The famous Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in the classic ART OF WAR--reputedly the first book on military strategy--,
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."Now, I'm of the opinion that the ART OF WAR hasn't been of much value in imparting practical military advice. Why else would China have fared so badly against so many enemies in wars throuhout the ages? China lasted as long as it did because its larger population tended to absorb the invaders--who were usually Asiatic themselves--, its culture was more advanced than those of invaders--thus encouraging invaders to adopt Chinese culture--, and its geographical isolation from rest of the world due to oceans, vast deserts, extensive mountain ranges, and freezing tundras. Of course, there were periods in Chinese history when the Chinese were very powerful and adventurous, and so, in that light, one could argue that geographical factors protected the world from Chinese power as well.
Paradoxically, the vastness of China may have been a factor in ensuring that its failure or unwillingness to be a world power. It also owed to the political culture of China. Chinese politics idealized the centralized state ruled by a single emperor and micro-managed by a vast bureaucracy. And the members of the bureaucracy were chosen from the literati, the highly educated men of letters. Thus, the Chinese Imperial domain was both politically and culturally centralized. It wasn't enough for bureaucrats to be competent at management, governance, or leadership. They had to be steeped in Chinese language, manners, and culture. They had to be perfect gentlemen. China was like one giant family empire, and some academics have even characterized the essence of Chinese history, culture, and politics as
'familism'. Such emphasis on familism made the Chinese prefer not only being ruled by their own kind but ruling over their own kind. Chinese believed in a social order where everyone from the mighty emperor--with the Mandate of Heaven--to the lowest peasant was part of a unified and holistic order of Chinese-ness.
If the Chinese state had been sufficiently small, ambition might have gotten the better of the Chinese, and the Chinese might have ventured abroad to forge an empire in which Chinese might rule over non-Chinese. But as it happened, China itself was 'too big', and so the Imperial Power in China for the most part had its hands full just maintaining the integrity and unity of China. Chinese got so used to ruling over other Chinese in an empire that was overwhelmingly of Chinese ethnicity and culture that they never developed much of an appetite for expanding beyond China.
Had all of Europe fallen under a single centralized power, a similar kind of stasis might have developed--and it did in the vast Byzantine Empire; ironically Western Europe, which suffered the total demise and the fracturing of the Roman Empire, would become fertile grounds for the rise of political and economic power unprecedented in human history; in contrast, the vast Byzantine Empire died a long slow death that lasted a 1000 yrs.
As it happened, Western Europe remained divided among various kingdoms long after the fall of Rome, and all attempts to create a single political and cultural order were eventually abandoned--and in more recent history, both Napoleon and Hitler failed to create a united Europe, their empires going the way of Charlemagne's. As a result, Europeans became very competitive with one another, and this spirit of rivalry eventually leaped across oceans. Since the major European powers were, more or less, equally matched--and this also was the case with the Protestant and Catholic divide--, Europeans gave up the dream of single united Europe--even today, the EU project isn't working out so smoothly--and channeled their aggressive energies for domination onto the non-Western world. (Austrians and Russians could always expand to the the east and south, which is why their empires remained on the continent of Europe and Eurasia. In contrast, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, and the British had no more land to conquer in Europe, and so their empires had to spread out across the seas.)
Also, the sense of security among small European nations enabled them to focus their energies outward. If the centralized government in China had to muster all its energies just to maintain unity across the vast empire of China, such anxiety was less likely to restrain the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Britain, and France. To be sure, those nations had problems of ethnic strife and separatist elements--and periodic wars with neighboring states erupted--, but it was easier to maintain order across relatively small entities like Great Britain and Spain.
Also, the Europeans happened to be more tolerant and more pragmatic. Though the ruling elites of Europe were certainly far better educated than the unwashed masses, Europe was ruled by noblemen, aka the military class, and in that sense, its political order was more like that of Japan.
Though China was not without a military, its governing principles were Confucian in nature, and there was nothing Confucius despised more than soldiers. According to Confucius, a good society was ruled by wise men of superior knowledge and finer manners. Brute force should only be the last resort. Persuasion, education, proper manners, and the primacy of rules were the key to maintaining a just social order.
Since the cultural standards of the governing class in China were far more stringent and demanding than in Europe, the Chinese political system became highly dogmatic, intolerant, and 'paranoid'. Yet, such emphasis on moral and literary standards also made China more 'democratic' in some regards. This paradox accounts for the system of examination that determined the ruling class of China at both the central and local level. Given the sheer difficulty of mastering the correct knowledge, manners, and forms to pass these exams, the Chinese political system became highly exclusive and elitist. Yet, at the same time, at least in theory, the exam system was open to all, which meant even the son of the lowliest farmer could, through study and cultivation, rise up the social order. Idealistically at least, the elites of China were to be chosen according to merit and manners, not simply by blood and lineage.
And yet, the Chinese needed not obsess about blood and lineage since most people in the Chinese empire were Chinese. It was theoretical universalism but within a specific national family.
Anyway, given the difficulty of studying and passing the exams even for the Chinese steeped in Chinese culture, imagine how such a system might have fared in an empire where Chinese had to rule over vast numbers of non-Chinese. It was simply inconceivable. How would the Chinese ruling class impart the difficult and complex values and lessons of Chinese culture on the non-Chinese? What hope was there in their becoming like Chinese? So, it didn't make sense for Chinese to dream of creating and ruling over a vast empire populated by non-Chinese. (Another factor that restrained East Asia from venturing overseas to build new empires was the culture of conformism. The East Asian order insisted on cultural, political, and moral conformism among their own kind, and so the general mode of social and political behavior was to bow down to the higher authority. East Asians preferred sameness across both time and place and felt threatened by anything that disrupted the continuity of sameness. Thus, if an East Asian had been abroad and returned with the scent of 'different' cultures and values, he would be seen as contaminated, a threat to the entire system. A system that cannot tolerate differences among its own members is certainly not going to be open to the differences of entirely alien systems. Though Europeans weren't without such fears--as all cultures are to some extent--, Europeans were far more accepting of differences and indeed were fascinated by them. Perhaps, the supra-cultural universalist tendencies in Hellenism and Christianity made Europeans more open to different peoples and places. Indeed, such attitudes had to take root in Europe itself before serving as an impetus for Europeans to explore, discover, and even conquer the rest of the world. Even though the history of Western imperialism is one of Europeans imposing their order and values on non-Europeans, it was possible because the European elites didn't see their countrymen who traveled across the seas as 'contaminated' by foreign cultures. Hinduism, with its emphasis on purity--rather odd considering how dirty much of India is--also prevented much in the way of expansionism. According to the traditional Hindu caste system, there were all sorts of rules and taboos as to who could socialize with whom, and such rules were not to be messed with. If Hindus had such stringent rules for themselves, imagine how they felt about non-Hindus of foreign lands. Even touching them or eating their food could be lead to permanent contamination. It's rather difficult to run an imperialist enterprise if you see most of humanity outside your tribe as 'filthy' and 'contaminated' and don't even want to come in contact with them.)
Though Europe was known for its high culture, the main elites were of the aristocracy, or the warrior caste. The warrior class of any nation tends to be less obsessed with intellectual or theoretical matters. It cares more for ways and means of practical value. It is no wonder then, paradoxically enough, that many right-wing generals in the 20th century presided over more political, cultural, and economic progress than intellectual left-wing rulers dids. Compare the relative economic and political freedom of Franco's Spain with communist systems in the East. Intellectuals like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were far more intolerant in their purist commitment to communism. And in Asia, intellectuals like Mao and Pol Pot were far more tyrannical than right-wing leaders like Chiang Kai-Shek and Lee Kwan Yew. And in Latin America, the much reviled Pinochet actually proved to be an enlightened despot compared to radical intellectual Fidel Castro whose regime still rules Cuba with an iron fist.
Similarly, the aristocratic rulers of Europe were less obsessed with the correct cultural theory of proper governance than on what worked and what didn't. And such a pragmatic approach made them more tolerant of the idea of ruling over other peoples. If Chinese couldn't conceive of ruling over barbarians who would never be worthy of absorbing and practicing Chinese manners and values, European elites didn't care as long as they could sustain a workable system of governance. The British especially became adept at this. British 'respected' and tolerated the cultures of the non-British, arriving at a compromise of political, military, and economic nature. While the British insisted on Britishness at home and in their enclosed colonial outposts around the world, they didn't mind tolerating and mingling with the non-British for pragmatic reasons of political and economic power. (In the movie BOUNTY, Captain Bligh--played by Anthony Hopkins--has no respect for the culture of the Polynesian natives, but he gets along well with them as a diplomat and trader. Of course, there was always the danger that the lower elements of British society might succumb to primitive instincts and 'go native' since they lacked the fine breeding and cultivation of their social betters. Thus, it was necessary for the British elites to use harsh means to maintain order and discipline over the lower elements. It was easier for a ruffian sailor to become a savage than a gentleman, and so the gentlemen elite had to use the whip to keep the ruffians in line and respectful of authority and fine breeding. Today however, it seems as though masses of British youths are turning feral and 'going native' in their very own nation. With the global spreading of Judeo-Afro-American pop culture, the arrival of millions of black immigrants in the UK, and the loss of confidence among the British ruling elites in their own history and heritage, it appears that every vestige of proud and confident authority is gone from British life, thereby leaving the unwashed masses to run wild and 'go native' by imitating black rappers. Ironically, UK now sees nativism as the greatest 'racist' evil, but it encourages young people to 'go native' by taking on the characteristics of Afro-savagery. So, it's wrong for Europeans to care about their native race, land, and culture, but it's wonderful for them to emulate the native savages of Africa. If a Swede defends the Swedish race, Swedish territory, and Swedish culture, he is an 'evil racist'. But if he or she dressed like an African savage, beats on bongo drums, and gives the middle finger to his or her own people and culture, she is wonderful. Modern Europe, a world where 'going native-ism' trumps 'nativism'.)
Despite Britain's great achievements in literature and philosophy, the main elites of Britain were composed of aristocrats/warrior caste and merchants/businessmen, two groups most reviled by Confucianism. The French, more conscious of the 'superiority' of their culture, were more invested in instilling Frenchness on their colonial subjects, but French culture didn't have the familist tinge of the Chinese that made it much more difficult for the Chinese to work creatively with non-Chinese. The French thought in terms of 'French culture' than 'French family'.
Chinese intellectual/scholar-rulers were so steeped in cultural Chinese-ness among the Chinese people that they had a difficult time thinking about and around foreign cultures.
Consider that the notable overseas Chinese were made up of merchants than thinkers. In a way, the victory of communism was a continuation of the Confucian tradition--despite Mao's hatred of Confucius and violence toward intellectuals--for communism was about correct theory controlling all aspects of society. If America were Confucian in political structure, most of the power would be held by its elite intellectuals and scholars of Harvard and Yale. While the elites of France and Britain were educated and trained by elite intellectuals, the intellectual class itself didn't rule as it did in China. In the West, educators educated the would-be rulers. Generally, the scholars were not the rulers themselves--though with the rise of the massive modern state, one could argue that the intellectual class made up of men like Cass Sunstein will gain ever greater power over us.
Anyway, the original point of mentioning Sun Tzu's quote was to point out the problem of American Conservatism's failure to identify its enemies. A person or a people are defined not only by how they see themselves and others but by how they are seen by others. Sometimes, people you see as your enemy may actually be your friend while people you see as your friend may actually be your enemy. It's like you may like person A and not like person B, but person A may hate you while person B may like you(or at least not hate you). You are not only what you want to be or how you would like to see yourself but how others see and think of you. And knowing how your enemy thinks of you is more important than knowing what your friends think of you. After all, your friends are not out to destroy you while your enemies are. Though Stalin didn't trust Hitler, he trusted his own instincts that Hitler was sensible enough not to invade the USSR. Stalin thought he understood Hitler, but in fact, Stalin didn't know his enemy very well. As a result, Stalin was in a state of shock when Nazis suddenly attacked the USSR, and had it not been for the vastness of Russia and the rain/snow slowing down the Wehrmacht, the Soviet Union could very well have lost the war.
Knowing your enemy is a necessary wake-up call to knowing yourself--your strengths and weaknesses. Nothing and no one exists in a vacuum. Everything and everyone exists in relation to other things and other people. Also, one must know that his or her enemy is not always of one's own choosing. You may choose to make person A your enemy, but person A may not want to be your enemy. You may choose to make person B your friend, but person B could be full of enmity toward you despite your goodwill.
Sometimes, enemies result from the dynamic of fear and/or contempt. Feelings of animosity and hatred are natural against people who are more powerful than you and toward people who are weaker than you. When looking up at the powerful and superior, one is likely to feel envy and fear. When looking down at the weak and wimpy, one is likely to feel contempt and derision. Kids fear bullies and thugs and despise wimps and wussies. (Of course, one can find reasons to admire the powerful and adore the weak. The powerful may be fearsome but also awesome. Blacks may beat up whites, but many whites worship black muscle, especially in sports. And all the 'dick jokes' are veiled worship of the Negro, i.e. the Negro is superior to the white man because black penis is bigger than the white penis. And the weak may be wussy but also harmless and gentle. American businessmen surely prefer short docile Mexicans to loud and tough Negroes.)
But hatred could also result from a combination of fear/envy and contempt/derision. This is especially true with Jews when it comes to white gentiles. 'Geeky' Jews fear and resent the bigger 'Aryan' build of white men, especially the Germanic and Slavic types. Also, Jews are outnumbered by white goyim in the West, and that meas even smart and rich Jews could be vulnerable to white rage if white folks were to wake up and challenge Jewish power.
But Jews have also long felt contempt for the lower intelligence of the white goyim, coming up with whole bunch of 'dumb Polack' and 'dumb blonde' jokes. Jewish hatred of whites is especially twisted and ugly because it's a combination of intense fear and intense contempt. The Jew feels that he, with superior intellect and wisdom, should rule over the less intelligent white goyim, but throughout Western history, white power stood in the way of Jewish rule. It even culminated in the Holocaust. And in the USSR, despite the significant role played by Jews in creating the New Order, Jews were eventually 'put in their place' by the less intelligent white goyim who took control of the Communist Party.
Jewish hatred against white goyim also derives from the duality of Jewish identity. On the one hand, Jews are the biggest tribalists the world has ever seen. Though a nomadic people for thousands of years, most Jews chose to maintain their separateness than to assimilate into the majority pagan, Christian, or Islamic order. Even non-religious Jews are very proud and mindful of their Jewish heritage and identity. Thus, the Jew hates the white majority for promoting the ideal of assimilation and the 'melting pot'. As Napoleon told French Jews: "Everything as Frenchmen, nothing as Jews." In other words, if Jews were to obtain full rights as French citizens, they had to stop being Jews and become full-fledged Frenchmen. And long before that, Christians have long prayed for the conversion of the Jews. And in America, the melting pot ideal encouraged all groups--especially white ethnics of whom Jews were a part--to assimilate into the socio-cultural order created by Anglo-Americans.
Many Jews saw this as a threat to their identity and culture.
But there was another side of Jewishness that was radically universalist and anti-identitarian. This owed to intellectual arrogance, political opportunism, or both. Intellectuals like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, so sure of their superior knowledge and rightness in all things, wanted to be the new god of history and humanity. Though they rejected Jewishness as an identity, their attitude and arrogance were very much of the Jewish Prophet tradition. This could be said for Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman as well. Such Jews, so sure of their 'totally true' universalist principles, tended to disdain and even hate the particularist or nationalist tendencies of the white goyim who preferred the preservation of their own borders and values against universalist ideas birthed by radical Jewish intellect.
But not all Jews were sincere in their commitment to universalism. More often than, Jews paradoxically tended to push universalism onto the world to safeguard their own tribalism. The worst enemy of one tribalism is another tribalism. If you belong to Tribe A and fight for Tribal A interests, you naturally fear coming up against Tribe B fighting for Tribal B interests and Tribe C fighting for Tribal C interests. But if you belong to Tribe A and come up against universalists, the latter will not fight for their own tribal interests since they have no tribal identity. Jewish oligarchs lost substantial power under Putin because Russian 'tribalism' still exists. In contrast, Jews have totally come to own America because white Americans have been successfully brainwashed into abandoning their own white interests and power.
Even so, universalism could be dangerous to Jews if universalists were to demand of Jews what they demand of themselves. If white goyim fully embrace universalism and abandon white interests, why shouldn't the same be demanded of Jews? And indeed, this was the reason why Jewish communists lost power in the USSR. After WWII, Stalin became wary of Zionist tendencies among supposedly universalist communist Jews. Instead of feeling solidarity with the rest of Soviet citizenry, there was a Jewish network of sorts within the elite institutions of the USSR. And though Zionists were ideologically closer to socialism than to capitalism, the founders of Israel forged an alliance with Soviet Union's arch-enemy the USA. It was then that Stalin suspected that a Soviet Jew is a Jew first and a Soviet second. Many Jews adopted universalism not so much as an ideal but as a tool. It was to pacify the goyim by neutering their tribal virility. But given the brutal totalitarian nature of radical universalism in the USSR, Jews eventually fell victim to the forces that destroyed so many goy cultures and communities.
And so, Jews have forged a new ideology called 'multi-culturalism' that requires white goyim to fully dispense with white tribalism and embrace universalism while allowing/encouraging non-whites and Jews to maintain their own tribal identities/interests against whites. Multi-culturalism essentially boils down to 'universalism for you whites' and 'tribalism for us Jews'. While whites, as members of a ever-so-nice and docile 'model majority' must reach out to non-whites and Jews(even when non-whites and Jews violate principles and act corrupt), non-whites and Jews can spew venom and hatred against white America and scapegoat the 'evil white man' for all the problems in the world.
Now, many people in the so-called 'alternative right' community know all about this. But most mainstream white American conservatives seem to have absolutely no clue as to what is going on. This is because they have no clue as to who their real enemies are.
Imagine the following scenarios:
1. It is 1941, and the Japanese navy just attacked Pearl Harbor. Instead of focusing on the fact that Japan attacked the US, suppose Americans believe that they are at war with 'Asia'. So, Americans retaliate by looking for enemies in China, Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, and etc, but they overlook the fact that Japan attacked the US and refuse to engage the Japanese directly. Thus spared, the Japanese military keeps attacking the American forces while the latter only goes looking for 'Asian enemies' while blissfully ignoring Japanese aggression.
2. It is 1941, and the German Wehrmacht just attacked the USSR. Suppose Stalin decides that Germany didn't invade the Soviet Union but 'Western Europe' did. Instead of focusing his attention and commandeering his forces against Germany, the USSR wages war on Western Europe in general while ignoring Germany's direct role in the invasion.
Now, how can any nation win a war if they thought and fought like this. To win wars or at least to defend your own people, you have to know who attacked you and why. Without such sense and knowledge, you're like a blindfolded man in the boxing ring. You'll waste your energy swinging at imaginary opponents all around you while remaining utterly blind to the boxer who is actually pummeling you. There is no lack of patriotic and aggressive rhetoric on the American Right, but it's never directed at white America's real enemy since American conservatives are blind to who their main enemies are.
Of course, the main enemies of white Americans are the Jews. This may surprise some white conservatives since Jews are 'white', but this is another thing about enemy that white Americans don't seem to understand. As Sun Tzu said, KNOW YOUR ENEMY. That means not only who he is but how he thinks and sees the world, which then might explain why he does what he does. Jews are a two-faced people who employ a perverse kind of dualism. They are white and they are not white. They are western and they are not western. They are American and they are not American. They are this and they are that. Thus, when it serves their interests, Jews insist on being white. This is a big advantage to Jews when it comes to Israel and 'affirmative action'. By portraying Israel as an 'outpost of Western or white values', they win much support from white Americans, especially as the Jewish-controlled media allow and even encourage anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred.
Now, if Afrikaners in South Africa had argued that the West should support Apartheid because South Africa is the final outpost of Western Civilization in Africa fending off a tidal wave of black savagery, that would have been deemed 'racist'. Jewish-controlled media have brainwashed us to reject any kind of anti-black 'racism'. But it's permissible to spew all sorts of animosity toward Arabs and Muslims. Jewish Hollywood even makes movies like TAKEN where white men are encouraged to save 'pure white women' from the clutches of Muslim sex-slavers. You see, such emotions pertaining to saving white women from blacks(in BIRTH OF A NATION) or from American Indians(in THE SEARCHERS) would be 'racist', but Jewish Hollywood fans white male hatred toward swarthy Muslims who dare put their filthy hands on 'pure white women'. And even though Jews have been bitching and whining about how Nazis made films about horny hairy Jews lusting after blonde 'Aryan' women, Jews in Hollywood makes movies like RISING SUN which has a yellow conqueror humping a blonde woman. So, Jews sometimes play on the side of whiteness, and sometimes play against whites on the side of 'people of color'.
And when it comes to 'affirmative action', Jews naturally wanna count as white to protect Jewish privilege. If Jews counted as a non-white category--as all white Hispanics do--, it would be quite obvious that Jews are vastly over-represented in many elite fields and could therefore be targeted for 'affirmative action' as Asian-Americans are. So, when Jews wanna protect their immense power and privilege, they just melt into 'white people'. Thus, there is 'white privilege' but no 'Jewish privilege'. So, Jews are deemed to be privileged not as Jews but as whites, and in order to address this problem, Jews work to reduce the number of gentile whites and boost the number of non-whites. This way, Jews win and non-whites win while white gentiles--especially conservatives, middle class, working class, and poor--lose.
It should be obvious to anyone with sense and honesty that Jews control much of the media, law firms, courts, upper echelons of government, Wall Street, Hollywood and entertainment, elite academia(the agenda of which trickles down to lower academia and eventually all the way down to kindergarten, which is why there's gay propaganda being taught to little children in many states). It should also be obvious that most so-called liberal Jews have a rabid and virulent animus against whites based on both fear/envy(due to larger white numbers and better white looks) and contempt/derision(due to lower IQ among whites and the craven cowardice of white gentile politicians and leaders).
Indeed, the sorriest spectacle in American politics is white conservative politicians sucking up to Jews when Jews piss on them. The likes of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney act tough, as if they're sheriffs in a Western town or military generals about to take on the Nazis to save poor helpless Jews. Perhaps, Gingrich and Romney in 2012 thought that Jews would appreciate their macho pro-Zionist stance.
But, Jews were not fooled; Jews were not impressed. Jews are not dumb. Deep inside, they knew that both Gingrich and Romney are scared white guys. Scared of what? Of Jewish power.
And Gingrich and Romney are not ignoramuses. They must know that Jews are indeed the new elites of America. They must know that politicians cannot win without Jewish money, Jewish brain trust, and Jewish permission. The Jewish-controlled media can make or break any politician, especially when ALL mainstream news are controlled by Jews--and even most alternative outlets like Slate and Salon are essentially controlled by Jews.
GOP understands that MSM favors the Democratic Party. That much is a given. The most the GOP can hope for is the MSM being not overly hostile to the GOP, thereby giving the party some chance of winning. In other words, the media winds always blow against the GOP and favor the Democratic Party, but as long as the winds are not too powerful, the GOP might muster just enough energy and momentum to win. And to lower the wind level, the GOP goes out of its way to suck up to Jews and Israel.
White American conservatives act like this mostly out of fear and cowardice, but no big time politician wants to see himself as a craven running dog. And so, the GOP, especially with the help of Neocons, talks bit and tough and puts forth the hysterical notion that the Democratic Party is run by 'anti-Semites', is about to 'throw Israel under the bus', and is controlled by Obama the 'secret Muslim'.
Of course, no Jew--not even Neocons--believe any of this nonsense. Anyone with sense know that the Democratic Party is totally controlled by Jews and is as pro-Zionist as the GOP. And regardless of Obama's personal feelings, he's going to be pro-Zionist at every turn since his entire career owes to Jews. And Obama dares not do anything without the 'advice' from his Jewish handlers and bosses. Given the fact that Jews control the Democratic Party, created Obama and foisted him on this country, and work nonstop to further dispossess white Americans, one would think that the GOP would essentially be a counter-Jewish-power party. In a sane world, that would be the case. But we are not living in sane world.
Because Jews control nearly the full spectrum of power,yo u cannot rise up the social, political, or economic ranks if you dare address, let alone challenge, the true nature of Jewish power. If even an innocuous comment like Rick Sanchez can get him blacklisted--with absolutely no support from fellow liberals, not even from fellow Hispanics--, just think of what will happen to anyone who is more candid in his or her criticism of Jews.
Also, Jews, with their control of the media, have created and disseminated the new religion of Holocaustianity that has elevated Jews to a holy race. Holocaust is a tragic event that happened during WWII to many European Jews. It is specific to a certain place and time. Holocaustianity, in contrast, has 'eternalized' the Holocaust to all Jews for all time. So, all of past Jewish history is seen as a series of persecutions that finally culminated in the Holocaust. So, the Holocaust isn't specific to what happened in WWII but connected to what happened to Jews all throughout the ages. Thus, even the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and just about everyone else are guilty of paving the way toward the Holocaust. And the Holocaust didn't end in WWII according to Holocaustianity. No, all future Jews are holy Holocaust victims by the simple virtue of being born Jewish. Since the Holocaust is the main focus of Jewish identity, to be Jewish means means to be the 'children of the Holocaust'. So, even if you're a craven, deceitful, manipulative, low-down, and hideous son or daughter of a billionaire Jew, you too are the saintly child of the Holocaust. Jews can oppress and kill Palestinians with their tanks and missiles, but Zionists are seen as saintly victims fighting desperately to prevent another Holocaust while Palestinians whose houses are demolished and whose children are killed are seen as the 'new Nazis'.
If Holocaustianity instantly ennobles and cleanses all Jews of guilt no matter what they do, it ceaselessly accuses and condemns all gentiles--especially whites--of evil and wickedness no matter what good they do. Whites can grovel before Jews all they want and apologize endlessly for past sins of 'antisemitism'. According to Holocaustianity, whites are forever infected with the 'antisemitic' virus. The virus may go into hiding, but it remains in the (white)gentile soul, waiting to strike up another fever and set the gentile loose on another violent rampage against innocent, angelic, and helpless Jews. Thus, while even a heinous Jew is allowed to get away with murder or child rape(like Roman Polanski), even the nicest white gentile must constantly sear his own soul to be purged of the virus of 'antisemitism'. Holocaustianity says all Jews, even nasty and vile ones, are holy and innocent forever no matter what they do, and it says all gentiles(especially whites), even the nicest ones, are evil and sick forever no matter what they do since they are infected with the ineradicable virus of 'antisemitism'. Thus, even the nicest white liberal is not to be trusted and must bow down to Jews. It is no wonder that there is no criticism of Jewish power not only from the American Right but also from the American Left.
Though secular Jews claim to be 'rational', they've pretty much formulated and spread a new idea of 'Original Sin' that supposedly stains the white gentile soul forever. Of course, Jewish historiography is totally selective. It only focuses on violence against Jews while wholly ignoring Jewish violence and hatred of gentiles. It only focuses on gentile use of power against Jews while overlooking Jewish power over goyim. And on the occasion when Jewish power is admitted by Jewish historians, it's always portrayed in a positive light, as the force that changed the world for the good.
The great advantage that Jews have over white conservatives is that Jews know who their enemies are. Even if white conservatives don't wanna see Jews as their enemies and wanna work together with Jews, Jews continue to see White America as their main enemy. Jews insist on this because they want to be the permanent supremacist elites of America. As long as there's a white majority, Jews fear that whites will eventually awaken to the nature of Jewish power and challenge/counter it. Only by reducing whites to a minority will the Jews feel safe and secure in knowing that EVEN IF whites did wake up to the true nature of Jewish power, whites wouldn't be able to do anything about it. If whites were only 1/3 of the American population, what could they do even if all whites were 'antisemitic'? Not much. This is also why Jews push not only for massive migration across national borders but within national borders. This is why Jews push Section 8. If the population is made diverse all over America, it is more difficult for different regions to push for secession or separatism. Yugoslavia broke apart because Slovenians were mostly in Slovenia, Croatians were mostly in Croatia, Serbians were mostly in Serbia, and Albanians were mostly in Kosovo. Bosnia was a much more difficult case since it happened to be a lot more diverse. The more diverse a nation, the more difficult it is to break apart, and Jews know this. If America were regionally diverse, then one can imagine it breaking apart into white, black, and brown parts. That would not be good for Jews since Jews would be faced with solid gentile majorities in each of the new nations, which is exactly what happened following the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. So, Jews wanna spread 'diversity' far and wide all across America to ensure that American can never break up and shall forever remain as a diverse state in which the Jewish elites could play 'divide and rule' among the various goy groups.
So, it doesn't matter how white conservatives see the Jews. They can love Jews all they want. The fact is Jews willfully choose to see white Americans as their main enemy. If the goal of Jews was simply to assimilate into America, they would be less likely to harbor hateful feelings toward whites. But equality with rest of white America is not the goal of Jews. Jews, knowing that they are smarter and ever so proud of their identity and heritage, are aiming for permanent supremacism. And in order to secure this, Jews feel it is necessary to destroy white American and reduce white Americans into just another minority group.
Similarly, it didn't matter that Stalin hoped to maintain the alliance with Hitler. As long as Hitler's dream was to build a vast Germanic empire in the East, it didn't matter how Stalin and Soviets felt about Nazi Germany. Hitler pretended to be an ally but was really planning to destroy not only the USSR but the Russian people for the purpose of Germanic supremacism.
Similarly, it didn't matter what certain American Indian tribes felt about whites. While some Indian tribes were hostile, some Indian tribes wished to live in peace with white Americans and become good neighbors. And they signed treaties and trusted the white man. But the white man looked upon the Indians as a bunch of ridiculous savages and wanted Indian lands for themselves. Even Indians who wanted to be friends with whites were seen and targeted as enemies by whites. And we all know from history what happened to such people. You can't always choose your friends. The person you want to be friends with could very well despise and hate you. Same thing with love. You can't always choose your lover. The person you want to be lovers with may look at you as a pile of turd. Most white women in porn seem to think they are appreciated by their Jewish bosses when, in fact, Jewish porn kings see white women as nothing but meat to market and sell.
Sometimes, you make enemies by being hostile or nasty toward others. But even if you're the nicest person in the world, there are some people who will target you for destruction. Even if you don't see them as the enemy, they see you as the enemy, as the sitting duck to fire at.
Disingenuously, liberal Jews say that 'racist' white America must stop vilifying other groups as enemies, but that is not the problem today. Most White Americans, liberal or conservative, feel little animus against non-whites. Many whites may fear black crime, but most whites don't hate blacks simply for their color of skin. Many whites are upset with illegal immigration, but they don't hate Mexicans.
The real problem today is not white hate toward non-whites but Jewish, black, brown, and gay hatred of whites and straights. Notice that even when a nice white conservative is willing to accept total equality with non-whites, HE is attacked as the 'hater' by the Jewish-controlled media. For Jews, it's not enough that whites are willing to uphold the principle of equality. It's not enough that whites take so much abuse from black rappers, groups like La Raza, and vile Jewish comedians. No, whites must support anti-white policies that favor less qualified non-whites over whites and favor illegal aliens over legal citizens. So, the only way for a white to be a good white is to be anti-white.
Of course, many privileged and high IQ whites aren't bothered by such demands since the main sacrificial lamb for more 'diversity' is the white middle class, working class, and the poor. If you're a liberal white in some fancy urban area, your anti-white-ism can be worn like a hip 'progressive' badge of honor(thereby winning you more privilege in elite circles) while the brunt of 'affirmative action' and Section 8 policies continue to fall on less privileged and less fortunate whites.
Jews were very clever to engineer things this way for if 'affirmative action' primarily targeted the privileged white class, the white gentile elite might identify with other whites and unite with them. But as long as the 'diversity' racket rewards elite whites for their 'progressive' anti-white-ism while targeting the lower classes of whites in the 'affirmative action' sweepstakes, the white community remains politically divided between leaders and the led. Thus, Jews prevent the unity of upper class whites, middle class whites, and lower class whites.
American conservatism needs to understand that nothing can be done unless it honestly and courageously identifies its main enemy. Pathetically, American conservatism is under the delusion--borne of both stupidity and cowardice--that Jews are the most wonderful people and the best friends of conservatives. When American conservatives are confronted with the fact that most Jews voted for Obama and are rabidly anti-white and anti-conservative, they rationalize it as a case of poor innocent darling Jews simply not being enlightened to the truth that the Democratic Party is run by 'anti-Semites'. Indeed, many American conservatives seem to believe that the Jews don't control the Democratic Party. Instead, it's controlled by the 'secret Muslim' Obama and the likes of Biden, and they are plotting to destroy Israel!! Meanwhile, all those innocent and hapless Jews foolishly remain in the Democratic Party out of the goodness of their darling little hearts filled with compassion for people who really hate Jews.
With conservatives this pathetic, perhaps we shouldn't be too harsh on Jews who despise white dummies. Such stupidity--so prevalent in American conservatism--IS contemptible. In THE GODFATHER movies, the Corleones finally win because they correctly identify and target their REAL enemies. In part one, Vito Corleone correctly surmised that it had been Barzini after all. And in part II, Michael realizes Hyman Roth is the big potato who's pulling the strings against him. When will American conservatism realize that its main enemy is the Jews. People like Ann Coulter bitch about Muslims and Hispanics, but Hispanics are followers, not leaders. They are puppets, not the puppet-masters. If demography is always destiny, the elites of Mexico would not be white. White Mexicans hold the power because they control the elite institutions, and through the control of such institutions, they maintain power over the vast numbers of mestizos and Indios.
Similarly, if demography is indeed always destiny, Jews, who make up only 2% of the population(and gays who make up another 2% of the population) wouldn't be so powerful. But in fact, Jews are the most powerful people in America. It was Jewish leaders who led blacks against whites. It was the Zionist leadership that ignited the war between Christian America and the Muslim Middle East. (And by using their 'progressive' puppet Obama, Jews were even able to expand the war into Libya since the so-called International Left dares not protest the actions of a black guy. The 'progressive' West is so invested in having the black guy succeed that Obama can do just about anything, and, of course, most of what he does is at the behest of Jewish-Zionist elites. It is no wonder that an overwhelming number of Jews supported Obama again in 2012. Romney groveled before the Jewish community and even got down to give Sheldon Adelson a rimjob and flew to Israel to shake his fists at the Palestinians, but Jews didn't go for the bait. Why should they when they can get far more with Obama? If Romney the Privileged White Man were to employ violence at the behest of Zionists in the Middle East, the anti-war Left might take to the streets once again and make a big fuss. As long as it's Obama at the helm, the Zionists know that the Left will be muted in its criticism EVEN IF Obama decides to bomb Iran back to the stone age.)
It was Jewish leaders who encouraged and stirred up brown hatred against the 'gringo'. While Mexico has always been full of anti-gringo hatred, most Mexicans in America wouldn't be so full of invective and rage if they weren't led, funded, protected, and encouraged by Jewish elites. (Glenn Beck did try to pull a fast one on the Jews. Though he resorted to all manner of 'antisemitic' tropes, he covered up his tracks by weeping on TV about his love for Jews and Israel. He tried to out-Jew the Jew, posing as their friends while exposing the nature of Jewish power. But Jews got a whiff of what he was up to and pressured Fox to have him fired.)
Anyway, White America needs to wake up and finally set its targets on the real enemy, and that enemy is Jewish Powera. Unless American conservatism realizes this, it is like a surgeon treating a cancer by doing everything but addressing the tumor that is growing ever larger. That is no way to fight disease, no way to fight a war. And certainly no way to win. Indeed, even suicide is preferable to the current idiocy of American conservatism that praises and embraces the very people who are most committed to the destruction of white people and white power.
Now, this doesn't mean that we should hate all Jews or see all Jews as our enemy. If decent Jews wanna joint our side, they should be welcome. Decent Jews need to admit that most American Jews are now in supremacist mode and hellbent on destroying the white race and white people. They should join up with whites for the common good of both whites and Jews. They must not seek to manipulate whites to gain advantage for the interests of Jewish supremacism as liberal Jews and Neocon Jews have repeatedly done.
Decent Jews should realize and admit that the problems between white gentiles and Jews have been caused almost entirely by Jews in the last several decades. Just when America was becoming the most welcome place to Jews--especially due to white decency as non-whites don't give a shit about Jews--, Jews have turned most hostile toward white Americans, indeed as if white Americans are worse than Nazis.
When Japan attacked America, most Japanese-Americans remained loyal to America--despite the shabby treatment by the FDR administration. And German-Americans fought for America against Nazi Germany. America fought Japan and Germany because they declared war on America. And decent Japanese-Americans and German-Americans(and Italian-Americans)sided with America against the Axis powers. Today, Jews have declared a secret war on White America--though in the aftermath of the Obama re-election, Jews seem to be openly celebrating as if White America has been dealt a blow on the order of Hitler's defeat at Stalingrad. It ain't a secret war no more.
(Though many conservatives are put off by such Jewish obnoxiousness, I welcome it for we finally get to see the Real Jew.) Needless to say, not all Jews are so vile and vicious. Not all Jews harbor such hostile feelings toward whites. These Jews should understand why white conservatives--at least sane ones--now regard Jews as their enemy. And just as decent German-Americans fought alongside other Americans against Nazi Germany, decent Jews should be willing to work alongside white Americans against the heinous Jews who are filled with hatred and contempt for white Americans(and of course white Europeans as well).
It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.
So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.
But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.
Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.
That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.
Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.
Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.
And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.
Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.