Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Diagnosing Diversity as a Disease — Diversititis vs Diversinoma — Coping with Diversititis — Surviving & Overcoming Diversinoma

We’ve all heard the mantra "Diversity is our strength" or DIOS countless times. We’ve heard it from the media, academia, politicians, and officials. We’ve heard it from high and low, from the richest people and the most powerful people, and from the average Joe on the street. This is hardly surprising because most people are sheeple and merely repeat the talking points that come from above. Most people just chant slogans than think about anything carefully or critically. Most 'conservatives' and 'liberals' need others to do the defining and deciding for them. While they may have naturally conservative or liberal instincts, they lack ideological deftness to formulate their own positions. They must be told what is worth 'conserving' or what is worth 'changing'.
As DIOS is the official chant of the hour, so many people just follow along.

But DIOS has been especially ubiquitous because BOTH sides chant the mantra despite the fact that it undermines the interests of many segments of both political parties. For the GOP, Diversity in the form of cheaper ‘immigrant’ labor may be good for business, big and small, but as most non-white mass-invaders vote Democratic, it spells doom for the Republican Party in the long run. Also, if the US becomes overpopulated with non-whites, it will no longer be the historically European-American nation that it was founded and developed to be.
As for the Democratic Party, more mass-invaders is an electoral plus. However, it has been devastating to the American Working Class as endless pools of cheap labor depress wages and the power of Organized Labor. Also, blacks come under increased competition from mass-invaders who find it easy to outperform blacks in everything except sports, rapping, and government jobs(for which blacks get special hiring preferences).
And even though non-white mass-invaders will gain materially from America in the short-run, they will eventually become race-mixed, deracinated, and confused mass of consumers with no sense of history or culture.

The fact is most gentiles don’t have a strong sense of identity and heritage. The only reason they have a sense of who they are is because they happen to be surrounded by people of similar race and culture in a particular piece of land. It’s more an identity based on condition than consciousness. For example, a Japanese in Japan feels Japanese because he is surrounded by people who look like him, speak the same language, and share the same manners & habits. Being Japanese is not something he thinks about or defines him. It is conditional to his existence in a nation called Japan. But if he were to move to another nation in which he is a minority, he will be surrounded by new conditions and gradually adapt to those until his sense of Japanese-ness is virutally gone.
It may well be true that Jews are the only people with a conscious, as opposed to merely conditional, identity. After all, most ethnic groups who came to the US soon became just ‘Americans’. Most Americans of German ancestry don’t know German language or much about German history. They are just ‘Americans’. This also goes for most Americans of Polish, Hungarian, Italian, Greek, Japanese, or etc. ancestry. Their ancestral identity has no meaning in America because they think and feel conditionally than consciously. Indeed, even Anglo-Americans, the very people who founded and developed the US, have lost their conscious sense of who they are... and this bug has spread to Great Britain itself, where the New Normal of National Identity is to ‘include’ Africans, Pakistanis, Arabs, and Chinese as fellow Britons.
In contrast, the Covenant instilled Jews with a conscious sense of identity. Their identity has been conceptualized, made portable, and spiritualized. Thus, the primal sense of Jewish blood has been linked to ancient history, continuity, and destiny. And this is why Jews have maintained their identity against the greatest odds even in exile surrounded by gentiles. Despite the fundamental changes in social conditions that Jews faced in the Diaspora, Jews maintained their sense of who they were, are, and must be because their identity has been made conscious. And this is why Jews are bound to be less negatively affected by Diversity than other groups. While most gentile groups in the US just become deracinated, soulless, and confused consumers and materialists, the Jewish community(at least enough of them) will maintain their powerful sense of who they are on the conscious level.

Some might argue that Muslims and Hindus also have powerful identities, but Islam is not specific to a people. After all, anyone can convert to Islam. Thus, it lacks an ethnic core and consistency of Jewishness. As for Hindus, they are too much a people divided among themselves. This is why Jews feel more confident in navigating through a sea of diversity. While other groups grow more diluted and diffuse in identity amidst diversity, Jews possess a CONSCIOUS WILL to stick to their identity. Indeed, even as many Jews mix with other peoples, they ‘convert’ their spouses to Jewishness and raise the kids as Jews. Also, Jews don’t mix with low-IQ rabble but with high-IQ gentiles, and thus higher intelligence among gentiles is absorbed into the Jewish Power Network.

History of Jews demonstrates the power of Consciously Willed Identity, as opposed to mere Conditional Identity. An Hungarian surrounded by Hungarians feels Hungarian, but when is surrounded by non-Hungarians, he loses his Hungarian-ness and melds in with the new majority. In contrast, even when a Jew is removed from a Jewish environment and placed in a non-Jewish one, he is likely to retain his sense of who he is, where he came from, and why he must preserve his identity. Also, this Consciously Willed Identity is ‘democratic’ in the sense that it equally belongs to EVERY JEW, from the richest to the poorest. Jewish identity wasn’t owned by kings or elites but envisioned by Prophets and absorbed into the heart and mind of every Jew. In contrast, most gentiles relied on elites to define who they are. So, if the elites said, "We are all Christians now", the masses just followed. Or, if the elites said, "Britishness now means any African or Muslim who wants to feed off the fat of UK", the masses go along. In contrast, Jews don’t let the Jewish elites define what Jewishness is. Each Jew has a Consciously Willed Identity that is independent of elite formulations and manipulations. Alone among peoples and tribes, Jews gained in the power of identity when they were surrounded by gentiles. If the natural mode of history was for a people to become absorbed into the majority population, the Jews swam against this natural tide. Jews were like salmon that swims up against the stream to produce the next generation.
As Jews were a minority in most places, they could not have survived as a people & culture without an immense consciously willed identity. And this is why the Covenant was so crucial. It made Jewish identity not just ancestral, tribal, and territorial but spiritual. It was the sense that, wherever a Jew was in the world, he was blessed because of a unique connection to God, the maker of all the past, present, and future. So, if any people want to survive in the world awash in the tides of globalism, they need to formulate their own covenant. Without it, they will be conquered, absorbed, dispersed, and dissolved.

Anyway, it is now time to consider Diversity as a Disease. Such diagnosis wasn’t necessary in the past because diversity was limited and restricted in most of the West. Back then, a bit of diversity was seen as good for adding color, flavor, and stimulation. After all, what harm could a small number of Indians, Africans, or Arabs do in Paris or London? It added a bit of spice, a bit of variety and difference. And if diversity had been kept to such minimum, it would have been no problem. It would have been appreciated for adding a bit of accent to what is largely a united and ‘homogeneous’ society. It’s like a birthmark or even a scar can add a bit of character. Or even a tattoo, though I personally can’t stand them. The thing is, they don’t keep growing. A birthmark doesn’t get bigger and bigger. Scar doesn’t expand.
In contrast, the current Radical Diversity(or Inclusion) that has gripped the West is essentially cancerous. It keeps growing and growing. Just like cancer cells devour precious blood and spread to other parts of the body, Radical Diversity demands more and then more. There is no self-restraining mechanism that halts the process when it has reached a certain level. No, Radical Diversity insists on growing and growing until the original nation is forever dead and gone. In other words, Radical Diversity is hellbent on turning UK, France, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Italy, and etc. into New Afro-Islamica.
Also, once something has been set in motion on a grand scale, its momentum is such that it can no longer be stopped even if elites want to stop them. Imagine poking more and more holes into the dam until the dam finally breaks. Then, there is no way to stop the torrent even if one wants to. On the matter of history, it’s not just a matter of material power but moral will. If the wall of Moral Will has been fatally compromised and broken, Material Power is useless to push against the hostile forces. And this is the problem of the West. In terms of manpower and material force, the West can still easily push back against the invasive tide from Africa and Muslim nations. White people have more than enough material power to take down the Jewish globalists who are orchestrating the Demise of the West. But the Moral Will is no longer there. The Moral Dam has been busted. The cult of ‘white guilt’ instilled into every white boy and girl by media, academia, and the state has rendered most white people wussy and weak in the face of invasion.
Also, as ‘white guilt’ has encouraged whites to hate whites, there is no white unity or solidarity against non-whites.

Moral Will is crucial. Why is it that in traditional societies, the bigger and stronger son takes the beating from the weaker and older father or patriarch? It’s because the advantage of Moral Will is with the elder. So, the younger man, though stronger, would feel ashamed and guilty to strike a blow against the older man. Jews know how this psychology works. They know that guilt-ridden whites dare not strike against the Jewish minority and non-whites. White people who fear being called ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semite’ would rather take a beating from their Moral Superiors — Jews, blacks, ‘immigrants’, and homos according to PC — than fight back. So, Jews, blacks, homos, and non-whites have been able to get away with so much bad behavior in the West.
But Jews know that morality alone is boring. It’s not ‘cool’. So, they other way they used to break down the White Wall was with Funky Booty and Afro-Ramrod. Jews promote black female funky-booty-call to shake and bring down the White Jericho Wall. And the Negro Dong is promoted to turn white men into a white cucks and white women into ‘mudsharks’. In current France, UK, Sweden, and Germany, white women are so into jungle fever and white men are into such cuckish admiration of black manhood that whites ecstatically welcome ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Emmanuel Macron says the future of Europe must be Eurafrica, whereby black Africans arrive to beat up weaker white men and hump white women and use white wombs to produce black babies.
Je suis un cuck. J'accueille les Africains à venir coloniser les utérus blancs.
Supposedly, white men should accept this because blacks are the Master Race. One might find this logic a bit weird since PC often says ‘race is a social construct’ and calls for equality. But always judge people and movements by what they DO than what they SAY. In terms of what is really happening, the future dynamics is Africa is the Male/Penis and Europe is the Female/Vagina. The current culture says white women should emulate black women and shake their buttocks as mating calls to black men.

So, the Western Wall against Diversity has been destroyed by both Moral manipulation and Sensual assault. Even though things are pretty dire in UK and France, white people still have the numbers and necessary materials to drive out the invaders and restore racial, cultural, and territorial integrity. But they are helpless to do anything about it because their Moral Will has been paralyzed.
In contrast, the Vietnamese and Algerians were materially disadvantaged vis-a-vis the French Colonists in their struggle for independence, but they fought on and eventually triumphed because they had Moral Will. They felt utterly righteous and justified in resisting and pushing back against the white imperialist-colonists. As such, they felt no qualms about using ANY MEANS NECESSARY(even assassinations and terrorism) to drive out the enemy. They understood the Maoist dictum, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." All orders seek peace and stability but were founded with Willed Violence.
Then, what is necessary in UK and France is for white natives to fight BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY to drive out the foreigners and Third World colonists. Also, it will be easier than it was for the Algerians and Viet Minh(and later Viet Cong) because whites have great material advantage over the foreigners in the West. The problem is lack of Moral Will because the West is no longer ruled by native elites but managed by cuck-collaborators of the EOJ or Empire of Judea. Jewish Globalists control the US that controls the EU, and they use European ‘leaders’ as comprador-collaborators to push what is essentially the Sorosian Plan of White Demise.

Europeans have been Puerto-Ricanized. They no longer feel any sense of national identity or unity. They just see themselves as faceless, colorless, and bloodless consumers of a vast empire of ‘diversity’, ‘inclusion’, ‘tolerance’, and other baby-talk charm-words. It is only when the native masses realize that they are not represented, defended, and served by genuine national elites but hoodwinked, manipulated, and led astray(to their own demise) by cuck-puppets of globalism that they many begin to wake up as scales fall from their eyes. The main responsibility of national leaders is to preserve and serve the people of the nation, not to have them invaded and replaced by foreigners. But look at Theresa May, Emmanuel Macros, and Angela Merkel. They all serve Jews who call on Europe to welcome Mass Invasion by Muslims & Africans and to be replaced by them. Imagine if Ho Chi Minh had been a lowlife puppet of the French, suppressed patriotic Vietnamese voices, and welcomed millions of Africans and Muslims to take over Vietnam. He would have been a lowlife piece of turd. Well, the ‘leaders’ of Current Europe are little more than pathetic cuck-dogs of the Empire of Judea.

Jews are master manipulators and know that it’s difficult to change a nation by brute force. If Jews had sent arms to Africans & Muslims and encouraged them to invade Europe, all of White Europe would have risen up and pushed back the invasion. So, how did Jews go about engineering the invasion of Europe? Jews spread Jungle Fever so that white women would be hankering for black men. And white boys, addicted to ‘black heroes’ in sports and rap, would come to believe that the ‘better men’, the Negroes, are more deserving of white women than white men are. Also, Jews gained control of media & academia and manipulated educated gentiles into believing that nothing is worse than ‘racism’. According to Jewish-controlled PC, ‘racism’ for whites could be ANY sense of identity, pride, and unity. Indeed, not only did Jews associate non-white Diversity with holiness but ‘pathologized’ any positive white feelings about being white as evil, sick, and ‘nazi’. If you can’t invade an Order with brute force, weaken it from the inside. Then, its defense mechanism will have been neutralized, and it can be easily invaded even by weak foreign bodies.
It’s like HIV. If the immune system goes, even minor germs can invade the body in huge numbers and bring about demise. The West is suffering from Civilizational AIDS. Judeo-Nazis buggered the West in the ass and transmitted the PC germ of anti-white HIV. Thus infected, the White National Polity is paralyzed of white identity, solidarity, territoriality, and pride. The very elites who should be, like Viktor Orban, working to defend and preserve the nation are working to favor the invasion of foreign bodies. It’s like a father of the house refusing to defend the home and his daughter but welcoming intruders and helping them hold down his daughter as she is raped. But Jews didn’t just target the elites but the masses. If Jews controlled elite minds through higher education, they controlled the masses through jungle fever. So, even if the white father tried to defend the house from marauders, the white daughter wants to open the backdoor to let them in so they can beat up her father and have orgies with her.
This is why the West is currently so hopeless. They still have the numbers and materials to hold back the Third World tide if they want to, but there is (1) No Moral Will to push back against the tide and (2) too much Sensual Addiction to Diversity(more restaurants) and Jungle Fever.

There are few things more frightening than Diversity-as-Cancer or Diversinoma. It is far worse than Diversititis, a condition that afflicts many nations with excessive diversity. The difference is a nation with Diversititis isn’t necessarily into having MORE diversity. It isn’t their national policy or something people worship as an ideal. Rather, it is a chronic condition that must be dealt with. Take Egypt, Indonesia, and India. All three suffer from Diversititis as there is too much diversity of races, tribes, clans, ethnic groups. But these nations are not calling for MORE Diversity. They have enough, and the main emphasis is making the best of a troubled and messy situation. Same goes for Iraq and Syria. Both nations have been torn asunder by diversity. Diversity-as-chronic-problem or Diversititis need not be fatal, but it’s one big headache. It’s like chronic backache. It won’t go away but with care can be managed. Or, it’s like Diabetes. It can’t be cured, but if one takes good care of oneself, a pretty decent life is possible. A person with backache doesn’t think MORE backache is good. A person with diabetes isn’t told to devour lots of sugar. Rather, they are told to manage it as a problem.
In contrast, the West is told that Diversinoma, the metastasizing cancer of Diversity, is the greatest thing in the world. Indeed, the fatal disease is sold by PC quacks as the magic cure. So, if the West is overcome with problems of Diversity, the PC cure is to have even MORE Diversity. It’s like telling a fat person that the cure to fatness is eating more food because the body burns calories to digest food. Never mind that all those digested calories add to more fat.

Well, it is time for us to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. We must call out the quack social doctors of PC and properly diagnose Diversinoma as a fatal disease for ANY nation. Any nation that is committed to endless ‘immigration’ by foreigners will die. It’s pure and simple. The process may be fast or slow, but if foreigners keep coming and coming(especially when natives aren’t having many kids), the natives will be overrun by foreigners who will take over the land. It is simple math that any elementary school student can understand. If you keep pouring prune juice into a beaker of orange juice, the orange juice will eventually be altered and replaced by prune juice. Indeed, we need look no further than the fate of Palestine. Initially, a few Jews trickled in, and it seemed like restricted diversity that hardly posed a threat to Arabs/Palestinians. But as more and more Jews arrived, it began to dawn on Palestinians that they could be replaced and reduced to minority status living under the power of Jews. Control of demography is the #1 responsibility of a nation. The example of Palestine(that was turned into Israel) is textbook case of this. Today, Jews see all the West as just a big West Bank. If West Bank is to be taken over by Jews, the West is to be taken over by non-whites so that Jews can play divide-and-rule among goyim while they themselves hog most of the power, wealth, and narrative.

There are many nations around the world dealing with the problem of Diversititis. There is excessive diversity, and there are many divisions along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. But things may be tolerable if Diversity is maintained as a chronic condition. After all, longevity breeds familiarity even among different peoples. So, if a nation has a diverse population, but the various peoples have been there for a long while and have learned how to tolerate, interact, and even interbreed with one another, a kind of balance can be maintained. Switzerland, for instance, has three major groups, but they’ve co-existed in the same nation for so long that they know how to get along. Same with Flemish and Walloons in Belgium. But if large numbers of new peoples enter the nation, the balance could be upset. Same in nature. An eco-system has competing organisms, but over time, a kind of balance has resulted among the surviving species. But suppose a wholly new set of organism invade the system. Then, it may take a long time for a new balance will be attained(that may well lead to the demise of previously existing organisms).

Diversititis, though not ideal, can maintain a certain equilibrium. To be sure, even if new peoples don’t enter the system, the balance among various groups could be lost if one group outbreeds the other. Consider how blacks in South Africa vastly outbred the whites. And Muslims outbred Christians in Lebanon, thereby turning a once largely Christian Arab nation into a majority Muslim one. Thus, even Diversititis is always problematic.
In some cases, Diversititis can be resolved by breakup of the nation into smaller units. The breakup of the Soviet Union was perhaps the most spectacular version of this. Breakup of Yugoslavia, far more violent, was a smaller version of resolution to Diversititis by national breakup into smaller national units.

Initially, Diversinoma may hardly seem a problem. After all, non-white immigration seemed negligible and easily manageable in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. One could also argue that immigration policy back then were not in Diversinoma mode. In other words, there wasn’t, as yet, an ideology that elevated endless non-white immigration as a moral imperative. Immigrants were allowed on two basic grounds: (1) to fill in for native labor shortage (2) non-white collaborators of the empire seeking sanctuary from violent reprisals by national liberators, e.g. Algerians who’d collaborated with the French feared persecution following Algerian Independence.
With the fading of European empires and economic stagnation by the early 70s, there was no more need for immigration from non-white nations. But it was at this point that the moral and cultural paradigm began to shift. Non-white immigrants came to be championed as having the moral right to enter the West. They were given the moral high ground over the natives. Why?
One reason was the rapid rise in the prestige of Jews. The idea of Jews as a Holy Holocaust People began to take hold in the 70s. While Nazism was vilified almost universally after WWII, there had been the useful myth of National Resistance against the Nazis. The idea was that, despite the despicable phenomena of collaboration in every Nazi-occupied nation, most people had nobly suffered or resisted, in ways big and small, against the great evil. But Jews finally blew up this ‘myth’ in the early 70s, most notably with Marcel Ophul’s THE SORROW AND THE PITY. More than anything, it was this shift that instilled ‘white guilt’ in the European Soul. Europeans had maintained that, while some people collaborated, most had resisted. Thus, Europeans could regard themselves as fellow victims, along with Jews, of the Nazis. The new paradigm reversed the narrative and argued, while some people(especially communists) had courageously resisted, MOST had either collaborated in ways big or small. Or, if they didn’t collaborate, they were apathetic and uncaring, refusing to lift a finger to save Jews. Thus, European pride of victimhood soon vanished. Only Jews could claim to be the true victims of Nazis, and all Europeans had to share in the guilt of WWII for having collaborated with Nazis or not having done enough to contain or defeat Nazism. Thereafter, year after year, Shoah became ever more the new religion of Europe. Thus, each European nation was no longer seen as a homeland justified by blood and soil but a land of shame soiled by blood of Jews who were murdered by Nazis aided by heinous collaborators.
This mindset came to affect the issue of immigration as well. Just like black slavery and Indian ‘genocide’ in America were conflated with plight of Jews beginning in the late 60s and 70s, European imperialism and colonization were conflated with Nazi crimes. (European leftists even associated American military involvement in Vietnam as akin to Nazi genocide. Ironically, some European leftists even took up the Palestinian cause in the idea that Zionists had become like the new Nazis. They got so used to regarding Jews as noble-and-helpless-victims-for-all-eternity that the idea of militant Jews waging wars and defeating Arabs violated their much cherished Cult of the Holy Holocaust Jew.) Because of the Narrative that the imperialist(and even genocidal) West had ravaged the Third World and kept it in forced poverty — in other words, all of the West had acted like Nazis around the world — , something was owed to the darky folks. But foreign aid and investment were not enough. Non-whites had to be brought to the West and given jobs, education, and welfare. Jewish minorities found such people useful. They deflected attention from the Jewish minority, and also Jews could use them as Moral Shield by making a big fuss about how the White Majority is ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’ against poor immigrant groups. Also, it was deemed unjust to bring only single workers. What if they had families and relatives in the Old Country? The humane thing seemed to unite families by bringing their relatives to the West as well. After some yrs, one might think the Guilt Factor would fade away. One thing for sure, the high unemployment rates no longer necessitated mass arrival of foreign workers. But by then, the argument for more immigration(turned into Mass Invasion) had less to do with redressing historical-moral deficit than affirming the notion that Diversity is good and wonderful in and of itself. Diversity was just good. So good that there was need for more and more of it. It didn’t matter if Diversity caused problems. The solution was More Diversity and more training for the native populations to try harder at accommodating Diversity. Diversity was so good and holy that even problems caused by Diversity could not be blamed on it. Rather, the blame was always to be found in the native white folks for not having done enough to make it work. So, they needed even more Diversity as both punishment and redemptive blessing. Once this cancerous logic took hold, Europe was in the grip of full-blown Diversinoma.
Could Diversinoma have been checked and reversed early on? There was Enoch Powell and his ‘River of Blood’ speech. Just like cancer need not be fatal if spotted and treated early, the problem of Immigration-turning-into-Mass-Invasion could have been stopped and reversed with the proper will and resolve. But there were few doctors in the house to sound the alarm and call for radiation treatment, chemo, and surgery to remove the tumor. And even if some people knew of the dangers, they were fearful to speak out because of the Narrative following WWII. The overwhelming intellectual and cultural climate of Europe was leftist for understandable reasons. Europe in the 20th century had been decimated by the vain ambitions of Imperial Powers in WWI and the mad ambition of radical racist Nazis in WWII that was also accompanied by ghastly Shoah. And then, the post-war violence of Resistance and Liberation in the Third World made even European nations that had been at war with Germany seem like the Other Nazis. Especially because the main Moral Narrative arising from WWII was that Good Peoples had come together to defeat ‘racism’(of the Nazis) as the greatest evil in the world, any whiff of ‘racism’ on their part became anathema. So, even if British, French, and others may not have carried out killings on the scale of Nazis, they also felt tainted by their history of ‘racism’, which, in moral terms, made them sin-cousins of the Nazis. Thus, anything unfavorably associated with immigration could be denounced as ‘Nazi’. If anyone voiced fear of non-white immigration, that was ‘racist’ therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. If anyone didn’t like race-mixing, that was ‘racist’ therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. If anyone feared being overwhelmed or outbred by non-whites, that was ‘racist’ therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. In short, whites no longer had any moral grounds to judge non-whites because whiteness had been so tainted, corrupted, and compromised by history of ‘racism’ that culminated in Nazism.

In such a moral climate, how could there be honest critics of Mass Invasion? They were quickly denounced as ‘racist’, therefore ‘crypto-nazi’. The only acceptable position for whites was to welcome non-whites, embrace non-whites, praise non-whites, provide for non-whites, understand non-whites, apologize to non-whites, forgive non-whites(even when they mess up), and etc. It followed the same pattern that made it nearly impossible to speak honestly-negatively about Jewish power. As ‘antisemitism’ came to regarded as a great sin, even the most honest assessment or criticism of Jewish power or history was taboo. Therefore, white Europeans had only one option left. They had to keep proving that they are not ‘racist’ by welcoming endless Mass Invasions by non-whites. Even though this was Demographic Imperialism and Mass Invasion, whites had to pretend as though they were providing sanctuary for ‘refugees’ not unlike Jewish victims seeking shelter from the Nazis.

Of course, it never made any sense. After all, the non-whites were not fleeing from Nazis or White Supremacists but from their own people. In some cases, especially after end of the Cold War, many of the refugees had been uprooted by Wars for Israel, which would indicate that Jewish Globalists are the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis. Also, ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs would indicate an ideology of racial supremacy. After all, the New European Ideal of beautiful white women going with Negro men is premised on the ‘racist’ notion that black men are superior to white men in manhood department because they got louder voices, harder muscles, and bigger dongs. It suggests that white men need to step aside and give up their women in the spirit of ‘may the best man win’. Since Negro men are deemed by globalism to be better men than white men, the current ACOWW ideology is ‘racist’. But then, there never was consistent logic in PC.

Perhaps, it would have been better if men like Enoch Powell had talked more like Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh, arguing for national independence from foreign invasion. But this was difficult to pull off. After all, if Europeans invaded the Third World with guns and bombs, the non-white Mass Invaders mostly arrived poor, pitiful, and penniless. So, it seemed laughable and mean-spirited to many decent white folks for anyone to sound the alarm about how those poor sods were going to take over Europe. The novel THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS by Jean Raspail addressed this insidious threat. Though I haven’t read the book, it’s about how Europeans drop their guard because the invaders seem so poor, desperate, and pitiable. (For some reason, Raspail made the invaders a bunch of Hindus when, surely, he knew that Africans and Muslims posed the biggest demographic threat to Europe.) In a way, a full-blown military occupation is less dangerous than demographic invasion. The latter happens gradually but steadily, eventually threatening to displace the native population or disgrace it through race-mixing. Consider how the natives of Latin America are forever a disgraced people who’d been mass-‘raped’ by Latin invaders. And ACOWW is a total war on white manhood. As black men colonize white wombs, white men can only be sappy, wussy, benchwarming cucks to Negro men as the New Masters of the West. The way things are going in UK and France, all their great glories are on the verge of being appropriated by blacks. BBC is filled with historical epics and dramas that feature black men as kings, warriors, sages, and saints. Anglo-Saxons are turning into Junglo-Saxons. Megalomaniac blacks are made to feel entitled to take over the roles of white historical figures. Not only do UK and France encourage Afro-Colonization of White Wombs for the future but they retro-alter past history so that many great white heroes and heroines are turned into Negroes. Of course, Negroes see no injustice in any of this because their very nature is to feel entitled to take stuff from other races. Blacks feel entitled to steal and loot even the graves of other races. Blacks are both womb-raiders and tomb-raiders, and the cucky white males and jungle-feverish white females are encouraging this all over Europe.
And if you don’t comply with this New Normal? You are denounced as ‘far right’ or ‘racist’. It’s as if whiteness is a pathology or disease that can only be healed by blackness. Now, upon taking one good look at Africa, one is liable to think that blackness is the real pathology and disease where maintaining civilization is concerned. But black poverty in Africa only brings out sympathy and/or guilt among Europeans. Oh, those poor Negroes must be saved from poverty, or maybe they are poor and don’t have Wakanda because of past history of white imperialist exploitation. Thus, Negro poverty in Africa is either a reason to feel sorry for blacks or a reason for whites to feel guilty.
Also, there is a kind of attraction to the primal element of the Negro. Current Europeans feel soulless, shallow, and materialistic. They feel as IKEA-ans than blood-n-flesh humans. So, the only way they can feel re-connection with the juice of life is to have Negroes in the West shake their booties, hump everything that move, and infect white women with jungle fever.
It’s like the Apathetics in ZARDOZ have lost the vitality of life. Too much peace, complacency, and safety have made life dull and boring. So, when Zed(Sean Connery) is among them, they draw sustenance from him. Of course, he has really been sent into the Vortex to bring it down. But then, even the denizens of the Vortex come to see that the Order must fall because it is at odds with the way of nature. Thus, barbarian invasion, horrible as it is, does serve a purpose is smashing a secure but lifeless order.

Long ago, an overly civilized, ossified, or decadent orders were brought down by barbarians of same or similar race. So, the sacking of Rome wasn’t such a bad thing. Germanic Barbarians came to dominate, and Europe remained white. But the people who will play the most decisive role in the smashing of the lifeless and decadent Current Western Order are black Africans. Thus, the blacking of Europe will have far greater impact than the sacking of Rome. It will not be a case of white barbarians bringing down a decadent and sick white civilization and, in time, creating something even better. Rather, it will be about Western Civilization being brought down by black savages whose takeover will mean the end of civilization for good because black DNA is the most antithetical to order, philosophy, and civilization. Black culture has always been centered around the buns and dongs.

The West moved from Order to Decadence because the latter seemed liberating from traditional constraints and bourgeois manners. So, when British youths listened to Jazz and Rock n Roll in the 1940s and 1950s, they felt liberated and grateful to Negroes. And Modern Art loosened up cultural conventions and allowed for new possibilities. Back then, a bit of decadence seemed healthy and productive. After all, TOO MUCH of anything is bad. But at some point, decadence turned into the degenerative excesses of Punk Culture, family breakdown, gluttony, shameless ‘sluttony’, mainstreaming of porno-sensibility, and rise of Trash as Main Culture. Worse, it combined with neo-puritanical PC. This makes UK one of the sickest and strangest nations on Earth. It is one of the most infantile, beastly, trashy, shameless, dissolute, and ugly — barbarism turning into savagery — , but it doesn’t even have the primal virtue of vulgarism: Candid and forthright talk. Even if barbarians have no manners, they can be refreshing in speaking freely and laying it all out like it is. It’s like a vulgarian belching and breaking wind. Unpleasant but, at the very least, honest and open about what his body must do. And indeed, one of the few virtues of rise of Counterculture and Punk Culture was the spirit of anarchy, freedom, and uninhibited expression. Consider the sheer zaniness and irreverence of Monty Python.
But something happened. The System decided to maintain the neo-barbarism — the elites also found it too fun, and of course, the entertainment industry found it too profitable — but curtail certain tendencies and restrict free expression that mocked certain new sacred cows, especially Jew-Worship(aka Judeovah, or Jews-as-jehovah), Black Reverence(aka Afroyalty, or black Africans as new natural royalty of the West), and Homo Celebration(aka Fairitocracy, or fruitkin fairies as the new aristocracy of the globalized West). Those are the Permanent Holy Three, but other groups can get some sympathy, on and off, depending on the political climate and expediency. Because Muslims aren’t very bright & rich, not dominant in sports & music, and not famous for creativity(esp in fashion and pop culture), there is no special feeling for them in the hedonistic, narcissistic, and megalomaniacal West. But there are many of them in the EU, and they must sometimes be heard. (It could be that Muslims resort to Terror in the West because they usually go ignored UNLESS they commit acts of violence. After all, Jews are always important because of their elite power, wealth, and of course Shoah Cult. And blacks always get jungle-feverish-and-cuckish love from whites because they dominate sports and pop music. And homos are at the center of Pop Culture because so many gravitate to Vice-and-Vanity Industry.
In contrast, Muslims, despite their rising numbers, get no love and respect from the white community. Therefore, the only way they can get some attention is by blowing up stuff or mowing people down with trucks. It just goes to show that Diversity doesn’t guarantee equal affection to all peoples. Some groups must do something really outlandish to appear on the social-cultural radar. It’s like kids in a family. Suppose out of five kids, four get the love for being either smart, pretty, funny, or athletic. But the fifth kid is ignored and made to feel insignificant. Then, the ONLY way he can get attention is by doing something crazy like burning down the house.)

Anyway, current UK is a totally debased society of foul and shameless behavior on so many social and cultural fronts. There’s been so much family breakdown, so much rise of degeneracy. And yet, it can’t even enjoy the benefit of the primal virtue of vulgarism. Consider the figure of Count Dankula, a truly gross figure splattered with tattoos and piercings. He represents everything that is ugly and demented about new Britain. And yet, one real(if lowly) advantage of vulgarism is the spirit of freedom, irreverence, and the uninhibited middle-finger to stuffy social conventions. Or so Count Dankula thought when he made infantile videos about making his pug do the ‘Nazi salute’ to commands of ‘Heil Hitler’ and ‘Gas the Jews’. It was the sort of thing Sid Vicious might have done in the 1970s just to provoke people or be a jerk. But no, the State went after Dankula for ‘hate speech’. So, UK now allows and encourages the most demented, ugly, stupid, trashy, porny, and infantile speech and expression — much of pop culture revolves around black thuggery, jungle fever, homo degeneracy, feminist vaginal obsessions, slut pride, anti-white vitriol, and etc — BUT it won’t allow ‘hate speech’ that is to be defined and determined by neo-Victorian stuff-shirts in the institutions of academia, media, and government. It reminds me of that Onion satire that complains about foul language in pornography by ‘Maggie Lehman’: https://entertainment.theonion.com/why-do-porn-actors-have-to-use-such-foul-language-1819583928#_ga=2.218135578.2072781814.1524769152-1002042756.1524769152
Thus, UK has managed to be both hoity-toity and porny-horny at the same time. In the past, the hoity-toiters used snobbery and repression to control the barbarian energies of the masses and to defend the homeland from foreigners. Back then, even fellow European Germans were considered as barbaric ‘Huns’. Today, the hoity-toiters still put on doopity-pippy-poo manner and sip tea and nibble on crumpets BUT they praise spread of barbarism and savagery(as long as they don’t mock Judeovah, Afroyalty, Fairistocracy, and intermittently Angry Muslims threatening to blow something else up unless they get some love), welcome mass invasion from backward and even truly savage nations of Africa, and dismantle all the national mechanisms of patriotism, pride, and normalcy that can save Britain. And with fading of religion — the Anglican Church is now just a nest of Homomania-pushers — , decline of the family, loss of culture, and fading of history(or vilification of white history or vindication of white history ONLY BY retro-blackening white historical characters), the only Culture left standing for the majority of Britons is Pop Culture. Worse, if Pop Culture of yesteryear represented Britishness, maturity, and morality(like in the films of David Lean and Carol Reed), the new Pop Culture is all about promotion of Homo degeneracy, Jungle Fever & ACOWW, the endless cult of Holocaust, Slut Pride, feminist vaginal pseudo-covenant or ‘cuntinant’, and mindless faith in Diversinoma as the best cure and Inclusion as morally necessary invasion.

So, the British people have been turned into beasts without even the liberation of being free like wild animals. Rather, British people are now like a horse ridden by Jews, Homos, and blacks. Or, it’s like a cow that was promised freedom but has a ring stuck through its nose to be dragged around by PC commissars. George Orwell wrote ANIMAL FARM as satire on Stalinist totalitarianism, but UK today is more like THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU. People have been turned into animals(made even more so by promotion of ACOWW that will turn Anglo-Saxons into Junglo-Saxons and make UK look like Morocco) but also trained to obey. The long-term result of this will be Jungle vs Jihad. As white people are now so decadent, soulless, vapid, and demoralized, they have no means to say NO to the African power of the Jungle. If anything, they are addicted to blackness as the heat-drug as whiteness, they’ve been told, is cold, dull, frigid, and lifeless without sucking vitality from other races. So, whites can’t hold back the demented influence of the Jungle. The ONLY people with the spine, courage, will, and pride to say NO to the Jungle is the Jihad, the power of Muslims. Currently, Jungle and Jihad are in a crude and uneasy alliance as both share the common interest of gaining access to the West. And Jungle and Jihad are also in uneasy alliance with Jude because Jews push Diversity to create gentile-divisions that they can exploit and manipulate. In the long run, it will be a war among Jungle, Jihad, and Judea. Whites, castrated and cucked, haven’t the spine to say NO to Judea as it’d be ‘antisemitic’, to Jungle as it’d be ‘racist’, and to Jihad as it’d be ‘Islamophobic’. So, with each year, white power will dwindle as its puts out to Jewish brains, black muscle & dongs, and Muslim threats. Can Judea, Jungle, and Jihad co-exist once white power is totally gone? Unlikely. In Africa, there is either the rule of Jungle(in most of Sub-Saharan Africa) or Jihad(mainly in North Africa where Arabs and even black Arabs use ruthless violence to keep the Jungle at bay).
When it comes to Diversititis, the chronic condition of problematic Diversity, there is no permanent fix or cure in the absence of massive civil war that leads to a bloody breakup of the existing national entity in separate parts. This is exceedingly difficult if the diverse populations are dispersed and mixed throughout the land. But a breakup of a diverse nation can be reasonably simple IF the various peoples occupy and dominate their own regions. This is why the breakup of the Soviet Union was relatively painless. Lithuania was mostly made up of Lithuanians, Georgia was mostly made up of Georgians, Armenia was mostly made up of Armenians, and etc. Even though there had been extensive population transfers during the Soviet era, most of the non-Russian Republicans had a solid ethnic majority. Some violence did flare up in border areas among republics with mixed populations, as with the case with Armenians and Azerbaijanis. In the case of Yugoslavia, the breakup ranged from painless to painful. Slovenia’s independence from Yugoslavia was relatively painless, not unlike the voluntary decision among Czechs and Slovaks to go separate ways. As most of Slovenia was made up of Slovenians, its withdrawal from Yugoslavia went smoothly. The biggest problem was in Bosnia that had large numbers of Croatians, Serbs, and Muslims who were, furthermore, interspersed throughout the region. Even to this day, the problems in Bosnia have not been fully resolved, and a very uneasy truce remains. Anyway, Bosnia is a case of permanent Diversititis. No single group can come to dominate as the majority in the foreseeable future. So, the best option is for the various groups to find ways to tolerate one another, respect each other’s spaces, restrain one’s own resentments, and develop better ways of inter-group communication and cooperation. Bosnia is an obvious case that Diversity sows seeds of discord. Still, it’s my understanding that it is in a state of Diversititis than Diversinoma. After all, the people there already know of the problems of Diversity. Why would they believe it’d be a good thing to bring in MORE Diversity when enough is enough?

In a society chronically infected or overcome with Diversititis, the only option is the coping mechanism. People must learn to cope with the tensions and conflicts. If they can’t, there will be violence and counter-violence and endless cycles of vendetta. A society racked with Diversititis will never be a Trust Society or an orderly one, but if the various peoples arrive at modicum ways to respect one another and even appreciate each other’s differences and find ways to complement one another by trading in good and services of ethnic niche specialties — for example, suppose one group is better at running restaurants while another group is better at white collar work — , then tensions can be minimized and relative peace can prevail. Diversititis generally undermines the Rule of Law as groups tend to favor ‘my group’ over common interests, but in some cases, it can boost Rule of Law because the Law is the only thing that the various groups can agree on as they differ so much in customs, manners, and attitudes. Lacking cultural consensus, there is only recourse to legal consensus, at least if the various peoples are willing to submit to the letter of the Law that has been sincerely agreed upon by all sides as being fair and balanced.
Even so, outcomes can upset the legal balance. Consider the Fireman Promotion Exam that had been approved by whites, blacks, and browns as fair prior to the test-taking but was immediately denounced as ‘racist’ when blacks and browns performed far below their white counterparts. Diversititis will always lead to headaches, frustrations, and recriminations. This is why no society should push for more Diversity.
But many parts of the world have become irreversibly and irreparably diverse due to imperialism, invasion, or careless drawing of maps. Every Latin American nation is the product of European imperialism, Atlantic Slave Trade, and Mass Immigration-invasion. And Europeans did a reckless job of drawing crazy maps in the Middle East that maximized diversity than homogeneity. Absent massive wars that lead to profound movements of peoples or redrawing of maps, the peoples of all such nations must learn to cope with Diversititis.
But coping isn’t enough with Diversinoma. It’s like one cannot cope with cancer. It has to be stopped and reversed OR the patient will surely die. If UK were to halt all further Mass Invasion, it might be able to cope with its already considerable Diversititis. Whites are still the majority, and they might be able to accept the long-term presence of non-whites who may or may not assimilate into the white cultural fabric.
Of course, the problem is British obsession with manners and politeness renders it bad form for the Brits to ‘rudely’ demand that the foreigners assimilate to British ways. To be sure, past Brits had pride of chauvinism and felt justified in berating the inferior ‘darkies’ to try to live up to superior white standards. It wasn’t considered bad form for whites to express their sense of cultural and even racial superiority and exert pressure on non-whites to improve themselves to act less like stupid ‘wogs’ and more like ‘Englishmen’. But such attitudes are simply no longer allowed among whites in the UK, so the only thing left is the good manners, which, without the backing of gruff pride or haughty honor, come across as weakness. Today, non-whites in the UK see White Culture as either HARRY POTTER-ish childishness or Benedict-Cumberbatchy wussiness. The sickening-looking Cumberbatch profusely apologized for having said ‘colored people’ than ‘people of color’. They get no respect because they don’t exude power. People, especially non-whites from brutish societies, only respect signs of might. When they see white people looking stricken, apologetic, and racked with guilt-and-doubt, they don’t feel respect or gratitude. They just feel contempt for the weak wussy white boy, especially because their peoples had, for so long, believe in the Great White Man. Sure, whiteys were the Big Bad Imperialists, but they were also the Magnificent Warriors and Administrators who’d once conquered and ruled the world. But now, non-whites see all these sorry-ass cucky-wuck boys in the UK. What passes for British Conservatism is Milo the ‘gay’ Jew and Andrew Sullivan taking black dongs up their bungs. Or, it’s that harridan witch Theresa May whose toxicity is aimed ONLY at the white native population.

Anyway, it’s worse than that because what the UK has is not a bad condition of Diversititis but a full-blown case of Diversinoma. As if things aren't bad enough already, the Official Ideology of the UK calls for MORE Mass Invasion to be followed by yet MORE Mass Invasion and more and more. Jewish globalists and their cuck-collaborators have convinced so many white British that the UK had been a ‘nation of immigrants’ from the beginning. Also, so many white Brits are so bored with themselves that they want color, flavor, and distractions of Diversity. The more the better, like people addicted to drugs must have more and more even when the drugs are killing them.
Also, ‘white guilt’ about past imperialism has produced a Narrative that says non-whites have a moral right to invade and take over UK as historical revenge/justice. And there is also Jungle Fever among white women that want sex with big-donged Negro men and ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. And there are plenty of cucky British men who welcome this because, in a way, servility has been one of the characteristics of Britishness. After all, the British could not have come to dominate the world if they were all Alpha-male warriors. No, the bulk of the British people had to be drilled and disciplined to obey, follow orders, and tip their hats and say "aye guv’nor" when a social superior passed by. In the past, most Brits were cultivated to regard higher-class members, clergy, and officers as superior people worthy of respect. But White Prestige, especially of white males, faded long ago, and the new gods of British neo-royalty is Diversity, Inclusion, White Guilt, Afromania, and Homomania. (Among Conservatives, it is Jew-Worship above all.) So, British culture of disciplined servility that had served the British Empire so well is now in the service of other gods. Especially due to influence of black pop music and black domination in sports, many Brits now revere blacks as the natural royalty. Afroyalty is their new gods and kinds, which is why BBC shows feature British historical figures played by blacks. White Brits worship blacks so much that they believe the great heroes and legends of their own history must be cast with blacks who are superior in raw power.

Also, Diversity has a moral appeal to both the white have-nots and white have-mores. Among the have-nots and Leftist intellectuals, hugging Diversity is an easy way of virtue-signaling against the rich whites. Resentful of privileged whites and Jews who hog most of the wealth and privilege, the poorer whites and leftist intellectuals claim greater moral treasure by parading their ‘compassion’ for the darkies. But then, the rich whites play a similar kind of game. By hugging Diversity(from a distance, of course), they snobbily claim moral superiority over the ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ white working class that is none-too-happy to see their hometown communities colonized by a bunch of bloody ‘wogs’. So, both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, the ‘upper’ and the ‘lower’ weaponize Diversity for its own purposes. Because whiteness has been so disgraced and discredited, white Britons of any ideological faction must wave the Diversity flag to earn righteous Pokemon points. At the very least, especially if one isn’t to keen on Diversity, one has to cling to Jews(and homos) and argue that one’s opposition to continued Mass Invasion is to save Jews and Homos from Muslim Terrorists. But this is not a winning strategy because Jewish Power is fully behind Mass Invasion and Diversity. And the great majority of Homos are into Diversity. Even if Mass Invasion may not be good for homos in the long run, the very nature of homos tends to favor colorful diversions than deep-rooted sense of belonging. Homo nature is innately disloyal because, after all, homosexuality itself is a betrayal of nature and the way of life.

Unlike Diversititis, there is no way to cope with Diversinoma. It has to be identified. It has to be diagnosed as the most fatal disease that can afflict a nation. It portends and promotes the total destruction of the nation. It is immeasurably worse than the spread of bad ideology or destruction by war. Both Russia and China suffered under the ideology of communism, but they recovered. Ideology eventually blows away. Russia remained Russia after communism. China is still China.
Also, nations recovered from the most horrible destruction by war. Japan and Germany rebounded quickly. Britain recovered as well following WWII. Poland, which had been steamrolled by every great power, recovered.

But Diversinoma will lead to the total and permanent transformation of a nation, and the effects will be irreversible. There is no way Palestinians can ever take back their lost homeland again. There is no way Serbians can have Kosovo again. And if things go on as they are, the Brits, the French, Germans, and Swedes will lose their ancient homelands for good.
Now, the newly transformed nation may still have a working economy or even a bigger one, BUT the original and core ethnos, identity, and culture will be lost forever. They will survive in pockets and fragments but will be much degraded and, at any rate, will not command the center of what the nation is about. Suppose 10 million Chinese were to move to Nepal. The economy may greatly expand, but it will never be Nepal as unique people-and-culture ever again.

Because humans are organisms and because organisms are invasive, there are invasions afoot all over the world, especially from poor to rich nations. That, in and of itself, doesn’t constitute Diversinoma. Likewise, the human body experiences invasion by germs and toxicity at all times, and some cells act irregular and weird. The body is always under threat from something, internal and external. But the body manages to fend off most germs and restore equilibrium to maintain health. Cancer happens when this balance is lost. For some reason, the body fails to limit the growth of a malignant tumor. The tumor keeps growing and growing, and cancer cells begin multiplying and multiplying. And the body feeds the cancer cells with blood. Even as white blood cells continue to wage a valiant war on cancer cells, other parts of the body help cancer cells to grow. The bloodstream is carrying them all over the body.
Now, the body is no longer able to regulate itself to control or reverse the cancer. It has taken hold of the body, and its colony of cells keep multiplying and spreading to other parts of the body. Indeed, much of the body is mistaken in treating cancer cells as welcome parts of the body. Over time, more of the body assents to the spread of cancer cells than cooperates with white blood cells to fight the spread of cancer. And then, even the lymph nodes that are supposed to serve as a immune system are taken over by cancer cells, and it becomes hopeless. Diversinoma works the same way.

This is why Diversinoma has to be diagnosed and identified as soon as possible. And the nation-as-patient must be warned right away as to what must be done to reverse the process. Since the regular functions of the nation can no longer fend off Diversinoma — just like a cancer-stricken body can no longer fight off cancer on its own — , a special draconian treatment is necessary to save the patient-nation.
Consider the UK. It’d be nice if the elites and the people were woke to what is happening to their nation, call an end to Mass Invasion, restore white pride(as white blood cells of the nation), expose Jewish globalist wickedness, denounce ACOWW, and began the process of sending the non-white colonizers back to their nations of origin, just like non-white nations had once expelled European colonizers from their own lands.
But the cancer has spread to the elites and to so many people. The elites are cuck-collaborators of wicked Jewish globalist masters who rule EOJ or Empire of Judea, the most powerful world empire, of which even the US is a vassal. As for the British masses, so many of them have been turned by the 2 PCs — Pop Culture and Political Correctness — into Negro-worshiping, Homo-worshiping, and Diversity-worshiping dogs and sheeple. Their bodies and souls have been drained of patriotism and noble race-ism. Their passions are roused ONLY WHEN they listen to black jungle music, get hysterical at homo parades, or spot a ‘nazi’ or ‘racist’, which is ANY white person who is a patriot and doesn’t want Britain to be invaded and colonized by non-white hordes. Patriots are attacked by Parrots.

Therefore, the only way to save a nation like UK is by extraordinary means. At this point, the patriots must learn from the Algerians who resisted French colonization, the Viet Minh & Viet Cong that fought against French Imperialists and American Occupiers. As the UK is ruled by Jews and cuck-collaborators and as the UK media & academia are controlled by ideological quacks who keep assuring the British people that cancer is the cure(!), the savior and the medicine must come from extraordinary individuals form unexpected places.

In the coming decades, the stakes will be super-high. It will decide if the UK can be cured of the hideous cancer of Diversinoma or succumb to it totally and become just an European version of Paki-Africa.
What Winston Churchill and the British people underwent in WWII was nothing compared to the dangers that the Brits face now. In the past, even in the case of worst possible scenario of Germans having invaded Britain, it wouldn’t have been so bad. As Germans respected Anglos as fellow-brethren, most Britons would have been treated nicely. And in time, the Germans would have left after setting up a friendly regime(just like the US Occupation of Japan and Germany ended after it installed pliable governments). Germans had no plan to racially or culturally destroy Core Britain. But that is exactly the plan of Jews, Africans, and Muslims. Jews seek to maximize Diversity to play divide-and-rule. It is also revenge for all those yrs of Anglo prejudice and snobbery, subtle if not always blatant, toward Jews. Jews want to see Anglo men humiliated by having to watch their daughters turn into shameless sluts whose wombs produce black babies. And of course, Africans love to leech off whites in the UK. They also love to beat up weaker whites and colonize white wombs. They feel as the physical champions of New Britain. And Muslims seek to keep coming and take over entire streets and spread Sharia in a nation that they deem to be decadent and lost.

If current demographic and cultural trends continue, it will truly be the fall of Britain. While the Nazis did pose a genuinely genocidal threat to Russians and other Slavs, they only demanded compliance and alliance from the UK. Indeed, the UK would have done better to ally with Germany in WWII if its only interest was narrow self-interest. Now, given the radical evil of Nazi Germany, the Brits were right to forge alliances even with the USSR to defeat Nazi Germany. Still, it must be stressed over and over that Germany posed no real threat to the survival of the British people, culture, and nation EVEN IF the UK had fallen to the Germans. The real threat of replacement, colonization, and extinction of Britain comes from EOJ or the Empire of Judea, the agenda of which is to turn UK into Othellonia. Unless a significant number of Brits wake up to the danger of Diversinoma and commit themselves fully to the struggle as Ho Chi Minh had done to the national independence of Vietnam, the UK will lost be lost forever in the coming decades. If the future is to be won and secured, there must be men like Noah, Moses, Samson, and King David. There must be heroes like Arthur and Perceval. There must be prophets like Enoch Powell. There must be barbarian lords willing to lay down their lives in the war against the decadent cuck elites who serve not the people & nation but the evil Soros-like sorcerers of EOJ. British patriots must wake up everyday reminding themselves, "Once a nation is lost demographically, it is lost forever."

Paradox of how the More Spiritually Pure Protestant North became More Materialist than the More Idolatrous Catholic South that became More Materialistic — Roots of Protestant Productivity

What follows is just a theory and may have been expounded by others earlier. It seeks an explanation as to why the Protestant North became more Materialist(as opposed to Materialistic) even though Protestantism placed greater emphasis on one’s pure-hearted spiritual connection with God. One would think that Protestants, in their rejection of Catholic privilege, corruption, and excessive worldly power, would have devoted most of their energies to prayer, meditation, and being nearer to God.
Instead, Northern European Protestant nations made leaps & bounds and startling breakthroughs in Materialist science, technology, industry, and wealth that, for a time(and even to this day), left the Catholic South in the dust. It is also worth asking why the Catholic South, though less Materialist in their thinking, produced a culture that tended to be more Materialistic, meaning infatuated with material displays of wealth, privilege, and power: Glitter, luxury, and opulence.

Perhaps, the main divide between Catholicism(which retained much of the idolatry of Greco-Roman paganism) and Protestantism(which sought a purist and personal re-connection with core truths of Jesus) is in their respective reaction to ‘relicism’, iconography, and ‘idolism’(a restrained form of idolatry that, at least in theory, treats certain objects as symbols than literally sacred objects). In the pagan worldview, all things are imbued with spirits. In primitive animism, even rocks, trees, and streams are alive with strange powers and energies. So, it was common for primitive tribes to wear bear claws or lion fangs OR wrap themselves in snake skins or crocodile hide. The idea was that the ‘magical’ power of the fearsome beast would be transmitted to the warrior-hunter. This basic idea even continued in high civilizations like Hindu India and Taoist China. Hindus have an elaborate system of the meanings and significance of so many objects and animals. And many Chinese still believe that the some essence of rhinos, tigers, or bears will transfer to them by partaking, respectively, of their horns, penises, or paws. The Ancient Romans tore into an animal and examined its innards in a ritual to prophesy the future. To pagan Romans, the guts of a goat or sheep wasn’t just some gunky stuff. The innards held divine portents of future yet to be. And among the Vikings, there were sorcerers who portended the future by toying with a turtle shell and pieces of bones. Certain objects were deemed sacred... or evil.

Among the Chinese, there developed a ‘superstitious’ system of real-estate assessment and building-design. For good luck, housing plans could not violate Feng Shui. In the movie JEREMIAH JOHNSON, an American Indian tribe reacts vengefully upon discovering white folks trespassed over their sacred burial grounds. All such mindsets blend spirituality with materiality. Actual things and/or animals are said to be possessed of magical powers or cursed with diabolical forces. Therefore, one must be careful in one’s interaction with the world. You must treat sacred things accordingly and avoid(or attempt) to destroy evil things. In such a worldview, spirituality and Satanism aren’t merely matters of the soul but interwoven with certain tangible things all around us. This mentality could apply to humans as well. According to Judaism, one must reject idols and devote oneself to the one and only God who cannot be represented or manifested materially. And yet, Judaism connects God’s blessing with the Jewish pud(and now the Jewesses are trying to shift the neo-covenant from the Pudkin theory to a Pooterin one). So, the Jewish schlong isn’t just a fleshy appendage but an organ favored by God Himself. Thus, spirituality is combined with Jewish blood(and semen). And according to the story of Eden, all the world was a miracle imbued with the spirit of God, especially the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge. But Adam and Eve dared to listen to the Serpent and ate from the Sacred Tree. As punishment, God’s blessing was removed from the material world. Godliness no longer existed in tangible flesh and things but only as traces in the redemptive souls of man... though the one caveat was the Jewish pud, at least if properly circumcised by a Rabbi.

Christianity did away with the Jewish Pudkin Theology and went further in locating God’s essence in the soul than in any part of the flesh. To the extent that every individual has a soul that can choose either spirituality or satanism, the hope lay in the cleansing and redemption of one’s heart and mind. And yet, Christianity also combined spirituality with tangibility to the extent that God was manifested in the human form of His Son Jesus. Also, the ritual of baptism, apparently predating Christianity because, after all, John the Baptist was splashing people around before Jesus came to him. Thus, water, under certain circumstances, wasn’t just water but a soul-purifying agent.

If most great pagan civilizations believed in anything, it was monumentalism. Egyptians built massive pyramids. Babylonians also had their massive works of architecture, as did the Persians. Greeks had theirs too though on a less grandiose scale. Romans were famous builders. It was as if all these civilizations believed that massive structures weren’t only products of power but preservers of power. To live in the proximity of or, better yet, within the walls of architectural grandeur meant that your people were the most powerful. We see the Hollywood Egyptians in Cecil B. DeMille's TEN COMMANDMENTS erect one giant monument after another. Many of them served no useful purpose. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of anything more useless than Egyptian pyramids that required many thousands of workers over decades. All that tremendous amount of energy were exerted to build what were essentially nothing but tombs for dead kings. Whatever one may say of the Great Wall of China, it was built to fend off invaders. (To be sure, their purpose was also symbolic, as if to say, "On THIS side, there are the noble and civilized Chinese, and on THAT side, there are these useless barbarian hordes who must be kept out lest they contaminate our glorious civilization.") In contrast, Egyptian pyramids seem to us like vanity projects gone bonkers. And yet, they made sense to the Egyptian pharaohs and masses who built them because the kings were deemed to carry and transfer, generation after generation, the souls of eternal gods; therefore, the pyramids weren’t merely tombs of the dead but the sanctuaries of divine souls whose spirit and wisdom still governed Egypt in strange and wonderful ways. Egyptians valued pyramids as houses of god-souls like bees value the role of the queen bee within the hive.
Greeks weren’t as ostentatious as the Egyptians, but they too built huge temples to their gods, and both elite and ordinary Greeks offered sacrifices and made entreaties to them. At one time, Persia, with its awesome architecture, was regarded as the greatest and most powerful civilization on earth.

In a world where imperialism was the prevailing mode of power relations among all peoples, a civilization could not hope to rely on fixed boundaries. Boundaries were always shifting, like the line-of-scrimmage in football. So, your civilization could, one year, hold sway over huge swathes of territory, but then, a few years later, hold just one-third of the former size. Since a tribe or civilization couldn’t rely on boundaries for permanence, its best bet for displaying its might was to erect huge monuments and structures of stone, indeed ones so massive that it’d be difficult even for successful invading armies to tear down. I mean, who would want to spend a decade dismantling a pyramid? Also, the sheer magnificence of the structures may seduce the invaders into assimilating into the defeated culture. So, even as the native people may have been defeated, the invaders may, in turn, be culturally ‘defeated’ and won over by the magnificence on display. Instead of totally smashing the civilization, they may pay tribute to it and fall under its sway. Thus, Alexander the Great of Macedon, though conqueror of Egypt and Persia, respected and adopted some of their ways. Various non-Egyptians who invaded Egypt took on the roles of Pharaohs and kept much of the culture intact. Many Mongols were absorbed into Chinese civilization with its impressive structures. And even though Romans defeated the Greeks militarily, the Greeks conquered the Romans culturally. And even though the Germanic barbarians conquered Rome, their later kings aspired to be like the Roman Caesars and dreamed of creating their own Romes. And much of the Renaissance was inspired by the tangible artworks and architecture of the ancient pagans.

In more recent times, there was Ayn Rand’s zealous and quasi-mythological obsession with skyscrapers. And Adolf Hitler wanted German ‘Aryan’ might to be represented and secured by a massive building project in what would be the future city of Germania. And many developing nations became fixated with erecting taller and bigger buildings, not so much for utility or enterprise but as symbols of wealth, success, and relevance.
And Vladimir Putin’s Russia has embarked on a massive building project of new Russian Orthodox Churches. In the West, so as to flatter Negro ego that they are also great builders, at least in the realm of blinged-out fantasy, we’ve had the massive hype about Wakanda that is powered by ‘vibranium’. On that note, monumentalism has its uses and advantages.

But they also have their weaknesses and dangers. For one thing, many civilizations expended tremendous energies toward building things that had no practical value. While certain structures served as protective castles(the early brutalist architecture), fortresses, or walls, many were just white-elephant vanity projects. One wonders if the civilization would have done better to direct its energies toward more productive and useful endeavors. Also, the people of a civilization can develop an idolatrous faith in monumental grandeur, i.e. because they are surrounded by massive and mighty structures, they must be a powerful people. But as any sports team knows, having a gigantic hometown stadium doesn’t ensure victory. A university with modest buildings but with good professors and smart motivated students will do much better than a university with spectacular buildings but with bad professors and lazy-stupid-moronic students.

Too many peoples in history fell under idolatrous spell of monumentalism. Because Rome had awesome buildings, too many Romans got to feeling invincible. Because Chinese built palaces and monuments to symbolize China as the Middle Kingdom, the center of the universe, they grew overly complacent when faced with foreign enemies, especially in the early 19th century when the haughty and arrogant Manchu-Chinese felt they had little to worry from the West because, after all, the center of Chinese power in Peking was such a magnificent place, especially the Forbidden City. It was assumed that foreign devils would forever be forbidden from China, and the Chinese subjects would forever be forbidden from the Forbidden City. Such complacency proved to be fatal. It was also ironic because, after all, the Manchu dynasty on the throne was foreign in origin.

While monuments and awesome displays of power do signify some measure of power — after all, a totally useless society couldn’t build such things and have massive armies — , those who fixate on them overlook the deeper and more substantive sources of power. National Socialist Germany did have a sound basis of power in industry & technology, manpower & work ethic, and military & armaments. But Hitler overestimated German power because the massive displays of might at the rallies and marches created the mythic impression of German invincibility. Indeed, when we look at some of the footage of Nazi rallies, it makes us wonder how any force on earth could withstand German power. And when the initial battles proved to be in Germany’s favor, Hitler gambled everything on conquering Russia as well. While German power, like Ancient Roman power, was seriously real and far from illusory, it had its limits. But Hitler threw caution to the winds because, like so many pagans before him, he thought the gods had chosen him to be the man-of-destiny. Today, Russia puts on massive military parades bigger and more spectacular than anything in the US, but in fact, Russian economy is smaller than that of Italy and even Texas. North Korea puts on some of the biggest military parades annually, but its economy is 1/40th that of South Korea’s. The US spends many times more on its military and has many more jets and naval power than Russia. Also, given the immense depth of its economy, the US on war-footing could assemble a power 20x more powerful than that of Russia. Still, it would be foolish for the US to engage Russia on its home turf. Russia has sufficient manpower and immense natural resources to fend off most invasions. And despite US advantages, the American Public will not support anything like a invasive war on Russia that will surely lead to tons of US casualties as well.
Anyway, while monumentalism and spectacle-ism have their uses, one must never conflate the show with actual power. Body Builders and Professional Wrestlers are very good at showing off their muscles and acting tough, but virtually none of them is not a top-tier athlete in competitive sports. If anything, they tend to be rejects who failed at sports like football.

The reason as to why Northern Europe eventually surpassed and achieved so much more than Southern Europe(that got a head-start in civilization) has many explanations. Some might argue that the greater diversity due to invasive pressures made Southern Europe less cohesive and united. While Northern Europe also used to be overrun by invasions, civilized and barbarian, most of marauders were fellow light-skinned whites. So, Danes invading England and the English invading Ireland were all examples of all-in-the-family. Over time, such peoples could assimilate and become One people, hardly distinguishable from another unless one listened carefully to their accents. As such, most Northern Europeans remained remarkably similar in looks and temperament.
In contrast, Southern Europe wasn’t only invaded by other whites but, at times, by non-whites or Caucasian-non-Europeans(or the conquering Southern Europeans brought as slaves, merchants, or mercenaries non-whites from abroad). Much of the Balkans came under Ottoman rule. Turks ranged from whites to Semites to Central Asian folks. Much of Spain and parts of southern Italy once came under the domination of Moors, even some ghastly blackamoors who deigned to demand, "Where the white women at?" But even long before that, Greeks and Romans were constantly in contact with non-Europeans. Romans even imported slaves from Middle East and Africa. Some black Africans fought as gladiators and, as prized victors, even humped elite Roman women who had jungle fever. It is then not surprising that some Italians, especially in the South, look more like Arabs or North Africans than like Northern Europeans. And many swarthy Greeks look more like Turks or Arabs than light-skinned Europeans in England or Sweden. Given that Arabs and Africans may have lower IQ than Europeans, it meant race-mixing led to decreased intelligence among Southern Europeans. But even putting IQ aside, a people that have been invaded and inter-racially altered by invasions tend to lose a sense of unity of identity and purpose. This explains why multi-racial-caste societies like India and Latin America are so confused and messy. Many Mexicans don’t know if they’re white or indigenous. If Southern Europe got invaded at times by Arabs and Turks, Eastern Europe(especially Russia) was conquered by Mongols and other Asiatics. Even though Russian folks eventually regrouped and expelled the foreigners(and even conquered, in turn, their territories), the messy interaction with non-Europeans led to confused politics and history.
Things were even more problematic in Byzantine civilization that totally disintegrated and vanished from history. At the very least, Russia had a solid core Slavic population, culture, and territory. In contrast, Byzantine Empire was, from conception to demise, a patchwork mosaic of various ethnic groups that were united only by the cultural theme of Greco-Roman glory. But many of these peoples and their rulers were neither Roman nor Greek. An empire composed of peoples without a solid ethnic core, the politics degenerated into intrigues and led to dissipation. Much the same problem beset the Ottoman Empire where Turks dominated militarily but other groups dominated much else, especially in commerce. In contrast to all those empires beset with problems of Diversititis, Northern Europe was securer and more homogeneous, and it was more likely for a culture of conscience, trust, and honor to develop there. Anyway, historians and sociologists surely have many explanations as to the Great Divergence between the North and South in Europe, a phenomenon that has dogged Europe to this day.

Now, let’s consider another factor that may have led to the materialist rise of the North. The famous Max Weber argued that Protestant Work Ethic was a key factor in the industrial rise of the North. Protestantism may have also imbued Northerners with a clarity lacking among Catholics who became mired in monumentalism and idolatry. Because of the syncretism of paganism and Christianity, the Catholic-Southern tendency was to be overly impressed with things deemed miraculous, sacred, beautiful, and monumental. Such were not only aesthetically pleasing to the eyes but the very embodiment of greatness, awesomeness, power, and glory. It was the Building and the Bible, the Look and the Book. Vatican was filled with magnificent structures and huge collections of priceless art, therefore it must be the center of world power. The French became intoxicated with building wonderful things, like the palaces at Versailles. Surely a power housed in such architectural wonders had the blessing of God Himself. The Catholic immersion in rituals(involving various sacred objects) performed in grandiose buildings may have affected the way Catholics regarded political power and economics. After all, in Catholicism it wasn’t enough for you to have faith, no matter how sincere you were. To receive God’s grace, one had to go through an elaborate rigamarole of sacraments and rites. Relics might be involved too, and you believed in miracles manifesting themselves in the physical world, such as tears streaming down a Madonna statue or finding the face of Jesus on a morning toast. Such a mindset may have affected the Catholic conception of power and wealth as well. Thus, the Look of Power could have led to the overestimation of power. Style and facade could be mistaken for substance. In THE GODFATHER, neither Michael, Carlo, nor anyone else is particularly spiritual, but the baptism scene in the Church creates the impression of a culture steeped in religiosity, tradition, and morality. And yet, it is just an outer-shell that houses an emptiness and even elements of what some might call ‘satanism’.

This mentality also existed among aristocrats who, for the most part, preferred the Catholic realm to the Protestant one. After all, the Catholic penchant for pageantry complemented the aristocratic flair for ostentatious vanity. Excessive aesthetic narcissism was bound to be less approved in Protestant social orders where the prevailing cultural mode was to favor the spirit of the Book over the sparkling Look. And yet, aristocrats and quasi-aristocrats everywhere had a tendency toward fanciful displays of status and privilege. Talent and wealth were not enough. One had to have the right kind of look. So, the quasi-aristocrats of the American South were far more conscious of their looks, manners, and styles than the more buttoned-down bourgeois elites of the North. Because Southern elites were less restrained in displaying their wealth and privilege as a form of stagecraft, they could easily overestimate their power because they looked so good, especially in relation to the more utilitarian North. And yet, real power is a matter of substance and numbers, not style and aura. The fact is the North had many more people and a far bigger industrial base. Also, most of the new manpower in the form of European immigrants were entering the North. Imagine two sports teams. One not only has a powerful lineup but great depth in reserve players who can take over when the starters are exhausted. But their uniforms are plain, and they do NOT LOOK very impressive. In contrast, the other team has a solid starting line up but no depth in reserve players. But they are dressed in flashy uniforms that make them look so amazing. Now, which team will likely win? Despite marketing hype, wearing Air Jordans doesn't make you a Michael Jordan. It is indeed telling that, over the years, military uniforms got less & less ornamental and more & more utilitarian until the modern soldiers were dressed and fitted only with practicality & efficiency as considerations. But for much of human history, there was great emphasis on the LOOK of power. Were those plumes on top of Greek and Roman helmets really useful? Did wearing feathered-wings serve any real purpose among the Polish Hussars on horseback?
Why did so many militaries throughout history don or equip themselves with appendages that had no clear use in battle. Indeed, such ancillary fittings could very well be an hindrance. While an Ancient Greek helmet looks nice with stuff on top, it is simply added target for the enemy who could mess up the helmet by taking a swipe at what is on top of it. And on gusty days, the winged gear on a Polish hussar would created more wind resistance. And in close quarter-fighting, it would be something an opponent could grab to pull the hussar to the ground. But for much of human history, wars were monopolized by kings and aristocrats than by entire peoples and nations and, as such, were far more limited affairs, often more like sports games than full-on total war, the aim of which was to totally crush and vanquish an enemy. The vanity of the aristocrats to look impressive and their code of honor created and sustained an agreed upon set of formalities. Aristocrats regarded themselves as having ‘evolved’ and elevated from the brutish ways of their barbarian ancestors who fought more like beasts than men. And as long as the aristocratic order prevailed, warfare could be managed as elaborate rites with the usual fanfare. But the rise of industry and big guns, the formation of mass national armies(far bigger than anything in the age of aristocracy), and the nature of conflict as Total War changed all the dynamics of warfare.
It’s telling that, even up to World War I, German soldiers still had spikes on their helmets. But then, World War I was the last great war of the aristocrats, indeed the great war that brought down all aristocratic orders.

Anyway, a Catholic is more likely to be impressed by the looks of things because his religious practice combined spirituality and materiality, i.e. certain things, big or small, are thought to glow with the aura of power and magic. So, if a Cathedral is to be built, immense amounts of energy and wealth must be devoted to make it look as good as possible. And it wasn’t enough to be rich. One had to show off one’s wealth in ostentatious display, like with those haciendas in Latin America. Quite often, a richer Protestant German or Anglo-American might live in a house that was more modest than the giant mansion of a Catholic oligarch in Spain or Latin America(or, for that matter, a Russian aristocratic prior to the Bolshevik Revolution). To the naked eye, it could easily appear as thought the Latin or Russian guy is richer and more powerful than the German or Anglo guys, but that is seeing the suit than the wallet. Both Catholicism and Russian Orthodox encouraged a mental habit that favored Look-keeping than Book-keeping. Consider the ridiculous figures of Evita Peron and Imelda Marcos who were more obsessed with national image than national industry. But among Latinos, it wasn’t just the women but the men too.

In more recent times, Vladimir Putin, though sensible on many matters, wasted too much time and energy on White Elephant projects like the Sochi Winter Olympics. And even though it’s a good thing for Russia to revive its traditions and build more Orthodox Churches, that won’t change the fact that Russia continues to be woefully underachieving despite its population and land mass with bountiful resources.

In contrast, Protestantism purged from the Northern soul the endless fascination with the magical aura of things. There was no need for Protestants to obsess over sacred relics. And religious rituals were pared down to a minimum. And most churches were designed to be basic and spartan. The purpose of a church was not to feature nice-looking things but to emphasize the need for devotion and prayer to God. Thus de-sacralized in mind and senses, Northern Protestants were bound to take a harder and colder look at the material world. Their perceptions became more utilitarian and practical. In the end, what mattered was, "What can this or that do?" So, even though a cathedral or a palace in a Catholic kingdom was far more impressive than a factory in Manchester, it was the latter that build cannons, ships, and trains whereas cathedrals and palaces, like the Egyptian Pyramids, served no worldly purpose. Over time, Northern Protestants became more materialist in their thinking, i.e. they had a more empirical, rational, practical, and technological relation with the world around them. And yet, being more materialist made them less materialistic. Having a cold-eyed and rational view of the world means valuing materials as things than as treasures.
Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe in the ‘miraculous’ value of things. So, a certain relic isn’t just some thing but a sacred object glowing with mysterious divine force. Consider the mysticism that shrouds a certain house in a placed called the Zone in Andrei Tarkovsky’s STALKER. While believing in miracles is a spiritual idea, it can easily be transferred to the material world. Even on the secular level, someone whose mental habits and sensual inclinations are steeped in the Catholic way of thinking-and-feeling is likely to be more enamored of the glittery glamour of precious items like jewelry, fancy dress, expensive cars, and luxurious mansions. The Catholicist mind, having been inculcated into seeing certain things as sacred and miraculous, is more likely to be enticed by the razzle-dazzle of precious objects. It is more likely to be into the celebration of ‘bling’. And such mentality still dogs so much of Latin America where a person or thing is more likely to be judged by his/its image than by his/its real substance. This made them more materialistic.

The appeal of Marxism to many Latin-American intellectuals may have owed to a subconscious sense on their part that the Latin soul must be reformed of Catholicist idolatry. Thus, Marxism was like a secular Protestant Reformation movement for Spanish and Latin American intellectuals. And yet, there was also a Catholicist appeal to communism, especially after the Soviet Union transformed the ideology from a spartan movement for worker justice to a grandiloquent crusade with new gods, prophets, saints, sacraments, rituals, and pageantry. Even as communist nations stressed the simple life and virtue of hard work, they spent exorbitant sums to put on massive displays that made the Catholic Church blush. Indeed, at the very end of the Soviet Union, the two things it still had left were massive spectacles and a program to win lots of ‘blings’ at the Olympics. Impressive as a white elephant but dead as an economic elephant. And to this day, Russia pays too much attention to image, symbolism, and monuments than to the real factors that lead to greatest development in science, technology, and industry. Russia will host World Cup Soccer in 2018. More wasteful expenditure on what amounts to little more than White Elephant Dung.

In contrast to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, Protestantism had little use for relics, icons, displays, pageantry, rites & rituals, and spectacles. This made Protestantism a duller religion to the eye. But by de-sanctifying objects and materiality, a purer form of spirituality was possible. Piety and faith in Protestantism didn’t rely on one’s communion or interaction with tangible objects deemed holy. Granted, there developed several sects(or denominations) of Protestantism, and some were rather close to Catholicism in practice. Still, the essence of Protestantism was a return to the spiritual essence of Jesus’ teachings divorced from paganesque idolatry(the result of syncretism of Christianity with Roman paganism and even elements of Germanic paganism) and the institutionalized power of Church bureaucracy manned, especially at the top, by clergy with close associations with the rich and powerful(like the Medicis or the fictional Corleones). With Catholics, wine and wafers(bread-like crackers) could be the blood and body of Jesus Himself. Holy Water, when sprinkled on a demon-possessed girl, could make her cuss and vomit. Catholic women held onto Rosaries like security blankets. Entire buildings could be blessed or sacred. Among Orthodox folks, possessing a certain icon was like having a prized baseball card worth big bucks. Poles have a thing for the Black Madonna(not to be confused with mudshark madonna), one of the most sacred objects for them both historically and spiritually.
In contrast, Protestant denominations had either far less need or no need at all for such ‘trifles’ that were either considered to be distracting or condemned as idolatrous superstition.

It is understandable why Protestantism caught on more in the North than in the South. Not only was Martin Luther a German but the North had a meager legacy in High Paganism. In ancient times, paganism in the South meant the awesome achievements of Greco-Roman civilization, whereas paganism in the North meant fur-clad ruffians drinking mead, sharing wash-basins, and acting like Conan the Barbarian. So, Catholicism was proud to develop as a fusion of High Paganism and High Spirituality. The North, lacking such a rich pagan legacy, was bound to feel envious. This isn’t to say Martin Luther and his followers weren’t sincere in their moral dissent against the Church, but it couldn’t have been an accident that Protestantism spread most fervently among the Germanic folks. Being poor in cultural legacy vis-a-vis the European South, they sought compensation via greater purity in spiritual devotion. After all, the spirit is the great equalizer. As Jesus said, a poor man who is good of heart is richer in spirit than the richest man who is weak in faith.

The result of Protestantism was a devaluing of the sacredness of objects. So, one shouldn’t seek sacred value in things, buildings, and possessions. Spirituality could only be found through the heart. It was a matter of the soul. Thus, the world, having been detached from spirituality, could be seen with a clearer, more empirical, pair of eyes. A thing was just that thing than some ‘blessed’ or ‘cursed’ object. (Perhaps, a latent force in English Romanticism was a neo-quasi-Catholicist vision of the world as filled with sacredness in enraged reaction to the Industrial Revolution set off by empirical use of science, technology, and economics.) In Andrei Tarkovksy’s Orthodox worldview, even dead things can be imbued with the ‘miracle’. Even if Tarkovsky didn’t literally believe in hocus-pocus, his way of seeing the world was steeped in the Orthodox view of the world of God’s creation and the latent paganist view of Mother Russia. So, even though THE SACRIFICE is set in Protestant or post-religious Sweden, it is characterized by a Slavicist world-view of salvation-redemption-reclamation through faith not only in God but in the sanctity of things. The final image is of a child who waters a dead tree in the hope that it will come to life. Of course, it’s impossible, and Tarkovsky knew it himself, but there’s a sense that without such hopes and dreams, mankind is lost, surrounded by objects devoid of spirit. (This idea was transposed, ridiculously I think, to BLADE RUNNER 2049 where we are supposed to believe that android Rachel underwent some kind of ‘miracle’ in giving birth to a kibbler, LOL.) In Tarkovsky’s penultimate film NOSTALGHIA, his alter ego, a Russian expatriate in Italy, clearly feels more at home near Church ruins and with a madman than with modernity and modern people. The lost world of Catholic structures and traditions reminds the main character of Mother Russia, parts of which managed to survive materialist communism. But capitalism is materialist too, and the Russian expatriate cannot relate to the ‘liberated’ Italian woman who serves as his guide. Modernity reveres nothing but the instant demands of the self. He later encounters a madman who, though clearly unbalanced and even dangerous, is touched by a moral-spiritual vision beyond the material and sensual wants of day-to-day existence. To Tarkovsky, the threat of Nuclear War wasn’t only about countless lives lost, ruined environment, and fallen economies. It is an act of crime against God, against all that is holy. It's an extension of his take on the mind-planet(or soul-planet) in SOLARIS. It is seen as a heavenly repository of memories, dreams, remorse, and longing that make up the human soul. Therefore, it must be left alone than intruded upon and 'abused' by science-and-technology in search for ‘material’ truth.

While there is great beauty in the Catholicist and Orthodox vision(albeit more subdued and somber) of the sacredness of things of the world and the world itself, it is a form of mega-idolatry in affixing spirituality to materiality. If spirit is beyond body and things, why should it be so powerfully manifested in tangible things, especially when the Genesis speaks of the Original Sin and the fall of Eden? And didn’t Jesus stress the heart above all else? He wasn’t impressed by palaces, fancy dress, arts & culture, and monuments. He didn’t much care for Jewish rites and rituals. (One wonders if Judaism would have developed into something closer to Catholicism — a syncretism of idolatrous paganism and spiritualist faith — IF the Jews had been allowed to remain in Jerusalem. Herod, a collaborationist overlord with the pagan Romans, was a great builder who spent lavishly on making the Jewish World resemble something like the Vatican or Mecca. But Jews were soon thereafter driven into exile, and their religion could survive only as a matter of blood, spirit, and word. In a way, they had to become more Protestant-like. Their wealth had to be conceived of as a kind of 'spirit' of financial matter, as free-flowing currency.) Nor did Jesus think less of others because of dress, wealth, status, or health. According to Christianity, the ugliest, most wretched, and most foul-looking creature is nobler than the most beautiful, richest, and reputable(by prevailing social standards) person IF the former is devoted to God and Truth while the latter is obsessed with one’s own fame & fortune. So, the spirit is not to be judged by body, material forms, and adornments.
Spirit is also deeper than the Word that could be used charlatans and Devil himself. After all, the Serpent used words to entice Eve into eating from the Tree of the Forbidden Knowledge. While God communicates His message through words to the Prophets, truth is deeper than words. (Also, as God grows more silent in the later passages of the Bible, His voice/words aren't so much to be heard through the ears than discovered from the wellspring of the soul.) It’s like Socrates warned against pseudo-philosophers who are clever in their use of words but devoid of integrity and meaning. Thus, there is a sense in Protestantism that the deepest prayer is not about songs/music or spoken prayers but silence itself. Though Martin Scoresese’s THE SILENCE is based on a novel by a Japanese Catholic author Endo Shusaku, it’s interesting that the protagonist finds a deeper truth in the dark silence so far removed from the comfort zone of Catholic Spain. While in Spain, every Church, every hymn, every prayer, every ritual, and every sermon assured the priest of the rightness of God and Jesus. It is away from such comfort zone that the priest is confronted with the possibility of either the absence of God or the weakness of his faith(or the uselessness of his faith to do any good for the suffering Converts). He went from a world where Christian Godliness is a symphony filling up every square inch of space to a world of Silence where the Faith is concerned. Silence can mean absence but can also suggest the need to dig deeper until a well is struck and the water starts to flow once again.

Protestantism has a better grasp of the significance of this Silence because, ideally speaking, a Protestant is not to be distracted by the physical manifestations of holiness, which are to be rejected as forms of idolatry. And some Protestant sects were even distrustful of music as overly sensual — the Taliban would have agreed — and recited their hymns in rhythmic verse than in song. In BABETTE’S FEAST, we see the muted clash of cultures between the French woman who can cook up a feast for the senses AND a small Danish Protestant community that is accustomed to a spartan & stoic existence(though to be sure, the contrast is also between urban and rural). Babette is a contradiction of sorts. She’s sympathetic to the Revolutionaries, but her talent in the culinary arts is downright royal-aristocratic. (In a way, the French Revolution had themes similar to Luther’s rebellion against the overly corrupt and ostentatious Catholic Church. Especially Robespierre was quasi-Protestant in his puritanical insistence and radical commitment to the Revolution. As a movement that would bring about justice for common folks, his revolution was against the entirety of Catholicist-Aristocratic tradition that had brought forth so much glory and beauty[as well as pomposity and arrogance] to French Culture.) Babette is a refugee from the Counter-Revolution that restored the haute privileges of the French aristocracy that made possible the fancy cooking she specializes in. After all, your average French peasant or worker for most of history never ate fancy French cooking, no more than an average Chinaman ate Mandarin dishes fit for an emperor. To stay on the straight and narrow path, one must not only direct one’s gaze at the true prize — spiritual union with God — but be mindful not to fall into temptation of worldly pleasures that makes people value the temporal over the eternal.

Protestantism’s insistence on purity and simplicity in the practice of Faith had wider cultural ramifications. A spiritual-moral culture that disdained glitter-n-glamour in religious expression was bound to affect all spheres of life, especially as religion was the moral core of traditional European culture. Thus, keeping things moderate, modest, and restrained in strict adherence to the true spirit of the God and Jesus was bound to favor things that were less colorful and flavorful in art & architecture, dress & design, music & dance, and food & wine.
Given this reality, one might think the Catholic societies would have spearheaded the economic explosion that came to be known as the Industrial Revolution. After all, if Protestant sensibility is about moderation and self-denial, why would there be a need to produce more and more goods? After all, the Spartan economy was smaller than that of the Athenian economy that was far less restrained in goods and services. Athenians loved to trade and sought out ever greater trade routes. Athenians loved to create, possess, and display glorious and beautiful things. Spartans interacted with non-Spartans only to the extent that it was necessary to maintain Spartan power and local hegemony.

If Catholics were less restrained than Protestants in their taste for glamour-n-glitter(so opulently on display in the Catholic Church), wouldn’t such a culture of ‘avarice’ and ostentation have kicked off a culture of mass consumption? After all, whenever Latin folks, whether in Europe or South America, got a bit of cash, they were far less hesitant to spend it on food, clothing, jewelry, and etc. Latin America was far less developed than North America, but the Latin American rich loved to make a big show of their wealth and privilege, like the Sosa character in SCARFACE. Or consider the crass Evita Peron.

Perhaps part of Che Guevara’s appeal was he was such a severe and spartan figure among the Latins. In a way, Marxism-Leninism was a secular Protestantism for the Latins. The modern world was too ‘enlightened’ for religious faith, and so, the educated reformers and radicals no longer put their faith in God. As such, it would have made little sense for them to convert to Protestantism to combat the entrenched corrupt system of the alliance among the monarchy, oligarchy, and the Catholic clergy. So, what was there as a purifying fire? Marxism-Leninism that called for the renunciation of wealth and privilege in the name of Justice for the Salt of the Earth. Granted, Catholic Church had long emphasized the need to take care of the poor, but the have-nots were regarded with condescension. Also, the idea was that the poor should not complain, remain meek, and hope for charity from the Church funded by crumbs from the corrupt rich. So, why not eradicate all that with the Revolutionary Fire?

The fact that Mussolini won in Italy and Franco won in Spain(and the fact that most of Latin America was ruled by right-wing oligarchs and quasi-fascists) suggests that the Latin character generally favors flavor and flamboyance over sparse and spartan commitment to truth & justice. And even Fidel Castro, despite his communist victory in Cuba, borrowed a style that was closer to Mussolini than Lenin or Stalin. Also, the ‘left’ that finally triumphed in Spain was Homomania, a neo-religion that even outdid the Catholic Church in pageantry and spectacle. The face of Spanish ‘progress’ has been what? The movies of Pedro Almodovar. Well, whoopity poopity-doo.

And what accounted for the success of Hugo Chavez? He didn’t call for more sacrifice and hard work, as Che Guevara had done. Instead, flush with oil money, he promised festival-para-todos. And it wasn’t long before Che Guevara was turned into an icon for every kind of ‘bling’. Che’s severe spartanism — he thought the North Korean model that marched people to and from work was the ‘most impressive’ — suggests that he was well-aware that the Latin Way had failed in contrast to the Yanqui Way. Of course, his Latin pride was loathe to admit that it had less to do with Northern exploitation of the South(in Europe and Americas) than with different modes of thought, values, and behavior. Still, he obviously felt that something radical was necessary in order to defend and develop Latin America independent of Yanqui imperialist meddling. And he thought the answer lay in what he called Moral Incentive, his own version of the Protestant Work Ethic. If an entire people devoted themselves to self-sacrificing hard work for the common good, they could catch up to the capitalist West and spread their model as the ideal one for all the world. But what Che Guevara, along with so many leftist radicals, failed to understand was that the success of the Anglo-Germanic North had to do with a strange combination of Self-Denial and Individual Ambition. This blend wasn’t easy to come by because it necessitated the melding of two conflicting and seemingly incompatible thought systems. After all, Protestantism stressed, far more than Catholicism, the virtue of the simple life, self-restraint & self-denial, moderation, and thrift. But how could such virtues ever lead to much wealth? For one thing, it led to a culture of higher conscience that led to a culture of greater trust that was an advantage to contracts and business. Also, the focus on virtue meant a stronger will to do a good job. Just as one had to serve God with purity of heart, one had to apply one’s skills to work with conscientiousness. This did wonders for productivity(which must precede consumption, as in the ant-and-grasshopper story). Moderation meant less likelihood of revelry and other self-destructive behaviors that could blow away one’s earnings or lead to dissipation that gnaws away at Work Ethic. Thrift also meant saving more for a rainy day than spending for here-and-now(and this necessitated access to foreign markets as the domestic market remained suppressed by the ideal of thrift and self-discipline, surely one reason why the Brits were eager to sell opium to the Chinese but not to their own kind). Also, the notion that one’s relation to God was essentially direct and personal was bound to have a liberating effect on the individual. If faith is a matter of individual conscience than of institutional dogma, then one could stand taller before God. Obviously, the Protestant North didn’t plan any of these outcomes, but they did result from ‘accidental’ intersections and interactions of various, often clashing, outlooks and modes of thought.

But it is possible that the economic rise of the North also owed to the de-mystification of the material world as the result of Protestant influence. Under such conditions, people are more likely to take a cold and hard-nosed look at reality. Indeed, consider Italy and UK in the 1920s and 1930s. Great Britain was far more powerful than Fascist Italy, but Mussolini put on a good show to impress the world. He acted as if the Roman Empire was back when, in fact, Italy was a paper tiger that, when push came to shove, couldn’t even defeat Greece. The humiliated Italians had to be bailed out by Germans who did the invasion of Greeks and then pretended the Italians were lords over Greece. Fascist Italy was not the Roman Order that had once easily conquer its neighbors. But why were so many Italians so willing to fall for Mussolini’s grand delusion and swindle? Why was Mussolini himself so prone to fall for his own myths? Why did the later Fellini coast on his stale razzle-dazzle phantasmagoria to prop up the myth of his genius that had all but faded? Amusingly enough, JULIET OF THE SPIRITS is everything that it attacks. It mocks Catholic Church’s culture of hyperbole & hysterics that instilled innocent young girls with sexual complexes, but the entire film is a shameless ritual of props and stagecraft as substitute for art and meaning. Likewise, FELLINI SATYRICON’s condemnation of the excesses of pagan Roma could just as easily apply to Fellini himself who had, by then, become the absurd Nero among film-makers. For a more sincere delving into truth, there were the Swedish greats Ingmar Bergman and Jan Troell. To many people, Bergman may be most well-known for FANNY AND ALEXANDER, his most Fellini-esque film, but his artistic reputation rests on the stark b/w films of the 50s and 60s. And it’s difficult to think of a more honest film-maker than Troell who worked on his films like a wood-carver with a log, sure and steady. Granted, Catholic Italy also produced neo-realism, Roberto Rossellini, and Ermano Olmi. And Robert Bresson the French Catholic made some of the most stylistically austere films ever, as different from Fellini, Bertolucci, Leone, and Ophuls(Jewish) as the films of Carl Dreyer are. Still, one can help but notice certain general tendencies among cultural sensibilities. It seems fitting that Fellini was Italian than Swedish and Bergman was Swedish than Italian.

Does any of this matter anymore in our globalized world where all of Europe seems to be coming under the mono-culture of Judeo-Afro-Homo domination? Is there a culture of Work Ethic anymore in Great Britain where too many young people act like loutish boors and feel no shame about getting drunk and falling all over the streets? Is there any meaningful difference between the French and Americans when most French kids grow up listening to Rap and watching Hollywood movies? Do blacks in France conform to French culture or to globalized American culture where the only things that matter are Jewish chutzpah, Negro muscle & music, and homo vanity & narcissism? With the ongoing Africanization of Sweden, a nation already remade by demented feminism, homomania, and cuckery, would it make sense to even speak of a distinct Swedishness in decades to come, especially when many Swedish elites insist there is no such thing as ‘Swedish Culture’ and appoint idiotic non-Swedes to be caretakers of national heritage? Maybe not, but the lingering differences between the European North and European South can still be traced back to the contrasting cultural legacies(as well as genetic factors as Southern Europe tends to be mixed partly with North African and/or Near Eastern blood AND as Eastern Europe tends to be mixed more with Turkic and/or Asiatic blood). Of course, Europe a hundred years from now could be a very different place given current demographic trends. Most of Western Europe, from top to bottom, could become like a big version of Morocco. Eastern Europe might avoid such fate if it holds onto its current nationalist mode, but even Eastern Europe fails to understand that the biggest threat comes not from the Muslim world but from the black African world. But because of PC that lionizes blacks as Special Victims(along with Jews and homos), there is a rhetorical reluctance to address the issue of saving Europe from ghastly ‘groids’. After all, while it’s still permissible in the globalist media to speak ill of Muslims, raising alarms about blacks is akin to ‘antisemitism’ or 'homophobia'. It is Taboo. Furthermore, due to American cultural hegemony(which is basically Jewish, Homo, and Negro), many people in Eastern Europe sincerely have an overly romanticized and favorable impression of blacks as both the most Noble Race and the Coolest race. So, even as Poles make big noise about defending their nation from Muslims, they go out of their way to prove that they are ‘progressive’, ‘tolerant’, ‘anti-racist’, and onboard with ‘Western Values’ by welcoming and celebrating ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. THAT could be the undoing of Poland. Because Jews control the media, Narrative, and Idolatry-Iconography, they get to decide which groups are most protected by taboos and most blessed with secular sacraments.

Anyway, the Protestant North, with its de-mystified view of the world, was bound to focus more on real work and real wealth. Since the world around them could not be prized as magical or miraculous, it could only be assessed in material terms. A factory had material value in producing stuff. And stuff had material value as weapons, ships, trains, and machines. In the end, it was Prussian hardware that overwhelmed Austro-Hungarian grandeur. The Austrians had nice palaces and cathedrals. To the naked eye, the Austrian world would have seemed more awesome. But when it came down to actual battles, victory was decided by better soldiers, better discipline, better weapons, and better transport. Material Substance always wins over Magical Style.

Protestantism allowed for higher conscience of mind and harder concentration of matter. The Protestant mind tended to be less ‘superstitious’, less bound to matters of style. It was more matter-of-fact and cold-eyed in the assessment of power and value. The Chinese and Hindus were also slower to modernize because their world-views were wrapped up in magic, mysticism, and ‘superstition’. Hindus literally believed in the existence of a million gods that animated the universe; they believed that all of life was governed by this force called Karma. And for the Chinese, the idea of Tao was not just a metaphor but a real forced that maintained balance in the world. And they believed that the rulers of China, with the Mandate of Heaven, were divinely ordained to sustain the harmony in what they considered to the Middle Kingdom. With such magical force favoring China, there was no way that a bunch of Anglos, seen as a race of pirates, could do anything real to harm China. But then, there was a series of rude awakenings. Because the Chinese/Manchu elites were secluded in their own la-la-land inside the Forbidden City, they’d developed a habit of favoring fantasy over reality like Elvis Presley in Graceland and Michael Jackson in Neverland. So, how did such an elite deluded with so much mysticism manage to rule over such a vast imperial kingdom for so long? Because the fantasy was shared by a vast bureaucracy and also by the masses of minions whose social habits and emotional tendency were toward servility, conformity, and superstition. Collective fantasy buttressed elite fantasy. It appears some peoples/cultures are more prone to fantasy. Consider the Magic Realism of Latin American writers and film-makers like Guillermo Del Toro(that vile piece of turdez).

So, there were obvious advantages to being part of the Northern Protestant order. Indeed, even much of Russian modernization and industrialization in the late 19th century and early 20th century owed to German engineers, managers, and military personnel. As for France, its fate increasingly became sandwiched between Protestant UK and Protestant Germany that fast outpaced France in heavy industry.
And in the New World, the Protestant North America outshone Catholic Latin America in almost every respect. (Perhaps, certain Latin American nations held their own at least in literature.) For the Northerners, spirituality belonged to the realm of soul whereas materiality belonged to the world of matter. There was less confusion on such matters as the two realms was segregated in a kind of mental caste system. If you wanted Salvation and Redemption, you prayed with your soul to God. If you wanted to make it in the material world, you needed to make real empirical discoveries, build things of genuine utility, or accumulate real wealth backed by legal contracts. There was little room for hocus-pocus ‘superstition’ that confused materiality with spirituality.

Granted, this didn’t necessarily mean a lack of imagination, as the British excelled in literature and fantasy genre. But the magical and mythical were reserved for the world of fiction. They were understood to be imaginary. At best, they could be poetic or visionary, but they were still not real. Then, it is understandable why the two greatest movements of 19th century Romanticism happened in Protestant UK and Protestant Germany. Protestants were hungrier to find the magical and mythical in art, fiction, and music because their spirit world remained locked within the soul. Because the material world wasn’t imbued with magic or miracles in the Protestant world-view(as it was in the Catholic world), things had value in terms of utility and cause-and-effect. But the human mind craves for the mythic and fantastic, and for the Protestant-minded folks, such could only be imagined via the realm of fiction. Even as Protestant imagination could be expansive, there was a clear boundary between fact and fiction.
In contrast, the Catholic world-view was more ‘magic-realist’, radiant with faith in miracles in the material world all around us. Thus, if vision in the eyes of a Protestant meant a leap of imagination or insight, it could mean a divine revelation to the naked eye of a Catholic. And this made the Catholics more ‘superstitious’ and less rational on the actual worth of things. Suppose there is a sword made of inferior metal that isn’t of much use in battle BUT it’s been said to be sacred. The cult of miraculous-matter will blind the Catholic to the real (lack of)value of the sword. It’s like Alec Guinness’s character of King Feisal in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA would rather dream of the lost gardens of Cordoba and hope for miracles.

One may argue that the Protestant de-consecration(later to be followed by the secular form of Deconstruction) of the world led to horrible abuses and exploitation as the world was no longer seen as sacred. Even though the idea of the fallen state of the world is intrinsic to the entirety of the Biblical text, there was nevertheless a modicum of miraculousness in the Jewish and Catholic view of the tangible world, even if, paradoxically enough, for opposite reasons. The strict Jewish prohibition against idolatry and worship of graven images implies that Jews regarded God’s Creation to be so special and unique that it shouldn’t be ‘mocked’ by the creative hubris & vanity of man. In other words, don’t think Creativity can ever come near Creation. In contrast, Catholics grew attached to the miraculousness of the world by way of syncretizing Christianity with pagan idolatry. To be a Catholic means to revere the rites and rituals performed with the aid of certain holy vessels.

Unlike Jews and Catholics, Protestant world-view was barren of the miraculous(though it may also have owed to Northern Temperament shaped by long stretches of cold weather, long dark winters that seem to last forever, and overcast clouds and mist). It was not a place to pep up one’s spirits. As such, one could argue that the Protestants were less mindful of the damage they did to nature and the social order. Everything was measured in terms of utility and material advantage.
And yet, the magical view of the world could also have a dark side. Consider Jewish hatred of pigs and Muslim hatred of dogs. If some things in the world could be sacred, other things could be cursed or wicked. Because Muslims have such a negative view of dogs, they treat man's best friend most terribly. And because Ultra-Orthodox Jews regard pigs as not only physically unclean but spiritually polluted, they fail to appreciate the wondrousness of pigs as our brothers and sisters.
After all, God Himself could create the world to be a holy place or set out to destroy it as a cursed place. If the world is seen magically, it could be seen as one of the ‘good witch’ or the ‘wicked witch’, as the Land of Oz. So, while magical thinking can make one better appreciate things of the world, it can also make one hate them more as well. If certain items can be considered holy and pure, other items can be considered wicked and evil. Snakes were surely a big loser in the Biblical Sweepstakes. Because of the Serpent’s role in the story of Eden, many Jews and Christians came to regard snakes as a wicked animal that should be killed at first sight. Also, magical thinking can transfer from the spiritual to the material. Think of the Conquistadores who sought out El Dorado as the City of Gold or the Fountain of Youth in the New World. Men steeped in Catholicist magical thinking sought out heaven-on-earth, as if indeed there might really be a city where streets are paved with gold or a place with water that serve man’s vanity to be forever young. So, even as a magical view of the world can allow for greater appreciation, it can also foster a superstitious outlook that can lead to loathing of so much as wicked, satanic, or cursed. After all, if a thing can be blessed by good spirits, so can it be cursed by evil spirits. And the Catholic World had more of a superstitious view of the world, and this often hampered clarity of thought necessary for rational interaction with reality.
Also, people who tend to believe in magical-materiality are prone to focus more on possession than usage. For instance, if you believe you possess a magic sword, you may be less motivated in learning how to use it. You will more likely to safeguard it in the belief that the mere ownership of the weapon empowers you and your side. But as Uther and Arthur learn in EXCALIBUR, mere ownership isn’t sufficient to be a good ruler. It’s all about why, when, and how it is used. The Japanese, with their myth of a sacred island nation protected by gods of wind and water, failed to rationally assess the danger of picking a fight with the US with a bigger population and far greater material resources(and advanced technology). Protestantism, by de-consecrating materiality, stressed the greater importance on the mastery over materiality. It wasn’t enough to own something. It was about how it can be used according to the cold hard facts of laws of physics.

At any rate, both the Catholic and Protestant worlds have lost their faith and are now under the spell of neo-pagan idolatry of Pop Culture, Homomania, and Diversity-Propaganda(aka ‘More Restaurants’, that is until the foreigners who bring new restaurants to your nation come to eventually devour your nation as feast for demographic imperialism). There is no longer any clarity in the minds of Protestants.
Also, Pop Culture has gone from being entertainment to new myths and neo-religions. Due to movies like GREEN MILE and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, there is a sense among many white folks that blacks are a sacred race, the chosen of god if not god hisself. And Oprah is like a black madonna to countless soulless moron women. Whenever someone, black or non-black, wants to sound holy-schmoly, they recite a quote from Maya Angelou or Toni Morrison(like Old Time Bible Thumpers used to recite quotes from the Bible to validate their positions). And MLK, who really should be remembered as Fartin Poother Bling, is now bigger than God. And Mandela is the holiest figure in all of Europe. And so many whites fainted left and right at the sight of Obama as The One in the 2008 election cycle.
When white folks, Catholic or Protestant, are not worshiping Negroes, they are just wild about homos and trannies. For these morally and spiritually bankrupt dufuses, the great moral theme of our age is making sure that homos get to ‘marry’ and have bakers make a ‘wedding cake’ for them. And of course, Jews, via control of media, academia, and whore politicians in governments all across Europe, have elevated themselves to a bunch of little jesuses of the Holocaust Cult. Worship the Jews, adore Anne Frank as the new madonna, build more and more Holocaust monuments, make more and more days a ‘day of remembrance’ for the Holocaust, and enforce Taboos on anyone who dares to ‘deny’ the Official Narrative of Shoah. And ANYTHING must be done to prevent another Holocaust. So, if 6 million Arabs must be killed to prevent Another Holocaust, it must be done. If 60 million Europeans must be killed to prevent Another Holocaust, it must be done. If 600 million gentiles must be sacrificed to prevent Another Holocaust, so it must be done. After all, if Jews are indeed so holy-shmoly, then a single Jewish life is infinitely more precious than any number of goy lives. Just ask the Palestinians how this logic works.

Every advantage has a disadvantage, and what had once been so advantageous to Protestantism is now a disadvantage in our post-religious world. Today, it’s fair to say that the majority of Protestants and Catholics don’t literally believe in the Bible. So, what is really left to keep the cult of faith going? At the very least, Catholicism still has its elaborate rites and rituals that provide form, guidance, structure, and spectacle. Even if one doesn’t believe in the actual creed, one can still be impressed by the grandeur and tradition. One may look upon such and feel it’s worthy of preservation because of its rich history and heritage. So, one doesn’t really have to believe-believe to find reasons to remain within the Catholic(or Orthodox) faith. There is the Tradition Thing, so rich in art, culture, and rituals.

In contrast, Protestantism staked everything on the purity of faith. So, as long as Protestants truly believed in God and the holy spirit, they had the advantage of higher conscience, devotion, and commitment. They were nearer to God as they were less reliant on the clergy as bureaucratic medium between man and God. But, what happens when the well of faith goes dry? What happens when most Protestants don’t really believe in the existence of God or aren’t really sure? Without that element of faith, Protestantism seems empty and barren. This was powerfully depicted in Ingmar Bergman’s WINTER LIGHT(aka THE COMMUNICANTS, ironically suggesting lack of communication between man and God). To a true man of faith, spirit alone may be enough or, better yet, a more effective path to God’s grace because he is unencumbered by the Magical-Materiality of Catholicism that ‘overly’ stresses the need to ‘toy’ with sacred items that a Protestant might look upon as akin to magic wands and rabbit’s foot collected by kids. But once the faith dries up, what does a Protestant have? When he believed, he could hear within the Silence the deep murmurings of God. But without faith, Silence just becomes silence, a nothingness. One can be a Catholic or Orthodox of Tradition even without literal faith in God, but it’s hard to be a Protestant of Tradition because the main stress has always been on purity of faith than on upkeep of heritage, rituals, and ceremonies(that had been kept to a minimum).

Now, an honest Protestant will just leave the faith and declare himself secular. But what about those who insist on remaining in the Church. Then, there are only two ways. One is the willfully dumb Evangelical way of saying NO to science and pretending that, yes, Noah had co-existed with dinosaurs and the world is only 6,000 to 10,000 yrs old. But to reject obvious scientific facts and cling to such willful ignorance leads to infantilization of the mind, and this is surely true of most Evangelicals, which is why they are such easy suckers manipulated by cunning Zionists.
The OTHER way is for Protestants to seek out new pseudo-sacred causes as substitute for faith in God whom they no longer truly believe. So, what remains of Mainline Protestant churches is mostly mindless commitment to fads and fashions like the neo-religion of Homomania or Queertianity(or SJC, Satanic Jewish christianity).