it will get your children who are impressionable when they enter school and easily made addicted to Pop Culture. Take someone like Bill Gates who grew up mostly apolitical and only cared about technology and geeky stuff. Why did he turn ‘leftist’? Because the media that he relies on for information is controlled by globalist Jews.
Even if we were to suppose that many business majors in the 60s and 70s were on the Right(and pro-capitalist), business only teaches people how to make money. It doesn’t teach people about the higher meaning of life or true path to justice. Capitalism is essentially about how to maximize profits. So, even if many ‘rightist’ pro-market types were to succeed in business, they must seek moral and spiritual meaning elsewhere. In the past, they might have belonged to a Church or an ethnic community, i.e. Irish Catholics who cared about their own kin and culture. But in a deracinating, de-spiritualizing, and atomizing America, there was no longer a traditional faith or community to hold onto. So, where was one to find the higher meaning? And this is where the academia-media-law complex came to constitute the new holy trinity. Since Liberals and Leftists controlled most of it, even the successful ‘rightists’ and their children were bound to be gradually molded into the ‘leftist’ way of thinking. Is it any wonder that so many on the Right don’t question the basic assumptions of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘homophobia’ but accept them as legitimate and then try to argue that the Other Side comprise the ‘real racists’, ‘real sexists’, and even ‘real homophobes’? (Supposedly, the Liberals are the ‘real homophobes’ since they welcome Muslims who might throw men who boof off the roof.)
But on the other hand, it is almost pointless to speak of the triumphant Left because what passes for the ‘left’ today bears hardly any resemblance of the Left of yesteryear, even of the 60s and 70s. There’s a common gripe on the Right that American Conservatives merely trail American Liberals by ten to twenty years, but it is worth asking if the Left has gotten more leftist or less leftist? Didn’t the Left abandon socialism? Didn’t the Left abandon the Working Class? Didn’t the Left welcome the Deep State, militarism, capitalism, consumerism, Wall Street, gambling, culture of narcissism, ‘xenophobic’ paranoia(about Russia especially), and etc.? So, even as the Right seems to be following in the footsteps of the Left, the Left seems to have been following in the footsteps of the Right. Clinton reached out to Wall Street, Trump reached out to the Working Class. What is going on here? In this sense, even though the Left-Boomers won, the leftist idealism that had fired up their youth seems to have evaporated over the years, leaving only a naked greed for power, prestige, and privilege.
On the one hand, it is clear that the Left-Boomers, as they grew older, became more jaded about values & meanings and came to care only for power and status. In the end, they came to understand the true nature of power. It is always an elite thing, and you have to know the right people and have to be in the right places. Nothing else matters... if you want to be where the action is. In LOST IN AMERICA, a Jewish guy decides to give up his yuppie job and see rural and small-town America. He wants to Touch Indians and meet with regular folks. What he finds outside the Big Cities is just a lot of boredom, mediocrity, and stasis. In the end, being one of the regular people means working as a crossing-guard. He decides to return to the Big City where the action is. Where the ONLY ACTION that counts is. It was said that Hillary Clinton grew impatient and insulting when she passed through some Nowhere-ville. She didn’t see the point of appealing to such losers who had nothing to offer her but some piddling votes. She wanted to shake hands with the Powerful and the Connected.
In INSIDE LLEYWN DAVIS, the lead character is a folk singer, an artist who is supposed to be about the People, especially in folksy small towns and rural America. But his act is strictly an urban-bohemian affair. He knows who’s who in NY and Chicago but feels totally like an outsider and alien in the rural and small-town areas between those two great cities. And when the folkie joint finally presents a bonafide act from bumble-ville, he spews insults at the performer to the point of making her flee the stage in tears, unwittingly angering her husband who returns to punch him in the nose like George Bailey got in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE for having said mean things to a school teacher.
Anyway, the point is it would be foolish to think that the Triumph of the Left means true victory of Classic Leftism or even radical Boomer Leftism. Classic Leftism of Communism died with the Fall of the Soviet Union and with China & Vietnam’s shift to capitalism and market economy. And the New Deal Leftism also lost out to Free Trade and Globalism that came to be embraced by the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. Even Bruce Springsteen, the supposed voice of Blue Collar America, came to perform mainly for yuppies and yap mostly about homos and trannies. When we say the Left-Boomers won, we mean as individuals and personalities, not as ideologues. In the end, their ideological conviction proved to be weak or shallow. What really mattered was their lust for power, and it didn’t matter how they got it as long as they got it. Because they began on the Left, they kept the ideological moniker, but their current political positions have almost nothing in common with what they’d once stood for as young idealists. In a way, their lives have been one of betrayal of ideals and dreams. But in another way, all the themes of the 1960s were actually in keeping with the spirit of unfettered power-lust that had defined the American Experience for a long time. It was a repackaging and a re-branding than a rejection of what was both the best and worst of Americanism.
Consider one of the big slogans of the 1960s. We were told it was all about Love. All You Need Is Love. Make Love, Not War. So, Love = Peace, and a Generation committed to Love would oppose the Generation made by War. Even if WWII was the Good War, it was the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex. Also, the pride of having won the Good War led to this idea that the American Way is the right way all around the world. Because War had been ‘good’ and necessary in WWII, there was the idea that War is the solution for all problems. Especially when it was reported that PATTON was the favorite movie of Richard Nixon, the Commander-in-Chief of the war in Vietnam, the idea crystallized that the conflict was between Love & Peace and War & Imperialism. So, the hope was that the Generation of Love would grow up to be different from the earlier generation whose mentality had been formed by Militarist Mentality of World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War. Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, CATCH-22, and M*A*S*H mocked the War State Mentality of the Older Generation.
And yet, was Love really the answer? Isn’t love a passion? Isn’t passion violent by nature? Also, even if we were to define ‘love’ as selfless & generous as opposed to ‘lust’ that is defined as selfish & wanton, is there a clear line between love and lust, especially when it involves boys and girls? Take THE GRADUATE, the most popular of all Boomer movies. It is about lust and love. Lust makes Benjamin Braddock act irresponsibly, having sex with the wife of his father’s law partner. Surely, surrendering oneself to sexual passions is hardly a way for peace and harmony. Next, Braddock goes into Love mode, and he goes totally insane, so much so that he lies, trespasses, and pulls all sorts of tricks to finally go Tony Montana and crash a wedding and run off with the (married)bride. It was sold as entertainment, but if one thinks about it, Braddock’s Quest for Love was mad, pathological, and violent. Braddock didn’t shoot up the wedding like some kids are doing at schools these days, but the mentality wasn't all that different. After all, Elliot Rodgers and other ‘Incels’ seem to be killing out of Love(or lack of it, which goes to show that Love isn’t ‘fair’, ‘democratic’, or ‘inclusive’). Anyway, it was Elaine or Bust for Braddock. He had to have her or else. He was willing to go to any length. Thus, the theme of Love in THE GRADUATE is a lot darker than might have been assumed. Love can be blind or blinding. Its ‘purity’ of passion makes one believe anything is justified in its quest.
Then, is it surprising that the Boomers who believed in the Power of Love ended up as such warmongering lunatics? Their idea seems to be that anything is justified IF they do it out of LOVE. So, if they want to invade or destroy any nation, just invoke some love of justice, democracy, or some humanitarian values. Want to restart the ‘cold war’ with Russia? Invoke the Love of Homos. How dare Russia remain cold and frigid to the ‘rainbow’ Love colors of Homomania?
Let’s consider some other Love-themes Boomer-favorites of the 60s. BONNIE & CLYDE came out in the same year as THE GRADUATE, and its message was that the gangster duo is justified in their mayhem across the ‘fruited plains’ because... they Love each other. Well, there you go. Love justifies everything? Want to justify ‘gay marriage’ and wage total war on morality and decency? Just say that homos want to get married out of Love. GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER was also made in the same year. In it, a ghastly Negro wants to wage racial-sexual war and colonize the womb of a white woman. He enters the scene yapping, "Where da white women at?", but this act of racial-sexual war is supposed to be Okay because... he be Loving a white ho. Another big favorite among the Boomers was Franco Zeffirelli’s version of ROMEO AND JULIET. It too was sold as a redemptive story of Love, but then Shakespeare, being a true artist, knew better. The story is ostensibly about the power of love between two young babes from families that hate one another. On one level, the lovers are inspiring, and their love redeeming of the bad blood between two families. On the other hand, love makes them totally blind and even mad. They are so mad with Love that they put its interest before all else, ensnaring so many people into complications that even lead to deaths of two men, followed by suicides of the two lovers. So maybe, Love isn’t a cure for all problems after all. Even though the two families were divided by blind hate, things hardly got better with blind love between the kids.
And indeed, US foreign policy got most messed up when America fell in blind love with certain peoples. Its blind love for Jews has led to supporting Wars for Israel and Oppression of Palestinians. Universal Love is impossible. The couple love Elsa the lioness in BORN FREE, but that means setting it free to kill warthogs and other creatures. If you love a deer, you want to kill coyotes that might hunt it. If you love a coyote, you will want it to hunt deer to survive. If you love your cat, other animals will have to die to feed it. When Lawrence falls in love with Arabs, it means he must learn to hate Turks. Sadly, it is when Joe Buck(in MIDNIGHT COWBOY) tries to save his beloved friend Ratso that he turns to violence that ends up killing a man, one of the few decent people he met in NY. Likewise, whenever the US has fallen in love with a certain people, the blind love also led to blind hate. America’s love for Jews has blinded it to its mad hate for Palestinians, an innocent people. Worse, whenever US wants to destroy a nation, it can invoke Love as the reason. So, why did the US mess up the Middle East? Oh yeah, out of Love, to bring ‘liberal democracy’ to all those ‘ragheads’ yearning to be free. Why should the US subvert the Iranian regime? Because Americans, being full of Love, want to liberate all those poor wonderful Iranians from an evil regime.
Love also produces blindspots. America’s delusional love for Magic Negroes has blinded it to the truly wretched way of Real Negroes. It’s like the blind love in FAREWELL MY LOVELY. The love for the noir bitch blinds men to how wicked she is. Love not only blinds but spoils the object of love. Catherine in JULES AND JIM is showered with love by men, and she turns into a self-centered bitch. Jews are addicted to being Loved by dimwit goyim and seethe with rage at anyone who won’t show the Love. Antisemitism used to mean Hatred for Jews, but nowadays, it means Not Loving Jews, Not Trusting Jews, Not Obeying Jews. Excessive Love for Jews has spoiled them like the excessive mother’s love that spoiled the kid in THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.
LOVE STORY(followed by OLIVER’S STORY) showed how Love could lead to emptiness and bitterness. Not only does Love create an unfortunate rift between father and son in LOVE STORY but Jenny eventually dies of leukemia, and Oliver is left feeling empty and bitter for the rest of his life. Applied to politics, such emotions mean wounded bitterness among those who don’t get things their way. We saw this in the loss of Hillary Clinton. Her supporters didn’t just react like their candidate lost an election but as if the object of their love was murdered. And the delirious fans of Obama were in Love with him. Imagine how they would have reacted if Obama had lost in 2008 or 2012. We wouldn’t be human without the capacity for Love, but Love is not some bright shining thing but a passion with as much darkness as radiance, as shown in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE where the kid-robot’s undying love for ‘mommy’ turns into something brooding and grotesque... as is the sickly lesbian love in MULHOLLAND DR.
And this is why the story of Jesus Christ is so troubled. How do you Love humanity that is divided among so many tribes? If you love the Jews, you must hate the enemies of Jews. If you love the Romans, you must hate the enemies of Romans. If you love the Persians, you must hate the enemies of Persians. If you love the Celts, you must hate the enemies of Celts. Also, if you love your family and kin, you must put their interests above those of others. Love binds one to a certain person, certain group, a certain tribe. Love necessarily makes you hate those who threaten the object of one’s love. Jesus wanted to transcend all that and love all of mankind, but how is this done? Christians believe He found the answer. Non-Christians believe He was seriously deluded, even mad.
Anyway, given the true dynamics of Love, it couldn’t be the formula for peace and harmony in the New Order. If anything, the Boomers who came of age in the Summer of Love developed impassioned blindspots of their own. Worse, once the romanticism of love faded over the years, there was only lust. Billy Boy Clinton embodied this side of Boomerism all too well: Lust for power, lust for women, lust for money, lust for privilege. In this sense, Philip Roth’s PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT, which was more about lust than love, became more prophetic than THE GRADUATE. We ended up in the Age of Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Eric Schneiderman, and Donald Trump, the president who once paid a trashy porn performer to have sex with him. Love can be a positive force, but it can also be blinding, impulsive, stupid, neurotic, and enraged. Weinstein forced himself on those who wouldn’t give into him. He was one more Jew who wouldn’t take No for an answer. Not to give into his ‘love’ was like being an ‘Anti-Semite’ who won’t love Jews. It’s not enough Not-to-Hate Jews in our age. You must Love Jews like Winston Smith learned to Love Big Brother. And when Weinstein raped women, the fault was with them for resisting his Love. But this is Boomer US foreign policy in a nutshell. You see, the US is an ‘exceptional’ and ‘indispensable’ nation that is full of Love, and if it wants to invade or interfere with any nation, it has every right to do so because it is all about Love. The fault is with the nation that says NO to US intervention. How dare it say NO to America as the Don Juan of the World?
Incidentally, if THE GRADUATE was about the mad romanticism of Love, the biggest franchise of the 1960s, the 007 James Bond movies, was about the Nihilism of Love. 007 is so smooth, cool, and handsome that he has the license to do just about anything. The Bond series may have had a special appeal to the more Conservative types(despite the sexual licentiousness), but again, Love, far from being an agent for peace and harmony, is a prize and trophy of power and mastery. You must kill and win to get the ladies.
And of course, the Vietnam War wasn’t just about US soldiers killing tons of ‘gooks’ but humping millions of ‘gookettes’. It was as much about making Love as well as War in Southeast Asia. In a way, the open Libido of the Boomer generation made it more uninhibited in its aggression. The Freudian-Frankfurt theory that American aggression was the result of pent-up sexual frustration never made much sense. While it’s true that Nixon was sexually conservative, Lyndon B. Johnson was a major Mr. Rhinestone Cowboy when it came to donging and whoring around. And Billy Boy Clinton’s many philandering didn’t stop him from moving NATO up to Russia’s borders or instigating the War on Serbia. And Donald Trump, who loves to talk belligerently and is now raising tensions with Iran, sure humped lots of women throughout his life. We should know from the examples of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan that ‘healthy libido’ is hardly a preventive cure from excessive war-making. If anything, through most of history, wars were usually about ‘get the womenfolk’ as well as ‘get the land and loot’. In SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, it shows how womenfolk have a dual effect on the fellers: they both barbarize and civilize menfolk. Upon seeing womenfolk, menfolk go ‘boing’ and want to act like Chechen bandits and run off with women-as-trophies. But then, it is the duty of womenfolk to teach menfolk some manners and not eat like pigs when served stew and biscuits. (Of course, today's women are often just as barbaric as the men.)
One of the themes of Americanism was the unfettered reach of going all the way, having it all, and living the dream. The sheer immensity of the wilderness to be tamed filled Americans with over-sized ambitions. The positive side of this was the spirit of adventure, enterprise, and experiment. The downside was the obnoxious and infantile sense that it is so very unjust if things don’t go one’s way. And this was made worse when radical Jewish psychology infected Americanism. Jewish radicalism made American reform-style socialism far nastier. And Ayn Rand’s philosophy radicalized American individualism to the point of near-psychosis where the hero of THE FOUNTAINHEAD in effect becomes a terrorist and blows up an entire Housing Project out of his purist insistence that it be his way or the highway. And Love-American-Style became something gross. It’s like what Tony Montana says in SCARFACE: "This town is like a big fat pussy just waiting to get fuc*ed." He sure read Americanism correctly, especially in the trashy city of Miami.
And in THE GRADUATE and THE HEARTBREAK KID, we see this infantile Americanism(mixed with Jewish neurosis) that must have it his way or it’s the highway.
So, not only was Love NOT the answer but Love-American-Style, outsized and vulgar, wasn’t going to save the world as the Boomer generation took over the seats of power. Their idea of making love to the world was to rape it with their crude, ugly, and infantile agenda of New World Order that was far more sinister than one envisioned by the WWII generation.
Another big thing among the Boomers was, of course, Rock culture. Like Love, indeed along with Love, Rock Culture was supposed to promote youthful idealism, freedom, and liberation. And even justice and truth. After all, while the military was training young people to be killers with guns, Rock culture was encouraging young ones to be free and have fun with guitars and drums. Better to be at Monterey or Woodstock grooving to Rock music than to be in the jungles of Vietnam killing people you don’t even know. While the military was about repression, discipline, hardship, and death, Rock Culture was about liberation, openness, ease, and life. And while warmongers made the "Ballad of the Green Beret" a hit, the Antiwar crowd was more likely to dance and get all funky with Santana and Sly & the Family Stone. Besides, plenty of Rockers sang against the War. John Lennon sang "Give Peace a Chance". Creedence Clearwater Revival sang "Fortunate Son" and "Who’ll Stop the Rain?" The Animals sang, "Sky Pilot". HAIR the musical was blatantly antiwar. Antiwar politics divided the world between old men like LBJ and Nixon in business suits AND young people in colorful dress and into Rock music. The idea was that repressed traditional men in government took out their aggressions by waging war on other nations. In contrast, young counterculture people who let it all hang out were at peace with themselves and nature, therefore, they had no reason to blow up some other part of the world to feel good about themselves.
And yet, the Vietnam War(and American militarism) and Rock Culture had something in common. They were both predicated on powerlust. After all, what was the main appeal of Rock n Roll? It was about the animal aggression of conquest and domination. Elvis, channeling the Negroes, turned white girls into willing sex slaves of the King of Rock n Roll. At his concerts, young girls peed their pants to his music. Elvis was the middleman performer between the Negro dong and their white poons. As the White Negro, he made possible in musical fantasy what was forbidden in life. (Of course, there is no more need for white sexual middlemen between Mandingo and white girls because we now live in Age of Rap and pornification of culture, whereby white girls are celebrated for going with Negroes.) So, Rock n Roll exploded on the scene as a form of sexual-imperialism. It was the music of the burn-and-slash rape-and-pillage. Boys loved it because a part of them wanted to play the pirate. And girls loved it because, as so many Romance novels show, women fantasize about rape by pirates and bandits. So, Rock n Roll expressed animal drives and urges. It was a form of Jungle Imperialism, along with Negro takeover of sports. Even though Muhammad Ali came to be admired as an idol of resistance and social justice, the only reason he became famous was because he beat up other men and called himself the ‘greatest’. Sports is a form of war. It’s about domination, conquest, and humiliation. It is about beating up other men and humping lots of women. This could happen within the race or across races. In the US, as black men won in sports, it meant they defeated and humiliated white men into cuckdom and claimed and conquered white women. Because of the history of slavery and racial discrimination, the release of wild Negro energies(and their channeling by white performers) was justified and even romanticized as a form of moral advancement and historical redress. But apart from such contextualization, the influence of Negro sports and Negro music was to spread aggression, thuggery, domination, and war-lust. Even though Jimi Hendrix is considered as part of Counterculture, the fact is his music goes well together with footage of the Vietnam War. Some may argue that his music was a dark commentary on the crisis of the times, but the sheer violence of his music runs parallel to the violence meted out on Vietnam. Its effect is utterly different from sober folk songs of the early 1960s that protested War and militarism. Even if Hendrix and Santana were sympathetic to the Antiwar crowd, the fact is their music unleashed violent energies of mayhem and domination. Their music worked like demon possession like in THE EXORCIST. Consider Steppenwolf's music to the footage of the Vietnam War.
And even though CCR’s song "Fortunate Son" condemns the hypocrisy of the warmongers, its energies aren’t much different from the aggression of soldiers. It is militant and furious in its anti-war stance, so much so that it makes aggression sound fun and thrilling. In the end, the real appeal of the song is less its message than it sheer fury. If one didn’t know English, one might almost believe it’s a pro-war song about how "we should go there and kill all them gooks." Message is often buried or overwhelmed by the music in a song. Take "Born in the USA" that many people heard as a patriotic anthem of the Reagan Decade when, in terms of lyrics, it was a bitter commentary on how the System invokes patriotism to make young men go fight in wars that serve no purpose. Springsteen made this very point, but he too was deluded because when you play a song like that before 50,000 people with a big-ass Negro Clarence blowing into a saxophone, it essentially functions as a celebratory anthem. Again, if you didn’t know the lyrics, it would sound like an aggressive and violent gung-ho pro-war patriotic song. Just as Sam Peckinpah was deluded when he claimed the violence in THE WILD BUNCH was meant to be anti-violence, Springsteen was fooling himself when he thought irony could work with a song like "Born in the USA", especially when played in concert in a crowd of tens of thousands along with other songs like "Born to Run", "Sherry Darling", and "Bobby Jean".
It is then no wonder that the Rock Generation grew up to be powerlusting nihilists and killers. And it is no wonder that "Rock the Casbah" became the anthem of the US military as it blasted Baghdad to smithereens. And let’s also remember that Rock Culture wasn’t only part of the Antiwar movement. The US military allowed tons of Pop Culture to enter into Vietnam. US soldiers were encouraged to have fun when not fighting. Away from the jungle, they were into Rock music, sex, drugs, and all that stuff. It’s no wonder that "The End", "Satisfaction" and "Suzie Q" go so well together with the war images in APOCALYPSE NOW. Rock music is about domination and release of animal drives. In essence, it is closer to hunter-warrior outlook than saint-sage mindset. When one listens to Hendrix’s version of "All Along the Watchtower", one gets the impression of a psychedelic tiger lurking in the jungle to pounce on an ox. When one listens to "Gimme Shelter", it sounds like how cool it’d be to napalm entire villages. Sure, there are lyrics about ‘love’ and all that, but the music itself, especially with a Negress howling like a gorilla in heat, is totally wild and crazy.
And despite Punk music’s supposed ‘political consciousness’ and Rap music’s ‘social commentary’, both were essentially war music of derelicts, bandits, and thugs. They were barbarian hunter music or savage warrior music. A song like "Fight the Power" pretends to be a call for justice, but the music is really about, "Gonna whup your ass, honkey" and "Where da white women at?!"
Then, it is no wonder that Rock music, which was billed as the sound of happy liberation and youthful idealism of peace, became so useful to the Boomer Warmongers who, with a military filled with kids steeped in Rock warrior-hunter culture, were more than willing to Hendrixize and Clash-ize entire nations with Shock and Awe. It is telling that the music video for "Rock the Casbah" shows an Arab and a Jew sharing a ride and raking in all the money and goodies. How prophetic in an idiot-savant way. Today, we have Israel allied with the Saudis messing up the entire region with the full backing of the US that has Elvis-as-President in Donald Trump who has, among his fans, Kanye West who’s been admonished by Jay-Z who supported Hillary Clinton, the badass bitch who done wasted Libya, sheeeeiiiiit.
Friday, May 25, 2018
US Policy of Regime Change around the World has been Destructive — One Regime Change that the US & the World must pursue is Deposing Judeo-Nazis from American Power
We’ve all heard of how certain regimes must be deposed or changed by American Might. The US acts like Judge Dredd around the world, deciding which regimes can stay, which must go. There is no moral consistency in the judgement by the US. The very ‘human rights violations’ that the US invokes to denounce an ‘evil regime’ are practiced, even to a greater extent, by an ally of the US or even by the US itself, a nation that resorted to Torture during the War on Terror(that, soon enough, morphed into War with Terror against secular modern Arab governments). Or, the US will declare a certain nation as a grave threat to world peace. Iran, we are told, is dangerous because it has a Nuclear Program. Never mind Iran never developed nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel is reported to have 200 to 300 warheads. Also, Israel was created through massive pogroms against the native population, the Palestinians who are still living under Occupation. And yet, American politicians cheer and praise Israel 24/7 and pledge to shower more money on the Judeo-Nazi Empire.
Given such lack of moral and/or ideological consistency, the US position on ‘regime change’ makes little sense except as power trip, power game, out-of-control militarism, and nihilism of Tribal Power(mainly that of Jews). All people who seek power want to flex their muscles, and the world arena is a convenient outlet for those pent-up energies. After all, even the killing of an odd black thug in an American city can lead to outrage, riots, investigation, and endless lawsuits. But if the US state uses drones to kill scores of Muslims in Pakistan, no one gives a damn. No one cares about US military gunning down people in Somalia. And despite all the rhetoric in the US about the 'evil nazis', the State Department can even recruit Neo-Nazis to pull off a coup in Ukraine. So, whatever the US government cannot do IN the US, they can do all over the world. Foreign Policy is like the Wild Wild West of American Power. What isn’t allowed IN the US is allowed ABROAD, especially the Third World. One thing for sure, Muslims Lives Matter NOT.
During the Vietnam War, there were some on the Left who drew parallels between social injustice in American History & Home-Front AND the horrors unfolding in Vietnam. But most war coverage has been sanitized since then. One reason is the major involvements since the Gulf War have essentially been Wars for Israel. So, the Jew-run media have found it conducive to their tribal interests to suppress much of the bad news from abroad. Jews certainly don’t want Americans to feel sympathy for Muslims and Arabs as the victims of US neo-imperialism directed by Jewish Globalists. During the Vietnam War, the yellows were compared with American Indians(as facing ‘genocide’ at the hands of whites) or even with Jews in WWII. Muhammad Ali became famous by saying he had no reason to fight the Viet Cong since they never called him no ‘nigger’. Even though the war in Iraq turned very badly, much more so than the War in Vietnam at least in the discrepancy between expectation and reality, the news coverage(though increasingly sour) didn’t reach the sheer skepticism and disgust that engulfed the media in the late 60s and early 70s.
If anything, a bigger strike against Bush was the fiasco of Hurricane Katrina despite the fact that it was essentially a natural disaster of winds, flood, and Negro jungle-jivery. The fact that Bush’s reputation could be hurt more by domestic crisis than a foreign one(that was much more dire and costly in life & limb and of course ordered by the Bush & Cheney regime) goes to show that American Power is constrained in the US in the way that it isn’t abroad.
Of course, some might argue that the US isn’t really a democracy but an oligarchy where the elites pull all sorts of dirty tricks via Deep State, Media, finance, and law. Even so, the US government cannot kill bushels of people in the US like it routinely does abroad. Even if the Deep State plays it dirty inside the US, it cannot do what it does in places like Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and etc. And this explains why so many pathological power-lusting looneys are drawn to the State Department, a Center for the License to Kill. Granted, the psychos in the State Department cannot just hate and destroy ANY nation. No one would dare say anything critical of Israel, for instance. Imagine the US government forcing sanctions on Israel that killed up to 500,000 children and a US official saying it was ‘worth it’ like Madeleine Albright once said of Iraqi kids. There's no chance of such happening because the Jewish CHECKMATE on power in the US is so total.
So, the psychos in the Deep State cannot wreak havoc on just any nation around the world. They have to get orders from the Top Elites who are Jews, and of course, the main targets of hostility are usually those nations/peoples that happen to be HATED by Israel and World Jewry. So, John Bolton, Samantha Power, and such ilk all foam at the mouth about certain nations targeted by Jews. They are essentially like a house-dog that must behave in the house before the master and mustn’t bite the kids and house cat even if they harass it all day and night. After all, the master ordered it to be nice to kids and the cat... no matter what. So, US officials can’t do much about nasty blacks in the US. Numinous Negroes are forgiven no matter what they do. And there isn’t much US officials can do about illegal invaders. And there’s nothing they can do about bad corrupt Jews. So, their pent-up energies must be directed outwards. A dog that can’t do much in the house can be led to hunt rabbits and other creatures with great fury. All its frustrations in serving the master and being nice to the kids and cat are taken out on rabbits and other creatures targeted for mauling and death. Likewise, US officials find an outlet for their pent-up fury in nations hated by Jews. Jews allow them to run wild and free in the destruction of certain nations hated by Israel, and the officials and generals just can’t get enough. Finally, in destroying other nations(hated by Jews), they can feel ‘powerful’... just like a dog finally feels like a master-in-its-own-right by chasing, mauling, and killing rabbits.
If some governments are nicer at home but brutal abroad, other nations are the opposite. Because of Rule of Law and Rights in the US, there is only so much the US government can do to American citizens. Of course, many in the government would love to get tough and destroy us. And when it comes to the Alt Right, there’s been green light within the Deep State, Media, and Finance to shut it all down even by trampling on Constitutional Rights. Even so, they can't just haul Alt Right people into prison and have them shot. They can't order a Drone Strike on Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor. They can’t even do what Woodrow Wilson did to German-Americans during WWI and what FDR did to Japanese-in-America during WWII. But in the name of fighting Terror, the US government can order drone strikes on any number of Muslims. And in the name of opposing Evil Regimes, the US government can arm and support Terrorists(even those affiliated with the killers who pulled 9/11) in places like Libya and Syria.
Some other nations are the exact opposite of the US when it comes to abuse-of-power and state violence. As brazen tyrannies, they can do just about anything at home but must be sensitive when dealing with other nations. Hussein’s Iraq, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, and Kim’s North Korea were such nations. Domestically in the absence of Rule of Law, the rulers could, on a whim, abuse their power and treat people like slaves or dogs. They could even use poison gas and kill scores of people, as Hussein did against Kurds. But their power rarely extends beyond national borders and, in dealing with other nations, must be mindful of international agreements and protocols. Lacking superpower status, they can’t push the world around like the US routinely does, and so, the pathological power-lust of their rulers lords over the helpless minions at home.
Anyway, no single nation is the World or represents the dreams of the World. And whatever injustices may exist within, the nation has no business terrorizing the rest of the world. Now, some nations may claim to be superior, especially in being ‘indispensable’ or ‘exceptional’, and therefore implying the moral right to intervene in or even invade other nations to spreads ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, and ‘end of tyranny’. Even if some nations are morally and socially more advanced than others, no nation is perfect and, furthermore, it’s a bad habit(and precedence) for a nation to use naked aggression against other nations in the name of justice. After all, given the brutal history of humanity, every nation has grievances and its own justifications for power. So, if the world establishes a norm whereby any ‘superior’ nation can meddle or invade some other nation deemed morally inferior, it will be a world of endless wars, even world wars.
However, to the extent that the US tirelessly yammers about the need for REGIME CHANGE all over the world, maybe the world needs to make the US get a taste of its own medicine. The good people of America and all the people that aspire to be free should call for Regime Change in the Most Powerful and Most Evil nation on Earth. The US is now the most evil nation on Earth because of (1) its power makes it most dangerous (2) its values are corrupt and decadent (3) its neo-missionary themes are depraved, savage, and/or infantile and (4) its global interests & agenda serves a very narrow group of Tribal Supremacists & their venal allies. Now, power alone doesn’t make a nation evil. The fact of American Power could make the US one of the better nations in the world. A nation that uses its power to do good. Though critics of American Imperialism always had a point, the fact is American Imperialism did a lot of good around the world in the 20th century, or at the very least, it compensated every bad thing with a good thing. And during the Cold War, the dirty tricks of the CIA may have prevented something worse: Communist takeover. Pinochet has blood on his hands, but maybe Chile did better under his right-wing government. Anti-Imperialists like Abby Martin do some good work, but they have this Manichean view of history as Evil West/America vs everyone else(especially non-whites) as saintly victims. But much of history was really more about bad vs bad, or more enlightened bad vs backward bad. There was once a time when US power, for all its faults and betrayals, still offered something better for many peoples around the world than competing empires or native tyrants did. But such view is no longer tenable as the ruling elites are now Jewish Globalists who utterly lack the element of magnanimity of Anglo elites and idealism of Jewish Leftists of yesteryear. Today’s Jewish Globalists are totally about Jewish Supremacist Tribal Power. They are Judeo-Nazis who are capable of ANYTHING to get what they want.
Also, US popular culture back then meant stuff like John Wayne movies and more mature entertainment. And in morality, it was essentially a Christian nation. One doesn’t have to be a believer to respect Christianity as a great religion with moral seriousness. Also, the US was a more literary and sober nation back then. And Jazz, though racy, wasn’t depraved like rap would later be. And even upon the legalization of pornographic cinema, it was understood there was a clear line between mainstream culture and seedy ‘red light district’ vice. But what is American Culture these days? It is not just individual rights for homosexuals but Gay Rites, Homomania, and Queertianity as Satanic-Jewish-christianity or SJC. Incredibly, Jewish power has replaced Christianity with Homomania as the New-christanity. Homos who claimed to be secular and libertarian in struggling for individual rights took over institutions(with the support of Jews) and are now indoctrinating young children to worship Homos and Trannies as holy peoples. And many parents are so spiritually hollow and morally vapid that they sincerely think they are raising kids properly by immersing them in homo-rainbow-mania. We are living in an Age when Boys Scouts, once a Christian and moral institution, is all about praising and celebrating homo buggery and tranny penis-lopping. Homo celebration is related to mainstreaming of pornography. Invariably, every ‘clean cut’ and ‘innocent’ Disney star grows up to be a slut or skank. And what passes for ‘wholesome’ today simply means road-to-skankdom. Now, it’s been said prostitution is the oldest profession, so skankdom is nothing new. What is alarmingly new is the Normalization of Sluttony(slut gluttony) and Skankdom as the New Conscience. Not only are young girls encouraged to act like sluts but to take moral, ideological, and even intellectual pride in it. It’s pussy this, pussy that, pussy everything. Want to protest Trump? Yammer about how you’re a ‘nasty’ whore and go ‘pussy, pussy, pussy’. But then, this is a nation where gambling is no longer seen as a vice but as a means to wash away 'historical sins' related to Indians. As for Negroes, they are utterly depraved with reversion to savagery. The American Negro used to be morally inspiring to the world. Given the history of slavery and racial discrimination, much of the world sympathized with the Civil Rights Movement and its struggles for equality and justice. But since then, Negro antics in the US have turned into celebration of thuggery, shameless fuc*-dancing, ‘muh dick’, ‘muh twerking-ass booty’, megalomania(about how blacks be superior and better that all other races in just about EVERYTHING... sheeeeeeiiiit), endless Hate Hoaxes, parasitism, and sheer obnoxiousness. But one of the main themes of current American Globalist Cultural Imperialism is that filthy rappers are prophets and poets. This is what happens with the Cult of ‘Raciality’ or Ethnicity. Because of the cult of eternal victimhood around blacks, even their filthiest and rottenest behaviors and manners are valorized as uplifting and inspirational. (We even have Conservatives wetting their pants about the insane Kanye West be a ‘role model’ and shit now that he’s wearing a MAGA hat.)
Current American intellectual culture, mass entertainment, and neo-spirituality(endless nonsense about Holy Homos and Noble Negroes, or Numinous Negroes) spread little but garbage around the world. It’s mostly junk. Not only is American militarism murderous, its cultural imperialism is demented. How such a people could pat themselves on the back and brag about their lone superpower being the ‘indispensable’ and ‘exceptional’ nation on Earth is truly astounding in delusion and retardation. When so many Americans sincerely believe they are ‘more evolved’ than the much of the world because they have ‘gay marriage’, one wonders just how a nation could become this insane. In the past, Americans may have tolerated or defended some degree of decadence and degeneracy as the price of freedom and tolerance — at least people back then knew the difference between good and bad — , but today, they are most proud of manifestations of their decadence and degeneracy. So many people believe themselves to be socially, morally, intellectually, and spiritually ‘more evolved’ because they have their kids attend sessions where trannies read pro-‘gay’ children’s stories to them. The US is fortunate for its Land and Legacy because, if not for such advantages, it would sink like a stone with its increasingly trashy and demoralizing values. When a society moralizes institutionally that which is most demoralizing intuitively, things begin to fall apart because the people, from top to bottom, have lost the sense of the fundamentals of right and wrong.
And much of this sickness owes to Jewish Minority Supremacism. Jews, as the ruling minority elites, have been SO INSISTENT on the majority non-Jews serving the Tribe that they even went so far as to insist that majority of straight folks bend over to sexual deviants, perverts, and freaks. It would have been one thing for sexual deviants and freaks to have the freedom to do their thing, but that wasn’t good enough for Jews and Homos, two groups that had in common the boundless lust for vanity, narcissism, neurosis, paranoia, and persecution complex(along with persecution sadism).
If any nation needs Regime Change, it is the US, and it would be good for EVERYONE... except for Jewish Supremacists and Homomaniacs. Indeed, it will even be better for most Jews who might finally learn to be a Normal People than a Neurotic One. As long as Jewish supremacists, by hook or by crook, insist on Complete Control of the US(and thereby most of the world), it will be bad for Americans and non-Americans, not least because Jews, as nasty ‘mixers’, will keep goading non-Jews to hate and even kill one another. The Jewish-run US government talks endlessly about how Regime Change is necessary to liberate peoples around the world from tyrannical governments, but are American people free? No, American people are under the oligarchic control of Jewish supremacists with ethno-monopoly of media, academia, finance, law & courts, and the Deep State. As such, their so-called Democracy is really a sham. Even after Donald Trump won a historic victory, he’s been helpless to improve relations around the world. So much of his foreign policy is a continuation of Obama policies that were a continuation of Bush policies and so on.
Indeed, if one asks what the various top agendas of the US have in common, the one sure factor is JEWS WANT THEM: Anti-Russian hatred, anti-Iranian hatred, unconditional support of Israel & utter disregard for Palestinians, Homomania, ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), Afromania, Anti-white vitriol & insistence on White Submissivism, Trashy Feminism, Pornification of Mainstream Culture, Wars for Israel, Mass Invasion & Replacement of White Population in US, Canada, & EU, and etc. All these matters may not have much in common with one another, BUT they’ve all been pushed most vociferously by the Jews.
Just imagine a World in which the US, the most powerful nation on Earth, is NOT controlled by Jewish supremacist globalists. Suppose Jews in America were Normal and just learned to get along with others instead of trying to lord over them. Not only would the US be a much nicer, healthier, and saner place for Americans but it wouldn’t be messing up the world(and bring about the destruction of millions of lives) at the behest of the vile and venal Jewish supremacist agenda. Just imagine US & World History since the end of the Cold War IF America had not been taken over by the Jewish Globalist Regime. US and EU would likely have developed sound relations with post-communist Russia. But thanks to Jews, Russia was financially raped, thus setting the grounds for tensions later. Even without Jewish power, there might have been the Gulf War, but there might have been rapprochement between US and Hussein once the dust settled. But because Jews ran America, Iraq was not allowed to develop again, and so many civilians died as the result of sanctions. Also, the Israeli-Palestinian problem might have been resolved if the US didn’t lean only to one side, an inevitability in a nation where most politicians are whores of Jewish power that controls most think-tanks, media, academia, banks, and etc. US and Iran would have patched things up long ago on a live-and-let-live basis. US would not be foaming at the mouth about Iran as a nuclear threat to the world. And even the problem with North Korea might have been resolved had it not been for Jewish fears of North Korea as trading partners with nations hated by Israel. Without Jewish domination of media, academia, and courts, homos and trannies would likely have the freedom to do their thing, but they would not have been hailed and near-worshiped as neo-saints and neo-angels. And the idea of bakers being fined and destroyed because they refused to bake degenerate ‘gay wedding’ cakes would not be a thing. Also, American feminism would be saner without the Jewish neurotic element of late that is all about Slut Pride and ‘my pussy’.
Without Jewish control of so many industries and institutions, there is no doubt the US would be a much better place. Sure, there would still be lots of bad things, but the good things would have the confidence and power to push against them. But under Jewish supremacist control, the good things have been restrained and even forbidden to resist and push against bad things. Given that the #1 Rule of America became "Obey, appease, and never displease Jews", even most Conservatives were silent on the Homo Agenda. The main reason was they were afraid of offending Jews. Jews or no Jews, the battle between good and bad is eternal, but the good can usually win because society has more innately good people than bad ones(at least among whites as there seems to be more bad blacks than good blacks in any society). The reason why the Jewish elites have been so dangerous is that they, as corrupt and venal referees of Power, have generally tipped the balance for the bad against the good.
Liberation of Americans from Jewish Supremacism would also be a great boon to the world. There would be no ‘new cold war’ with Russia. The Media would not be endless Hate News against Russia, Iran, Syria, Hungary, Poland, White folks, Straight Men, Christianity, Courage, and the Truth. Look at most of the troubles the US got involved around the World since the Cold War, and they are related to Jewish supremacist power. As Andrew Bacevich noted in one of his books, the US was almost never involved militarily in the Middle East and North Africa during the Cold War — Lebanon and attack on Libya under Reagan were minor exceptions — , but following the end of the Cold War, almost all US wars have been involved with Muslims, Arabs, and others in Central Asia, Middle East, and North Africa, especially against nations hated by Jews. And when US was not attacking them with bombs, it was crippling them with sanctions. And why? Why was there all the hype about ‘new hitlers’ and ‘Munich’ and ‘appeasement’? We know why. It’s because Jews want to hype us dummies into supporting more confrontations and wars for Israel. Jews sure are great projectors. They bitch about ‘appeasement’, but the world is now as it is because the craven non-Jewish elites and politicians of the EU and the US, the most powerful nation on Earth, have been doing little else but appeasing Judeo-Nazis, the real New Hitlers.
How may this Regime Change of Jewish Supremacists be realized in the US? That is a topic for another day, but what sane person would disagree that the ONE REGIME CHANGE that will surely benefit the entire world would be the fall of the evil Judeo-Nazi Regime? It may be a daunting task, but everything starts small. The removal of the Judeo-Nazi regime must be done. The problem is not Jewish success or even power per se. The problem is Jewish supremacist power that has reached Nazi-like levels of pathology, megalomania, bloodthirst, and utter disregard for so many lives, even those of women and children. And THAT CANNOT STAND.