The Afghan War was tragic for Afghans in many ways. But less so than many wars. For one thing, there wasn't much to destroy in Afghanistan. It wasn't like Germany or Japan smashed in World War II. Also, whatever had been standing had already been reduced to rubble in the long wars in the 1980s(when Soviets were there) and in the ensuing 'civil wars' among the tribes and factions. Also, Taliban were hardly great builders. They kept the country at the medieval level. Taliban folks were content to be backward, which they conflated with faith and piety. Even though the US invasion was initially brutal with devastating air strikes, it wasn't long-lasting because there really wasn't much to bomb and the Taliban soon scattered to the four winds. With so many mountains and caves, most Taliban just fled and hid. Soon after the invasion, most of the war consisted of drone strikes and limited skirmishes. Though the drone attacks killed some innocents, the entire casualty was in the thousands. Many more Vietnamese died in a single US bombing strike under Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. So, this was hardly a genocidal kind of war, which could be said of certain chapters of the Vietnam War. Also, due to demographic dispersion and geographic barriers, the US occupation didn't unleash the bloodbath that the Iraq invasion did. In Iraq, US presence in the flat sand led to religious factions tearing each other part. There were no mountains to separate the Sunnis from the Shias. Also, whereas Afghanistan before and after US invasion had continuity in Pashtun representation, the Iraq invasion led to a sudden power shift from Sunni to Shia domination. This led to Sunni rebellion and Shia reprisals, a horrifying cycle of violence. Also, as certain Neo-Con or Zio-Con elements feared warm ties between Shia-ruled Iraq and Iran, they inflamed Sunni violence to make Arabs kill Arabs. Afghanistan, for the most part, avoided such internecine bloodbath under US occupation, at least on the scale of what took place in Iraq. If there had been no 9/11 and no US invasion, the Taliban might have remained as they were. Rigid, backward, insular, and isolated. There would have been hardly any opportunity for growth and development. This is where imperialism can do some good. Not because imperialists are good-hearted and well-meaning but because they shake things up. Would Japan or China have made progress into modernity if they weren't forced at gunpoint? Without Western Imperialist aggression, the ruling dynasties there would have suppressed any reform or change that could conceivably threaten their total grip on power. Indeed, they regarded stasis as synonymous with harmony with nature, history, spirituality, and the cosmic order of things. Only an outside force could act as catalyst for revolutionary and fundamental change, for good and ill. Though all societies evolve over time, the fact is East Asia didn't have sufficient internal spark/fuel to bring about fundamental change from within. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire that, upon falling behind the West in science and technology, simply couldn't muster sufficient energy for change. It took the traumatic defeat in World War I that forced a true transition to modernity.
Now, it'd be foolish to hope that the Taliban will ever be like the Kemalists of Turkey, or even like Gaddafi of Libya, Nasser of Egypt, or Hussein of Iraq, all of whom embarked on modern and mostly secular development, albeit in alignment with Muslim values. And we can't expect the new Taliban regime to resemble Islamic Iran that, for all its religiosity, fully adopted modern science and technology(and even most modern facets of living, minus the overt decadence). Though the worst case scenario is that the New Taliban, high on the hubristic fumes of 'victory' over the US, will revert to the old ways, it's more likely that it will be more pragmatic, worldly, shrewd, realistic, and a bit wiser. It is the dialectics of history. Old Taliban had the power but got nowhere. US invasion forced change and built much infrastructure but its influence, at once overbearing and underwhelming, didn't catch. But, some commentators are hoping that the dialectics of Taliban resistance and US reconstruction could lead to the synthesis of a New Taliban that is more savvy in politics and business. Of course, such changes are possible without foreign invasion. Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on profound changes in the Soviet Union. Maoist China made the transition to Deng-ist China, and communist Vietnam adopted market economics. But the Taliban were so anti-modern that it's unlikely they would have done much to develop the country on their own without foreign intervention on a massive scale. Though the US failed to turn Afghanistan into a compliant outpost, it did construct lots of roads, buildings, airports, and infrastructure. Yes, much of the money disappeared into the hands of corrupt politicians and 'contractors' whose only talent was for swindling Uncle Sam(and the US Military-Industrial-Complex itself is a massive racket defrauding the US tax payer). Still, in the ensuing twenty years, Afghanistan did end up with cities with many more buildings and amenities. And a new professional class did learn certain skills in governance and management(and these people are likely to keep at those jobs even under the Taliban — surely, the US can't bring all of them as refugees, and the New Taliban might actually value their skills). Prior to the US invasion, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was on friendly terms with only one major country: Pakistan. It had alienated Russia, China, Iran, and other surrounding -Stan nations. It was seen as a festering sore in the middle of Central Asia. Afghanistan didn't want anything to do with most other nations and vice versa; the feelings were mutual. And as long as it was ruled by the backward Taliban, it was hardly a threat to other countries that were far more developed and powerful. It could be ignored. Things changed with the US invasion. All of a sudden, it went from a backwoods(or back-mountain) country of ignorant nobodies to the base of US globo-imperial operations. Russia, China, and Iran feared that the US planned to use Afghanistan as part of an encircling campaign. Pakistan regarded US presence as Uncle Sam breathing down its neck. This made Afghanistan relevant and important to the neighboring countries, one deserving to be courted with special favors. BIDEN CLAIMS AFGHAN EVACUATION IS GOING SMOOTHLY, AS FOG OF WAR DESCENDS ON KABUL AIRPORT They now had an interest in getting the US out and forging good relations with the New Taliban(if it were to come to power upon US departure). Also, the New Taliban was more likely to cut deals with Russia, China, Iran, and other nations precisely because it had gotten burned in the US invasion. Even though the New Taliban might feel a rush of hubris in the moment, the major lesson of the long occupation has been the value of humility. Though Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires, the fact is empires survived their misguided Afghan ventures. Alexandrian Empire collapsed due to other reasons. British Empire had setbacks in Afghanistan, but it was really brought down by World War I and II. Soviet Empire's collapse had little to do with Afghanistan and more with long bread lines. US empire survived setbacks in Vietnam and Iraq. So, the notion of Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires is a myth. But the fact is the invasions have turned the country into the graveyard for many Afghans. Though Afghan human losses weren't devastating under US occupation, the Taliban was pushed into subsistence in the periphery, and surely their patience was running thin(judging by the eagerness with which they acted to take control of the country upon sensing US withdrawal).
Prior to the US invasion, many in the Taliban were foolish enough to think Allah would save them. Now, they know better. They don't want to do anything to justify another US invasion(or massive aerial attack). And this means isolation isn't an option. They need constructive and mutually beneficial relations with Russia, China, and Iran as insurance against return of US imperialism. It's like the Khmer Rouge wised upon ONLY AFTER the Vietnamese invasion that forced the ultra-xenophobic and ultra-radical group to eat humble pie and adopt the pragmatic path of working with other nations to oust the Vietnamese from Cambodia. In this sense, one could argue that the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, though ill-advised and wasteful, may have inadvertently done much good for the country, that is IF the New Taliban learned the proper lessons from the dialectics of history and arrived at a more workable synthesis of diplomacy, commerce, and compromise. THE TALIBAN MEME WAR: TROLLING BIDEN & THE WEST
“If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far…. The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”
Even though her views were extreme on this matter, she wrote this in genuine sympathy with the Third World. This was when the Vietnam War was raging and when the Non-West was seeking alternative paths to development. Also, even those on the Right may recognize a kernel of truth in Sontag's characterization of the Modern West. All this talk of 'growth and more growth' at the expense of all other considerations is a kind of cancer. After all, those on the Dissident Right are sick of 'muh growth' rhetoric of the globalists, libertarians, radical capitalists, and etc. GOP is only about GDP.
Sadly, where Sontag was wrong was that this cancer could spread from white nations to non-white ones as well.
it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads
If only it were true. Today, non-whites have joined in globalism and are taking part in the destruction of all autonomous societies. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, under Western influence, have ended up with barren wombs and high suicide rates. They now welcome mass immigration. And Filipinos and others scramble to Japan and will demographically take over, and what had once been a unique Japanese people and culture will be lost. Hindus are all over the world taking part in globalism, from African cities to San Francisco to New York. Indeed, at this point, even if every white person were to suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, the cancer of globalism will likely spread and spread.
In a way, white 'racism' was a check on the white cancer. As long as whites offended others with supremacist attitudes, non-whites pushed against white power and influence. But then globalism came along, and the white empire was willing to welcome, extol, and promote non-whites to the highest ranks. White 'anti-racism' emboldened non-whites to join in the white-made globalist world order. (Indeed, it's likely Gandhi and others would have joined with the British Empire if it hadn't been 'racist' toward their ilk.) White 'racism' and Western nationalism posed as both the enemy and model for non-white nations. Against white 'racism', they needed their own racial identity as a weapon. And non-whites realized that the national system is most ideal for organizing modern societies. So, the struggle for 'national liberation' was also an enterprise in national formation. Some peoples, like the Vietnamese and Thais, already had a genuine sense of ethnicity, culture, and territoriality. Others, like the Indonesians and those in Middle East and especially much of Africa, had to work at creating new national identities. Still, as long as whites were in 'racist' and nationalist mode, non-whites felt compelled to emphasize their own racial-national identities as bulwark against the 'cancerous' Western Power(and, to be sure, rival non-white powers). Thus, the white cancer was limited to the white world. And maybe the New Order would have turned out poly-national after World War II. With the end of European empires, whites would have their world, and non-whites would have their own.
But the post-war story wasn't dominated by Western Europe, a fading power, but by the US and USSR that competed for Universalist Hegemony. Both were empires that claimed to be committed to 'anti-racism'. USSR was about communist brotherhood of man, comrades all around the world. US claimed to represent liberal democratic values and individual liberty applicable to all. As such, if European Empires had sought to dominate and exploit non-white colonies, US and USSR reached out with a vision of Enlightened Imperialism whereby non-whites would be treated as equals of whites. In some ways, this sounded good on paper, but it was one sure way to spread the white cancer as the white cancer cells were now willing to merge with brown cells IF the brown cells agreed to join with the white cancer.
While Sontag meant 'cancer' as damnation, there is a repressed awe of Western Civilization in her characterization. After all, cancer is no simple disease like a minor headache or sprained ankle. It isn't just a case of the flu or toothache that a dentist can fix. Cancer is a GREAT disease, an awesome disease. Until relatively recent times, it could not be cured. It started small but spread all throughout and led to sure death.
Sontag wrote:
The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world.
Yet, the implication is that THOSE THINGS are part of the cancer. Indeed, what is the nature of cancer? It strives for total domination. It is obsessive, unrelenting, aggressive, expansive, maniacal, and totalizing. It must express itself to the fullest extent, and that means spreading all throughout the body EVEN IF it means death for the body. In one of her essays, Sontag associated sex with death. Sex(and orgasm), in its striving for the fullest sensuality and pleasure, takes the body to the furthest limit, beyond which lays death. It's no wonder Sontag had a special thing for Yukio Mishima who was also obsessed with sex and death. The boy who got his first orgasm staring at a picture of St. Sebastian shot full of arrows ultimately died in much the same way albeit with a blade. Cancer is like the Terminator. You can't bargain with it. It seeks total and ruthless domination, and nothing better stand in its way. But that very mindset is at the heart of Mozart, Pascal, Shakespeare, Newton, Kant, Marx, Western Arts, Western Ideologies, and etc. Western Artists, more than those of other cultures, were most powerful in individuality, egoism, vanity, and even megalomania. Mozart did it his way, even truer of Beethoven and Wagner. Western scientists insisted on pushing further and further without end to get closer to the stars and atoms. Western explorers and discoverers searched further and further, even out into space. Western ideologies have sought to arrive at the ultimate truth, emancipate all of mankind or liberate every individual soul. Whether communism, capitalism, libertarianism, or feminism, they are about more liberation, more freedom, more justice, or the Permanent Revolution. So, even if one might find much that is good about them, they are essentially 'cancerous' in that they know of no limits. They must keep pushing further and further, even when it appears all possibilities have been exhausted.
However, the reason why the West became especially 'cancerous' was due to the stabilizing influence of Jewish Culture via Christianity. Western drive toward super-competitive excellence via individualism and universalism may have begun with the Greeks, but such extremes of ambition tend to burn themselves out. Thus, the West, like the Rest, went through cycles of rises and falls. Like the Tower of Babel, the pagan West rose high but fell to earth again. But then, Christianity came along and provided an emotional, moral, and spiritual gyroscope to Westernism. Christianity's powerful moralism emphasizing humility and devotion could be heavy and repressive, thereby suppressing individual expression and excellence, but it also had a stabilizing effect on the Western pagan drive for no-limit exploration, discovery, conquest, and experimentation(the biting into the Forbidden Fruits). It provided a humble heart to the egotism of pagan pride. Thus, a kind of balance was formed between the liberal will to explore and conservative desire to preserve.
Paradoxically, the Christian element that dampened the pagan spirit of individuality actually made the Western Light burn brighter in the long run. It's like an overly ambitious person may feel resentful about being told to get some rest, take it easy, spend time with family, and go on vacation. So obsessed with winning, he may want to work 24/7. And yet, that is a good way to burn out... as Alexander the Great did. But in being forced to balance his drive for excellence with some time set aside for peace of mind, his energy will actually last longer. It's like an athlete who plays too hard all the time won't last long in the ring or field. And Christianity, a religion originating from heretical Jews, provided a kind of balance to the highly aggressive Western pagan spirit for excellence. Many scholars see this Hebraic influence as having set back European advancement, and that is partly true. In the Muslim world, Islam did end up holding back progress. And Christianity in the Byzantium was too heavy and stifling of innovation and individuality. But in the Renaissance West, a balance was reached between hunger and humility. This way, instead of civilization as short bursts of sprints that soon peter out, the West set upon a long-term marathon of advancement with Christian humility serving as a stabilizing force to Pagan hunger. So, the West broke out of the cycles of rises and falls and embarked on a long journey of progress to more progress to more progress. (But in the post-Christian age, we are witnessing how the drive for more experimentation, more freedom, more power, and more wealth WITHOUT the stabilizing force of some great spiritual-moral counter-force is leading to the Great Fall. The Post-Christian West seems to intuit this danger on some level and grasps for new spiritual truths, but worship of the Super-Jew, Holy Homo, and Magic Negroes just doesn't cut it.) It was that combination of Hellenistic drive and Hebraic spirit that made the West truly 'cancerous'. It led to endless rise and rise and more rise, and more expansion and more growth and etc. Though, as the story of Galileo tells us, the influence of religion often held back the power of reason, it also prevented the secular forces from growing too vain, arrogant, adventurous, impatient, and reckless. When religion mattered in the West, homo artists made the great works of the Renaissance. But in our time, homos just celebrate their degeneracy without shame, and such narcissism is promoted as the new spirit of the times. The moral rot from this in times to come will be incalculable. Generations raised with drag queen story hour. Churches festooned with sodomy-glorifying banners. Maybe, in some ways, this is a good thing in the long run. Maybe it is time for Western Civilization to fall to ruin and start again. Maybe the Hellenic-Hebraic cancer had a great long run, and now must end.
In a way, life itself is like a cancer. Like cancer, life seeks to grow and grow. Any organism is 'cancerous' in multiplying without limit to take over the whole world. But life could not be cancerous because organisms all balanced each other out. Countless plants and countless animals all canceled out one another. So, even if one organism wanted to take over everything, it couldn't as it was balanced by or depended on other organisms. The first truly cancerous organism arrived with mankind. (When rabbit population explodes and eats up the vegetation, rabbits begin to starve and nature restores the balance. When predators eat up most of the prey animals, they begin to starve and the natural balance is restored. But mankind, in creating agriculture and cattle-farming, could destroy/transform so much of nature yet still keep growing in numbers and power. They broke free of the natural balance, and then, the white race took it to the next step by means of uniting all the world under their hegemony.) When Sontag wrote her piece, she probably had no idea how destructive even primitive man was upon the Earth. Archaeologists now believe that the migration of prehistoric men led to the extinctions of most mammal species in all five continents. So, humans were cancerous before the arrival of the white race. But among the human races, the white race became the most cancerous of them all. Again, by 'cancerous', it's as much a compliment as an epithet because cancer is a great awesome disease. While all human groups built empires and conquered and killed many — Huns, Aztecs, Mongols, Ottomans, etc — , it took the white race to finally conquer every piece of land on Earth, split the atom, and send men into space. While non-white races were also ruthless, aggressive, and cruel, their 'cancerousness' was limited. Mongols conquered so much but couldn't expand further and couldn't sustain their pace and then soon faded. Ottomans seemed to be on the verge of conquering and overtaking Christendom but reached their peak and then began the long decline. They remained locked in cycles of rises and falls experienced by most civilizations. (To be sure, the Muslim world, like the Christian world, experienced a long continuity due to the stabilizing power of the words of the Prophet. But Islam was bound to be more stifling of innovation and progress for one crucial reason. Whereas Christianity developed as a universal religion by dumping the narrow tribal laws of the Jews, Islam combined universalism with the local customs of Arabs & Judaic laws. Christianity dropped the particularity of culture and emphasized the universality of spirit whereas Islam attached Arab-Judaic customary particularism to a universalist creed. As such, there was too much cultural baggage in Islam for it to allow much in the way of creativity and innovation.)
When Sontag wrote her piece, the white world seemed distinct from the non-white world. Also, whites were clearly in control of the white world. Jews didn't control the US or Europe, though they were clearly influential. So, one could speak of the West vs the Rest. But over the yrs, whites cucked to Jews and even cucked to blacks. And whites now cuck to Diversity, or mass migration-invasion. As such, it's no longer the case that whiteness is the cancer of humanity. It is no longer whiteness or white power or white ways that are threatening to control all the world. Rather, whiteness is now like a cuck-cancer bridge to Jewish cancer, black cancer, and homo cancer. Whites are now like the god Atlas. It is no longer the active god of the world but the supportive and servile god. White managerial shoulders now serve as the bridge of Jewish supremacist cancer that spreads wars, predatory capitalism, hegemonism, and genocides(especially against Arabs and Muslims). But under the control of Jews, white shoulders also serve as the bridge for non-white invasion of white lands. Billy Boy Clinton and Joe Biden welcome the browning of the West. Even Donald Trump who ran on border controls says he wants more legal immigration. Brexit led to shutting UK to other Europeans but welcomes more blacks and browns. On the bridge of white shoulders, the Jewish cancer spreads all over, and of course, Jews spread globo-homo cancer as their proxy disease all around the world. Jews figure homos in each nation will make the best collaborationist agents for Jews. And whiteness also serves as bridge for the spread of Afromaniacal cancer all over the world. Would there be blacks outside Africa if not for the white bridge? White folks used to spread white power around the world. Now whiteness as cuck-cancer spreads Jewish power, Negro might, and homo sickness around the world. What do Chinese boys worship most? Negroes in the NBA. That is why, if whites cannot bring about white liberation from Jewish supremacism and black monstrosity, it would be better if the white race just vanished from Earth. In our times, whiteness is most dangerous not because of 'white supremacism' but because of white cuck-ism that helps to spread Jewish supremacism, black ghastliness, and homo degeneracy all around the world. Does the world really need to worship BLM and 'Muh Israel'? Does the world really need to be instructed by fruits and trannies whose main mode of being is tooty-toot-toot vanity?
Cancer isn't infectious, but it seems as though the white cancer came to submit, serve, and transmit the Jewish cancer, black cancer, and homo cancer as the hegemonic forces to every corner of the world. BLM protests even in Iceland? Huh? But then, with Hollywood as the new vatican, the new faiths are the Wonder Jew, Magic Negro, and Holy Homo.
In a Memorial Day editorial, the ignorant, white-hating editorial board of the New York Times wrote: “Bases named for men who sought to destroy the Union in the name of racial injustice are an insult to the ideals servicemen and women are sworn to uphold – and an embarrassing artifact of the time when the military itself embraced anti-American values.” The ignorance in this statement is extraordinary. The South left the union because the South was being economically exploited by the North. The South fought because the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South, as President Lincoln said repeatedly, to “preserve the union,” that is, the empire. Lincoln said repeatedly that the South could have slavery forever if only the South would stay in the union.
Notice the selective moral outrage at the New York Times.
For true moral outrage, we don't even need to dwell on the distant past. Since the end of the Cold War, the US military has been involved in Wars for Israel that destroyed entire nations on false pretexts. Judeo-Nazis, aka Neocons and other Zionist swamp creatures, were behind this. And the US military backs Israel, the actions of which against Palestinians would count as 'genocide' by UN definition.
And what of US imperialist wars? We've been told over and over that all those US soldiers died defending US freedom. By dropping bombs and killing millions overseas? Apparently, those US imperialist soldiers in Philippines were dying(and killing the Filipinos by the bushel) to defend freedom at home!! US has a strange idea of defending freedom. America cries out in pain as it strikes other nations. It surrounds Iran but accuses Iran of aggression. Its navy confronts China in Chinese water but China is accused of belligerence.
Because the US was never invaded, most fallen US soldiers either died killing one another(in the Civil War) or killing foreigners in imperialist wars. They had NOTHING to do with defending US territory or US freedom. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a prelude to some grand plan to invade, let alone defeat, the US. It was to forestall US naval power in the Pacific so that Japan could secure its dominance over Asia.
The vile cliche or trope about US soldiers having given their lives in defense of US freedom must be laid to rest. US soldiers did NOT die defending US freedoms. US role in Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with defending freedom at home. Was American democracy threatened because China fell under communism? No. Then, why would it have mattered what happened to Korea and later Vietnam? Also, by dividing those nations in the first place, it was the US that planted the seeds for horrible civil wars there.
When the US attacked and invaded Iraq on bogus grounds, we heard the mantra yet again. Oh say can you see, those American boys and girls with bombs and missiles were defending US freedom! Or, we were told the US had to fight terrorists over there so it wouldn't have to fight them over here. Except that Iraq, like Libya and Syria, became infested with terrorists ONLY BECAUSE of US intervention. Looking further back, who'd done most to create the lunatics who did 9/11? It was US allies, especially Saudis and Pakistanis. And, US and Israel had been encouraging and using Jihadis, directly or indirectly, to undermine the region for dominance. And there should no longer be any doubt that Israel covertly egged on those Muslim radicals to attack NY and DC so that the US military could be used to fight more Wars for Israel. As most Americans have been dumbed down by Hollywood movies where ALL Muslims are 'terrorists', most Americans couldn't distinguish one bunch of Arabs from another bunch or one sect of Islam from another. Hussein had nothing to do with it, but he was a 'muzzie' too, and that was good enough for so many Americans to support the invasion. Clever Jews exploited goy ignorance and apathy on foreign affairs. Indeed, US and Israel continue to play this game to keep Syria in a state of war and destruction.
Because soldiers believe in patriotism & did as ordered and because so many young men died before they could start families and fulfill their dreams, every nation should honor their fallen, even if those soldiers fought in unjust wars. This goes for Japan and Germany as of the US.
But let's face facts. Majority of US soldiers died in imperialist wars, some of which were almost genocidal in nature. Why does NYT focus so much on the Evil Slavery Narrative when the US military carried out imperialist or semi-genocidal wars against the American Indians, the Mexicans(who lost the SW territories), Asians, Arabs, and etc.? The body count is in the millions, and no, those wars had NOTHING to do with 'defending freedom at home'. So many idiot Americans thank US soldiers for defending American democracy, but just how did the US military do that by bombing and destroying impoverished or developing nations thousands of miles away? Did Americans lose their freedom when the US withdrew from Vietnam? Would US democracy been endangered if US didn't invade Iraq in 2003? Actually, if the US has become less democratic and more oligarchic over the years, it's because goy America lost the civilian war of institutional power(and the culture war) to Jewish supremacists, Zionist-globalists, or Judeo-Nazis. The war that really must be fought is OVER HERE, and the best weapon is Truth and Courage. But clever Jews still have so many dimwit goyim believing that US freedom can only be preserved by US soldiers marching off to war to destroy and degrade whomever Jews hate. Jewish Hate is the driving force behind US foreign policy and belligerence.
Of course, NYT is run by Jewish supremacists who now fully endorse US imperialism, as most wars in recent yrs have been Wars for Israel. Who cares if all those Arabs and Muslims died? There's no moral outrage about any of that in the Paper of Wreckage. Precisely because Jewish supremacists at NYT need whites to remain as servile cucks, they keep cooking up this 'white guilt' BS about the special evil of the South. But if the South is guilty of slavery, why isn't the North blasted for its 'genocide' of the American Indians? Isn't genocide worse than slavery? (Of course, as mass immigration and eradication of American Indians turned out great for Jews, never mind all that.) And it was the dominant North that led US into imperialist over-reach that piled up so many dead bodies around the world. And recently, Jews have lots of blood on their hands as they've led US into Wars for Israel. And sanctions are a form of war too, and they've destroyed countless lives, mostly Arab and/or Muslim, to quench Jewish supremacist blood-lust. So, in observations of future Memorial Days, let us shame the Jews who've turned and abused the US military as a semi-genocidal war-mongering machine for Zion. JKK or Jew-Klux-Klan is the real terrorist power of the US. Or, at the very least, Americans should thank US military men for being such stupid whores of Jewish Power. Such gratitude would at least be honest in spelling out what the American War Machine is all about.
On Memorial Day yesterday, Americans were called upon to remember the American soldiers who have been killed in America’s many foreign wars. U.S. interventionists should have also used the day to apologize not only to the families of those veterans but also to the families who lost loved ones as a consequence of U.S. interventionism in their countries.
One may wonder why ‘Cultural Marxism’ is so offensive to some? Because ‘Cultural Marxism’ is obviously truthful and precise in its capacity to encapsulate a crucial and disastrous transition in the evolvement of 20th century Left thinking. As opposed to traditional Marxism that theorizes over the necessary condition toward social change by means of class struggle, ‘Cultural Marxism’ aims to introduce a change by cultural shift. At a certain stage some (neo) marxists and socialists were clever and honest enough to accept that the revolution wasn’t going to happen. The working class couldn’t be bothered and even if they could, they were too busy attending their jobs. The revolution had to be facilitated by different means.
Meaning of Cultural Marxism has changed over the years. There's a lot of misunderstanding because people conflate today's brand of 'Cultural Marxism' with Antonio Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony. Such is misleading.
The fact is Gramsci was a genuine communist. He believed control of culture would play a significant role in the revolution, and this revolution would ultimately lead to prole victory.
As for the Frankfurt School, they were more about Marxian possibilities than certainties. They preferred Marx's earlier works when he was searching for an answer in 'critique' mode than his later works when Marx the Prophet pontificated as if he'd figured it all out. Frankfurters wanted to return to the spirit of the early Marx when socialist radicalism hadn't yet hardened into dogma and decree. And they were increasingly sure that the Soviet Union wasn't the answer and maybe communism wasn't either. But one thing for sure, they were ANTI-CAPITALIST and seeking out new social theories and experimentation to arrive at what they hoped would be a better future.
Fast forward to today, and what goes by the name 'cultural marxism' has NOTHING to do with Gramsci and little to do with the Frankfurt School. Gramsci was a real communist, whereas today's 'cultural marxists' aren't. The Frankfurters and today's so-called 'cultural marxists' may have something in common in their fixation with psychology, esp of the sexual kind. But the decidedly anti-capitalist stance of the Frankfurters made them hostile to much of popular culture and advertising, which were deemed to be 'commoditizing' and cheapening the true meaning of humanity. Their idea of sexual liberation was more on the personal level, not something to be mass-marketed into pornography or vice industry.
Also, Gramsci and Frankfurters were first-rank intellectuals, agree with them or not. The book about German cinema, FROM CALIGARI TO HITLER(by Siegfried Kracauer, affiliated with the 'School'), is very impressive even if you disagree with its conclusions.
In contrast, today's 'cultural marxists' are superficial and infantile. In some ways, the higher quality of past intellectuals owed to bourgeois repression and the fact that Jews and women didn't have it so good back then. Bourgeois norms pressured people to be mature and serious about stuff and grow up. If Pauline Kael and Susan Sontag had been raised as millennials, they could have ended up like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. Also, the fact that many Jews weren't so privileged back then meant that they had really had to work hard and prove their worth. And women back then had to really prove their mettle in men-dominated fields. No one coddled them, and they had to be tough, like female characters played by Katharine Hepburn, Rosalind Russell, and Barbara Stanwyck. There was no OLEANNA-ish bullshi* back then. In contrast, so many of today's Jewish elites and women writers have been coddled all their lives in rich homes and/or by PC culture. They are easily triggered princelings who can't fight for themselves and immersed in precious bratriarchy.
Also, there is no interest in communism among today's 'left'. Rachel Maddow and her ilk incessantly badmouth Russia's communist past. They also side with right-wing Israel while denouncing left-wing Venezuela. (In the past, many liberal and certainly leftist media people at least sympathized with Cuba and China and faulted the US for making the Cold War worse than it needed to be.) Some college professors do claim to be communists, but it's all a joke because their MAIN obsession is 'man with a wig is a woman' and 'we must work with uber-capitalists to destroy the white working class'. Gramsci was a communist, and the Frankfurters were, if not hardline communists, at least anti-capitalist and deeply troubled by materialism and pop culture.
Today's 'cultural marxists' are totally with capitalism, oligarchy, materialistic decadence, commodification of humanity via advertising & pornography, gluttonous infantilism(of piggery, tattoos, piercing, and etc), neo-aristo self-indulgence with homo-celebration, narcissism(with slut pride), racial supremacism(worship the badass Negro), deep state & pro-imperialism(calling for more Wars for Israel) via the military-industrial complex, and etc.
Now, some on the Right use the term 'cultural marxism' to imply that today's 'leftists' gave up on economics(socialism or communism) in favor of 'culture wars', but such has to be seen as a deviation from(and even betrayal of) the original intent of both Gramsci and Frankfurters, for whom the culture war was a means to either bring about communism or to seriously undermine capitalism. In contrast, today's so-called 'cultural marxists' are immersed in trashy pop culture(concocted by super-capitalists), vanity & narcissism, spoiled-brat tantrums, and celebrity worship. They are not communists or Marxists. And their feeble idea of 'socialism' is NOT about justice for workers but "Give us free stuff so that we can lead happy hipster lives sipping starbucks and listening to reggae & hiphop(and a tattoo on my arse)." Their idea of justice has less to do with ideology or principles than idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos as propped up by media and academia mostly controlled by Jews. (Jews are having some troubles though because they count as white and are rich as hell. Also, PC psychology is getting awfully neurotic on the issue of holy Jews beating up on POC Palestinians. So, even some Jewish 'leftists' are beginning to denounce Zionism and Israel because the contradiction between Jewish abuse of power and Jewish image of victimhood is getting more problematic.)
When Gramsci and Frankfurters were devising cultural strategies, they weren't about wallowing in pop culture but offering a counter-culture to the dominant one controlled by the 'bourgeoisie'. But today's so-called 'cultural marxist' are delighted with junk-trash culture. For them, pop culture is the END than the means. (For many, pop culture is their only real passion.) Now, they do believe that pop culture must be politicized to serve the 'resistance', but what are the 'values' and 'dream's that they aspire to most? Stuff that are loved by oligarchs, capitalists, privileged decadents, deep state goons, and etc. They love homomania, a tool of rich Jewish capitalist hegemonists. Their reverence for blacks has less to do with Civil Rights Movement than rap music, sports, and sex. And they blabber about platitudes like 'diversity' and 'inclusion' via endless immigration-invasion without understanding that such actually undermine mass unity(to take on elite power). They fail to see that 'diversity' is a ploy used by elites to shift moral advantage from the working class to the elite class. Because working class types tend to be more tribal(by instinct if not necessarily by ideology), the 'compassionate' privileged elites can hug immigrants and minorities and morally condemn the native masses of 'racism'. Thus in the UK, the moral advantage went from white masses making demands on white elites to white elites sneering at white masses as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. Of course, the elites get 'good diversity', whereas masses get 'bad diversity'. Rich whites are more likely to rub shoulders with the Obamas, whereas poor whites are more likely to be punched by Mike Tysons. Elites the get the prime cut of diversity whereas the masses get the entrails. And naturally, there isn't much CRITICAL discussion of Jewish power(that is so supremacist, hegemonic, and ultra-capitalist) since the controllers of the elite institutions are largely Jewish.
Naomi Wolf is a ditz, but she was good enough to notice that today's 'cultural marxists' are actually working with the War Department to conflate 'empowerment of women' with US imperialism. Today, many 'cultural marxists' are totally on the side of US war-making because their idea of the highest value is globo-homo stuff. Since the US is now homo-metropole of the world, hell yeah, US should seek hegemony to spread hegehomony. And 'cultural marxists' support new cold war with Russia cuz... Russians won't bend over to 'gay pride' stuff(funded by super capitalists and Hollywood and Wall Street).
Today's 'cultural marxists' should really be called 'cultural capitalists'. It wasn't so much that Marxists took over the culture of capitalism but that capitalism totally transformed or subsumed the character of the Left so that there was no longer any real left left anymore. A 'cultural marxism' that is at home in the pages of Us and People magazines hardly has any moral value as an ideology.
A typical face of 'cultural marxism' is the atrocious Laura Dern in the latest STAR WARS fiasco. You see, the new rebellion is in a life-and-death struggle with the new empire, but notice she obviously spent many hours on her hair and dress to take command of the starship in the most crucial of times during the battle. It's all fantasy. The difference is when STAR WARS and SUPERMAN came out in the 70s, people took them for fantasy and nothing else. But now, we have 'cultural marxists' acting as if the real future of humanity hangs in the balance of what happens in STAR WARS, which is why it is so heavily politicized. It used to be, people got serious ideas from books(and some serious movies) and treated pop culture as escapist fantasy. Now, pop culture fantasyland is regarded as the main battleground of politics. As Chris Hedges said, we live in an empire of illusion where idolatry reigns over ideology. As 'cultural marxists' rule most of pop culture, it is said they have won the 'culture war'. But they won it for super-capitalists, neo-aristo homo narcissists, and tribal Jewish supremacists. The victory has nothing to do with real culture or anything resembling Marxism(or even classical progressivism).
In the radical films I AM CUBA and BATTLE OF ALGIERS, we see real revolutionaries putting their lives on the line for real world struggles. For them, it was not a game of Peter-Pan-ish fantasy. But what passes for 'cultural marxism' today is about taking control of Archie's Comics and STAR WARS franchise to churn out fantasies where the 'good guys(and gals and million other genders and intergalactic species)' come together to fight the 'bad guys' who look like MAGA people. And notice that the STAR WARS universe isn't so much about ragtag rebels vs the empire than about empire vs empire. So, the ultimate message is that militarism and blowing up the world is AWESOME and EXCELLENT as long as it's 'woke' according to Hollywood, Pentagon, Deep State, and the homo-hegemonic community.
On the matter of New Zealand, I have to disagree with Partisan Girl(at around 1:16:00) of the Video Above. (Video has since been removed by Zionist Supremacist Youtube.)
It's true Maoris were there first and have ancestral connection to the land, something which whites don't have(at least not deeply). But New Zealand as a nation, economy, and system is entirely the creation of whites, namely Anglos. Without Anglo conquest and colonization of that territory, there would be no New Zealand, period. Whites created the modern nation of New Zealand, which many consider a kind of affluent and well-managed paradise.
So, I would argue TWO peoples have a right to New Zealand(aka Maori-land). Maoris because they'd been there for many thousands of years and have deep roots. And whites because they arrived and built a new social and economic system from scratch. Maoris have a link with the soil and plants; whites have a direct connection to all the cities and institutions that they built in what came to be known as New Zealand.
Then, if whites in New Zealand historically owe something to another people, it is to Maoris and TO MAORIS ONLY as New Zealand was taken from Maoris and from no one else. As whites didn't take New Zealand from Muslims or Arabs, Muslims and/or Arabs have NO CLAIM to New Zealand, which they didn't build and to which they lack ancestral claim of blood and soil.
That said, if the good people of Australia and New Zealand really sympathize with suffering Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, why don't they grow some a pair and condemn the Jewish-controlled US for waging all these Wars for Israel that have wrecked so much of the Middle East as the result of bombs, support to radical Jihadis(mostly by US and Saudis), and economic sanctions(that have devastated entire nations)? But elites and progs in Aussies and Zealanders are totally shhhhhh about that truth and just express their sympathy by taking in Arab refugees(even though they themselves weren't the ones who pushed these insane wars). It seems Jews tribalize/privatize the gains and universalize/socialize the costs/losses in these Wars for Israel. Weakened and wrecked Muslim nations are good for Israeli dominance, so Jews tribalize the gains. But these wars led to all these refugees, so Jews universalize the costs/losses by burdening OTHER nations to take in refugees(while Israel takes in none and, if anything, keeps taking more of West Bank and are poised to annex Golan Heights). Anyway, if the 'compassionate' elites of Australia and New Zealand are so concerned about the plight of Arabs and Muslims, why don't they condemn the SOURCE of the problem that led to the Refugee Problem in the first place? You know, the damn Wars for Israel. But it seems most elites in Australia and New Zealand are either too afraid, brainwashed, and/or bought-and-sold by the Zionist globo-homo Power to speak the simple truth. So, their idea of sympathy is cleaning up the mess made by the Jews while never mentioning Jewish power as culprit.
Imagine if, during World War II, Australia and New Zealand took in Polish and Greek refugees without ever mentioning the fact that Nazi Invaders are the cause of the refugee problem. Worse, imagine if Australia and New Zealand, even as they took in Polish and Greek refugees, praised and flattered Nazi Germany 24/7. Well, such is the state of the world today. Jewish-run US is the source of most major conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. These are Wars for Israel instigated by Judeo-Nazis, but the cuck-elites of New Zealand and Australia are always full of praise for Zionism and US foreign policy. They don't dare to name the real culprits of the Middle East Wars. Their feeble idea of 'good work' is cleaning the mess made by another without ever naming and blaming that other.
Due to the undeniable Jewish domination of US foreign policy, there’s been increasing criticism of Zionist-Jewish influence on America’s role in World Affairs. Many have noted that Jewish interests or Israel First mindset has warped a rational assessment of America’s true interests. Stephen Walt and John Mearshimer even wrote a book on the subject called THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. And Andrew Bacevich in AMERICA’S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST duly noted that following the end of the Cold War(when the USSR no longer existed to lend support to Arab client-states), nearly all of America’s wars have curiously been fought in the Middle East against nations especially feared or hated by Jewish Zionists. That said, is it fair to blame Jews when American History has long been replete with examples of imperial expansion, foreign meddling, ‘police actions’, subversion & regime change, and outright invasions? And yet, certain things are indeed no longer the same following the change in elite power from Wasps to Jews. It is worth considering the differences between Then and Now and how they’ve affected the reach and tenor of perceived U.S. interests and interference in world affairs.
Firstly, in the past, especially prior to WWII, US expansionism was part of the World Norm. Imperialism was common and proudly practiced on every continent. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire stretching across Middle East, Southeastern Europe, and parts of North Africa. Russians kept expanding into Siberia and Central Asia. It had also swallowed huge chunks of Central Europe. When the British opened up trade with China, it’d been under Manchu Imperial domination for ever a century and half. There were native imperialist wars among savage tribes(among whom Zulus were the most impressive and notorious) in Africa before European nations began to carve it up. And Mexico(as with the rest of ‘Latin America’) was also the product of empire building. Spanish imperialists bested the Aztec Imperialists. In the other words, the Conquistadors were aptly named. The Spanish also took Philippines. The British and the French embarked on creating vast new empires. The US was created out of empire-building and continued in that vein up to the 20th century.
Therefore, US warmongering in the past, for better or worse, was part of the world norm. Every major power did it or aspired to it. Also, empire-building was deemed as national glory for the Whole People(as in Roman times). So, even though the elites benefited the most, there was a shared sense of pride and victory among all Britons in the British Empire. And, all Frenchmen were to share in the glory of French magnificence around the world, i.e. they weren’t merely part of a great civilization but a great civilizing project in the world. And US expansion into SW territories was seen as a great opportunity not only for the Power Elites but for ordinary Anglo settlers who could start new lives in those parts. And it was an improvement, at least materially, even for Mexicans in the region because Anglos did so much more with the land than Mexico ever did. It’s like the character of Ramon has it pretty good working for gringos in THE BIG COUNTRY. He was like the Guillermo of his day.
So, imperial wars were once standard among the great powers, and nearly all peoples participated in them as conquerors or subjects. Even smaller powers practiced a local version of imperialism. If not for French Imperialism, the mini-imperialism of the Thais and the Vietnamese might have wiped Cambodia off the map. And of course, American Indians had been like childish savages ‘genociding’ one another since time immemorial, long before the first white man ever arrived.
In the Age of Empire, glory belonged to ALL the people of the victorious power. Empire-building wasn’t just an elite endeavor and enterprise. So, when British power gained domination in India, even British masses could go there and enjoy the privilege of calling a ‘dotkin’ a ‘brown sammy’. The elites got to lord over the empire, but the white masses got to feel some of the power too, like calling a ‘dotkin’ a ‘bloody coon’.
And when Anglo-American Empire spread across the ‘fruited plains’(now the fruity plains), little people gained alongside the big people. While the big industrialists always got more, little folks got their little house on the prairie. (If People Power in land-deficient Europe had no recourse but to demand distribution by taxation, People Power in the land-abundant US could be satisfied with promise of property... that is until the majority of Americans became urban dwellers dependent on wages than personal property, especially farmland, for a livelihood.)
But then, with the spread of European-style and American-style nationalism all around the world and the emergence of native elites who felt slighted by European imperialists(with their exclusive all-white clubs) and were no longer willing to collaborate with foreign masters, there was a sea-change in attitudes among non-whites, and anti-imperialist uprisings finally exploded in every non-Western corner of the world and achieved their main objectives as European powers were reeling from the calamitous effects of World War II. (Also, as even the great European powers had either been conquered/humiliated or attacked/devastated by Nazi Imperialist aggression, many Europeans after World War II began to feel that imperialism could no longer be justified in any part of the world. They increasingly sympathized with non-white subjects resisting European imperialism, even of their own kind.)
Still, prior to imperialism’s gaining a bad reputation, it was part and parcel of how the world operated… even though Europeans had extended it far beyond the reach of earlier civilizations. So, warmongering back then was perceived and practiced differently from the warmongering that existed in the post-WWII era. During the Cold War, nothing was deemed worse than imperialism in the court of World Opinion. This was rather ironic since both US and USSR were great neo-empires(or crypto-empires). However, it is telling that they employed imperial might in the name of combating the imperialism of the Other side. When the British and the French had competed on the world stage, it was openly about empire vs empire. In contrast, the US and USSR practiced empire vs empire ostensibly as anti-empire vs anti-empire. It’s like Progs pretend that HATE exists only on the other side. They themselves hate but see HATE only on the Right. Likewise, US and USSR practiced imperialism but saw it only on the other side.
Cold War was a strange phenomenon in exerting tremendous neo-imperialist energies against the threat of the OTHER imperialism. Pax Americana portrayed itself as representing the ‘Free World’ against Soviet-Communist Imperialism that held the Eastern Bloc captive and funded radical lunatics in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to spread the Marxist virus. In Afghanistan, the US purported to back the ‘freedom fighters’ against Soviet Imperialist occupation.
Soviets returned the favor against US hegemony. Soviets conflated imperialism with capitalism, i.e, US imperialism was the logical outgrowth of the naked greed of capitalism . So, US support of right-wing autocrats all over the world was part of the capitalist-imperialist plan of global exploitation. Pax Sovietica promised justice and equality for all peoples under the liberating power of communism and compatible ideologies.
And even though some historians and ideologues now claim that the Cold War was exaggerated and overblown, it was a real enough international conflict between giants. Both great powers resorted to strategies of imperialist character to brutalize their main enemy(or its proxies) and to bribe their allies(or puppets). So, the warmongering of the Cold War era was intrinsic to the how the world was structured and divided back then into two major spheres of influence. It was a real Struggle of History, one that finally came to an End when the USSR agreed to Western terms of peace.
So, even though US aggression and warmongering in the past(when Jews did not control America) had their dark side, they were either in tune with the international norm(dominated by Great Power politics) OR engaged in a Grand Battle of Ideas that would decide, once and for all, the ‘End of History’.
But, matters are so different in the present. The US is the lone superpower and stronger than ever. Imperialism is still regarded as a dirty word, and there are no rival ideologies that seek to unseat, let alone defeat, the US as the premier world power. If Soviet imperialism and US imperialism during the Cold War could be justified as ‘necessary evil’ against the Other Imperialism, such logic fails today because the US and its allies face no existential threat(except in Immigration, aka Mass Invasion or Demographic Imperialism, which is enabled by the very rulers of the US, Europe, and now Japan too). This is why US globo-imperialism must be ever more hysterical in exaggerating New Threats to justify its obsession with world hegemony.
Worst of all, the New Imperialism is used to serve the vanities of the 2% of Americans. Actually, it’s closer to 0.2% of the population that make up the Jewish globalist elites because many ordinary American Jews are increasingly growing critical of Israel’s reckless policies.
Whatever one may say of past imperialism, it served and represented an entire people. When US grabbed Southwest territories from Mexico, it was for ALL Americans to share in the land, cattle, and opportunity. But when the current neo-imperialist US makes a mess of Middle East and North Africa(nations hated by Israel), it only serves the extremely narrow interests of the Tribe. Also, if warmongering during the Cold War had some overarching purpose in the War of Ideas, the new warmongering is petty and tribal by design and delivery. Sure, some Neocons try to portray it as the Next Great Cause. World War IV as Norman Podhoretz called it. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/world-war-iv-how-it-started-what-it-means-and-why-we-have-to-win/. 9/11 was spun by Neocons and globalists as the beginning of the Next Big Struggle: The War on Terror. But as it turned out, the US found itself at war with a bunch of ragtag nobodies. Not exactly WWIV. And what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? If anything, Saddam Hussein(vile nasty bugger that he was) had ruthlessly clamped down on terrorists within Iraq. Furthermore, how could the world suddenly be sprouting all these ‘new hitlers’? Lately, Putin became ‘new hitler’, apparently because he said NO to Homo Poo-Ride parades and ‘gay marriage’ in Russia. Most perversely, the War ON Terror soon morphed into War WITH Terror. Under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the US actually worked with remnants of Alqaeda(rebranded as ‘moderate rebels’) to undermine secular modern regimes that had kept order and stability in the region. It is incredible that Americans aren’t outraged that the war that had begun AGAINST the terrorists who did 9/11 eventually metastasized into war ALONGSIDE those very terrorists against secular Arab regimes in the region. It was as if Jewish Power was willing to tell any lie or invoke whatever convoluted logic to justify warmongering to expand Jewish globalist hegemony and crush any Arab or Muslim enemy or rival of Israel. (Even 9/11 was mostly blowback for needlessly intrusive US policy in the Middle East. Iran and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It was US and Saudis that had funded and created Jihadi forces, esp in Afghanistan, to use against the Soviets and then Iran. US was attacked by the very monster it helped create with the Saudis. It's like poison gas could blow back to one's own side with shift in the wind. Indeed, it is telling that following 9/11, the US did absolutely nothing against Saudi Arabia, the very nation that had been most instrumental in the creation of monsters like Osama Bin Laden. But because of the deep historical ties between Saudis and the US[that had been no less involved in creating useful terrorists like Osama], the Jewish media moguls and the Deep State overlooked key details and spun wild theories about how Iraq and Iran must be destroyed to prevent another 9/11 or worse: the Day After of Nuclear Terrorism.)
All of it was hype: Speak pushily and carry a big Shtick. Cold War may have been exaggerated but it was real enough. Soviet Union at its peak was a great power and did rule over Eastern Europe. And if China had maintained good relations with Russia and if Mao had better economic sense, the Sino-Soviet alliance might have kept the Cold War going for much longer. Imagine if, with some economic reforms, Chinese labor had combined with Soviet resources and know-how. Communist power would have been far more formidable. But Mao had a peasant mentality and didn’t get modernity.
Anyway, the nature of today’s imperialism, hegemonism, and warmongering is far more perverse because it runs against the New International Norms that emerged as part of a universal consensus following WWII: Imperialism is bad, and nationalism is ideal for each people for whom nationhood is viable. And in recent years, there have been Western voices(usually shills of Jews) that say the US in the 21st century should openly and proudly espouse empire-building as its modus operandi. Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson are agreed on this. Their dream of Lost British Empire is relived through Zio-Anglo-American might. Still, most people will not defend imperialism as policy. By and large, even globo-hegemonic US continues to justify its expansionism and interventionism on the basis of defending the World Order from imperialistic or terrorist threats posed by Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, and etc.
So, why is the US acting like an imperialist power in a world that, ideologically at any rate, has no place for imperialism? US freaks out about Russia ‘invading’ Crimea(when it wasn’t invaded) but insists it has the right to make threats on other nations and invade & destroy Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and maybe Iran and Venezuela too down the line. The undeniable fact that most of these targets of US hostility and hegemony happen to be nations hated by Jewish globalists is proof that Jewish Tribal hostility is at the root of current World Problems.
During the Cold War, many people in both camps knew of the most egregious abuses and betrayals carried out by their own side. Surely, there were people in Soviet Union who felt bad about Russian invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. And there were Americans who were disillusioned by US meddling in Latin America and Asia. But many Americans believed the alternative could be worse on basis of the Domino Theory that posited that if Commies are given an inch, they take a mile. Likewise, the Soviets believed that if ONE nation were allowed to exit from the Soviet-sphere, the rest would follow. If Soviets had done nothing following the Hungarian Uprising, the anti-Soviet rebellion would have spread to all Warsaw Pact nations.
But, we now live in a world that could be peaceful and harmonious IF the US wanted it that way. The world no longer believes in empires. There is no longer any great ideological struggle. Some characterize the New Struggle as The West vs Islam, a ‘clash of civilizations’, but actually, it could easily be resolved by ending mass immigration and US meddling in the Middle East. Leave those people alone, and they will leave you alone. Keep them out of your domain on the basis of nationalism, and they will live in their own nations. It was Jewish-Israeli paranoia about Iran, Syria, and all the rest that led to these useless wars that served NO ONE but Israel and Jewish globalist-Zionist interests.
Francis Fukuyama is a real globalist shill, but he was right in the sense that there was no longer any great ideological struggle following the end of the Cold War. Today’s so-called Big Ideas are all hype, manufactured and phony, like Homomania or Queertianity, which is really just a proxy of Jewish Hegemonism. If the world just wanted to get along and do business, it could do so and have peace and stability, the kind hoped for by Steven Pinker in BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE, on the basis of Universal Nationalism.
Look around the world. Japan doesn’t want to fight wars. European nations don’t want to conquer and rule over other nations. Russia wants trade and investment, not more wars. It doesn’t have plans to retake Lithuania and Estonia. It is reluctant even to annex Donbass. China just wants more trade opportunities. Chinese don’t want to put military bases all over the world, nor does it want to ‘save’ or rule the world with Big Chinese Ideas. Chinese don’t think "inside every barbarian is a chinaman trying to get out." Latin America shelved ideological conflicts that had once seemed intractable. There was a time when just about every other Latin American nation was severely challenged by Marxist insurgency. That is all gone. Peace is possible if people want it.
So, what is driving all this madness that threatens to turn 21st century into a hellhole?
1. It is Jewish globalist greed in foreign policy. The desire to use American power to further Jewish Might, esp in the Middle East. As Jews control the US(the key vassal of the Empire of the Judea) and the EU(a vassal of the US), they pretty much own the two richest parts of the world. But Jews also want control over vast Russia with all its resources. The only obstacle to Jewish Supremacism is Russian nationalism, which is why Jews seek to undermine Russia with appeals to ‘democracy’ and homomania. The main problem of this approach is the insanely narrow tribal interests of Jews on the World Stage. Jews simply don’t identify with most peoples who make up nations like US or Russia. When Anglo elites ruled America, they put their class interests above all else, BUT they still felt some degree of connection to the masses, many of whom were also Anglo, similar to Anglo, or, at the very least, white and Christian. Vladimir Putin feels a real connection with fellow Russians. Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt felt a certain bond with the white masses. Even though they were elites, they were of the same racial-and-cultural stock as the majority population. But Jews simply don’t feel much affinity with the goyim. Sure, Jews will make temporary alliances and feign compassion or shared values. For example, Jews will unite with Christians against Muslims and then later unite with Muslims against Christians or do both at the same time. Jews will make white Christians hate ‘muzzies’ and drop bombs in the Middle East... and then hug Muslim ‘refugees’ and pretend to protect them from ‘racist white Christians’. Jewish contempt for goyim runs very deep. Not all Jews have this animus, but many powerful Jews do. Chinese elites may be lowdown and dirty, a bunch of snakes, BUT they feel some degree of solidarity with other Chinese as fellow countrymen. But Jews lack such sentiments for the goyim, the white masses, the ‘deplorables’ who crave real leadership and inspiration. Jews pretend to care for blacks, but then go about welcoming Invasive-Immigration to replace urban blacks with Asians, Hindus, Arabs, and Mesos.
In a way, Jews feel that a world in a state of flux and crisis is to their benefit. After all, if all nations were stable and at peace, they would focus on their own domestic affairs. And then, each nation will ask itself, “who has the most power and privilege in our nation?”, and the finger could easily point to Jews. So, in order for nations around the world to NOT notice Jewish power, they must be set against each other. If Americans are angry with Russians, they won’t notice who really rules America. That way, Jews can play the role of ‘patriots’ defending US from Russian ‘aggression’ and ‘influence’. And if Americans are made to hate Iran(as an ‘existential threat’), they won’t ask questions about who really controls US foreign policy and why. And why not push the Yellow Peril narrative so that Americans will blame China for everything… even though Jews played a key role in bringing China into the globalist economic system. Do business with China but use media power to make China out to be the Princess Dragon Mom. If you’re a coyote, it’s better to have bears, tigers, lions, buffaloes, and etc. hate and fight one another than notice YOU.
2. But there is even a bigger threat that will mess up all nations in the 21st century. It is mass migration(or mass invasion) and demographic imperialism. No group has been more responsible for pushing this than the Jews. This will spell doom and end for Europe and possibly for East Asia and Australia/New Zealand as well. And Canada and US. Europe is esp in trouble as it’s being flooded with black Africans who are more muscled, more aggressive, more loutish, and bigger-donged than white men. As Europe become junglo-Africanized, white men will be wussified and white women will be womb-colonized and give birth to vile creatures like Obama and Kaepernick. Europe will become like Morocco or worse. With control of Media, Academia, and the Sacred Narrative, Jews have persuaded all these naive native whites into embracing Diversity, Jungle Fever, Replacism, and ‘White Guilt and Atonement’ as the only way forward. And US is no different.
For a time following WWII, there was the Golden Age of Universal Nationalism when all peoples aspired to independence-from-imperialism and national sovereignty. At the UN, it was agreed upon by all members that imperialism is wrong in any part of the world. So, the end of the Cold War seemed to promise the end of imperialism. Indeed, even the first Gulf War was billed as anti-imperialist because, after all, Iraq had invaded Kuwait. But this posture of anti-imperialism and limited war soon morphed into a prelude for More Wars of imperialist power-lust. Saddam Hussein was small potatoes in grabbing only Kuwait. US will smash-and-grab entire nations, at least if Jewish globalists want them occupied or destroyed.
Anyway, the Golden Age of Nationalism could have been fulfilled with the end of the Cold War. The Cold War had necessitated both US and USSR to act like imperialist powers in the grand struggle. But absent such conflict, each people could finally be independent and secure their own national destiny. Indeed, the liberation of each Eastern European nation was greeted with enthusiasm. The defunct imperialism of the Iron Curtain no longer stood in the way of national independence of peoples finally freed from the Soviet/Russian yoke. Furthermore, the former Soviet Union itself birthed many new nations. Russian empire broke into various new republics, mostly peacefully. There was war in Yugoslavia, but at the end of the day, stable long-term peace was achieved with assertions of national identity and independence. And it could have been a happy story. And most peoples would have been content with Universal Nationalism.
So, what destroyed it? One was US-warmongering in Middle East and North Africa that led to huge ‘refugee’ crisis, mostly into Europe. Another was rise of PC in EU that made ‘diversity’ sacrosanct. Apparently, it was the duty of white nations to keep letting in tons of non-whites on some crazy notion that ‘diversity is a strength’. (If so, why are super-diverse Latin America and North Africa such a mess?)
But even more dangerous was the alliance between Jewish globalists and non-white elites & masses all over the world. Non-whites who had once resisted and fought Western Imperialists and told whites to GO HOME now decided to shift into Demographic Imperialist Mode and mass-colonize white nations. The reason was crass and obvious. They’d made a mess of things in their own nations with corruption, repression, violence, and/or barbarism. And they wanted shortcuts to material comfort and social stability in the West. So, these non-whites around the world went from the slogan of YANKEE GO HOME to YANKEE LET ME IN. And it was Jewish Power that pulled strings to pressure white nations into taking all these People of Color(or Corruption).
People of Color(POC) found PC very useful as a moral cover for their crassness. In reality, they’d failed their own nations and hoped to flee from their own peoples and cultures to enjoy better material conditions and opportunities in the West among Nicer White Folks. But admitting-as-much would have sounded crass and shameful. It would have meant they’d rather run off to White Success than deal with their own failures. PC came in handy because it justifies non-white invasion of white nations on moral grounds, however bogus they may be: Redress or reparations to compensate for white ‘exploitation’ of darkies in the past. The combo of POC and PC has led to a strange phenom of “whitey, I hate you, so please let me come live with you”.
So, universal nationalism was destroyed by this new virulent form of globalism. If the West had not allowed mass immigration, non-whites would have remained in their own nations and worked harder to improve things. But once the gates were open to the West, non-whites figured it would be much easier and faster to enjoy the good life in the West. In time, the process was completed with non-whites joining elite ranks alongside Jews and Homos. When white elites used to send signals like ‘No Dogs and Chinese allowed’, non-whites felt slighted or insulted and decided to lead their own people in national struggles. But once Western elite institutions made room for non-white elites(as collaborators and partners-in-crime in globalist hegemony), the latter joined the Elysium club and pledged their main loyalty to neo-imperialist Jews/whites than work for their own kind. This has led to Diversity of Privilege where elites of all colors rub shoulders in hogging power, privilege, and influence. Having no allegiance but to power and privilege, they will cynically work to further Zio-US hegemony, even if it means harm and degradation to their nations of origin. In contrast, masses get Diversity of Poverty. While white elites rub shoulders with fancy mulattoes and non-white sophisticates, white masses get punched by nasty thug Negroes and replaced by grubby masses of non-white foreigners.
So, under globalism non-whites effectively became demographic imperialists, and so, the world has reverted to the Age of Empire. But then, it is much worse than past imperialism. Back then, whites, the most advanced peoples, went to less developed places and spread science, technology, and new ideas. Also, except in some parts of the New World(and Australia), whites didn’t have the numbers to permanently replace the natives. So, Africa is still black, South Asia is still brown, Middle East is still Arabic, and East Asia is still yellow.
But the current demographic tide into the West, if unchecked, will turn white nations into mulatto nations forever. France will become Morocco-Cameroon. Germany will become Nigeria-Turkey. Sweden will become Somalia-Afghanistan. Why would Jews do something so terrible? After all, Jews insist on keeping Israel Jewish, and Zionists don’t take in any Africans or new Muslims. Jews do this to white nations because they ONLY care about their own power. Jews figure that if all white nations are made ‘diverse’, there won’t be sufficient white majority and solidarity to work against Jewish elite power. Also, whites will be too busy bickering with Africans and Muslims to confront Jewish Power. Jews effectively play both sides. Jews go to the non-whites and say, “we are your allies against nazi ‘racist’ whites” and Jews go to whites and plead, “Oh help us poor poor Jews from those terrorist antisemitic Muzzies who are like the new nazis.”
As the result of current trends, the 21st century will be even more crucial than the 20th century. It will determine if the West and white race survive at all.
North Korea’s survival strategy is brutally simple: “If you invade us, we will blow up South Korea and maybe even Tokyo.” North Korea is ruled by a vile regime, but its concern for survival is politically rational even if it has no moral right to exist. But then, South Korea, the perennial puppet whore of US globalist empire, is hardly better. Though an advanced democratic state, it is demographically dying and culturally decayed. Now, if North Korea were ruled by wiser people, it could have made an intelligent argument for possessing nuclear weapons: To ensure national defense & survival, given the recent American record in the Middle East and North Africa. Especially in Libya, the US took out the regime despite Gaddafi’s having caved to Western demands on development of WMD. Gaddafi was led to believe in a new dawn of good relations with the West, only to see the Zionist-controlled West cook up some excuse to decapitate his regime and cackle over his lynching. So, given the US record as a neo-imperialist power, the North Korea could have made a sane and sober argument in justification for nuclear defense against potential US invasion, especially since the US keeps staging more military drills with South Korea to intimidate the North. Alas, North Korea is ruled by an egotistical brat whose idea of culture is imitating the style of basketball and rap thugs of America. His idea of good relations with the US is fawning over a freak like Dennis Rodman. Kim Jong-Un just acts like Bam-Bam of Flinstones and gives the impression he wants nukes as personal toys to have fun playing a 007 villain.
Interestingly enough, as different as North Korea and Jewish Power are, they have one thing in common: WGYG or We Go, You Go. The idea is that if they are destroyed, they will take others down with them.
Jewish Power employed this threat in 2008. When the government didn’t bail out Lehman Brothers, Wall Street pushed the ‘too big to fail’ scheme and threatened Total Collapse of the Economy UNLESS it was showered with super bailouts, which eventually came to enrich the banks and investment firms even further during a severe recession in which so many Americans had to tighten their belts around their fat waists. George W. Bush couldn’t do anything but go along. Obama promised something radical and different in his campaign but just bailed out Wall Street once he got in office. And McCain would have done the same had he won. Jewish Wall Street power held a gun to the head of the entire US economy and said ‘Give us money, OR we will take you down with us.’
The system has been rigged with explosives so that a major collapse of Jewish Power will set off total collapse of the whole economy. The fuse runs through the entire system. The whole edifice will come tumbling down like the Philistine Temple when Samson toppled the pillars. And, if anyone tries to cut the wire of Jewish explosives, kaboom, the whole thing blows up, and everyone dies. Gentiles must carry Jewish Power like a crate of nitroglycerin. One false step and it’s Kingdom Come.
Even Israel has a similar mindset. Though Israel’s main reasons for nukes is to intimidate Muslim nations, they are also meant as a global threat lest Israel were to fall due to insufficient Western support. In other words, Israel will take down Europe along with it. So, unless Europe does everything possible to prop up Israel against its enemies, it could expect nuclear missiles from Israel if Zion were to fall. In other words, Israel will not go down alone. It will take the world down with it. Even if Europeans aren't the ones to destroy Israel, they will be nuked just the same IF Jerusalem were to fall once again. So, Europeans damn well better make sure that Israel is secure forever. Otherwise, Jews will not experience the next holocaust alone. They will spread and share it with the world.
