New 'Civil War' in America Will be White vs White — Civic Imperialism is Possible but not Civic Nationalism — US was a Race-Nationalist Republic — US Power as Headless Emperor

 https://counter-currents.com/2020/10/yes-we-are-headed-for-violent-civil-war/

Will there be a civil war in America? Of course, this means an intra-white war. There won't be a civil war within the black community. Not one in the brown community. Not one in the Muslim or Asian community. Not in the Jewish community. While there are Liberal Zionists, Neocon Zionists, and some radical Jews, Jews are not into Jew-vs-Jew conflicts. Jews usually circle the wagons. Will there be a war among the various groups? Blacks vs browns vs Jews vs yellows vs Hindus vs Muslims vs etc? The only states where such is remotely possible are California and SW territories, Florida, New York, and few others. They are very diverse, and various groups don't see eye to eye. Still, it's unlikely because most non-whites EXCEPT FOR BLACKS mostly get along, co-exist quietly, or at least tolerate one another. Also, as Jews control media and academia, they've directed most non-white ire and animus toward Bad Whites. Anti-whiteness is the political glue among non-whites. It is the one that nominally maintains the alliance of Jews, white cucks, non-whites, and blacks EVEN THOUGH the group that ALL GROUPS have the most trouble with are blacks by far. But due to mass media manipulation, mass education/indoctrination, and the cult of black cool, there is a tendency among Jews and non-whites to at least symbolically associate themselves with blackness that represents both natural supremacy(in sports, rap, and sexuality) and historical victimization(as slaves and marchers for Civil Rights).

Of course, if all whites were to vanish into the thin air in the US, the main conflict will be among Jews, non-whites, and blacks. Without anti-white animus as the unifying glue, it could be hell for all involved. It's like US and USSR became bitter enemies once Germany and Japan lost out in the game of global hegemony. In a US without whites, Jews and Muslims would be serious rivals, especially as white cucks wouldn't be around as cheerleaders and foot-soldiers of Zionism and Wars for Israel. One thing for sure, Jews aren't going to fight their own battles, and they'll have a hard time persuading non-whites and blacks to side with Jews against Muslims. Also, without whitey to blame, most blacks and non-whites will mainly feel resentful about Jewish wealth, privilege, and power. Without whites to scapegoat as the perennial villains, Jews will have a difficult time in deflecting the rage, resentment, and envy of blacks and non-whites. I suppose Jews can try to scapegoat other groups. Make blacks and non-whites resent Asians as too successful. Or try to set Muslims vs Browns vs Blacks. Or try to forge an alliance with Hindus against Muslims. But it will be a tough sell without whites as the all-purpose bad guys and always-reliable-cucks. 

But whites do exist, and if there is a 'civil war' in the US, it will be a whites vs whites affair. It will mainly be between white priders and white guilters. Between white shucks and white cucks. White Priders will be animated by either overt white pride or refusal to succumb to the cult of 'white guilt'. Even if civic nationalist than ethno-nationalist, they will reject the notion that whites are especially to blame for the wrongs of the world. Also, they will believe that, in the final equation, whites did far more good than bad in world history. 

In contrast, White Guilters will believe that whites are uniquely to blame for what is wrong with the US and the world. Even so, as their minds are molded by Jews, they won't particularly care for most peoples around the world, no matter how much they've been harmed by whites(as foot-soldiers of Jews). After all, most proggy types feel hardly any guilt about or sympathy for Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims whose lives were utterly destroyed by the US empire under Zionist control. They never utter "Palestinian Lives Matter", "Arab Lives Matter", "Syrian Lives Matter", "Iranian Lives Matter", and etc. They feel nothing for Russians who perished in the gangster capitalist 1990s dominated by Jewish globalists. As their minds are mushy clay toyed with by Jewish Hands, their main passion boils down to 'white conservatives are nazis', 'blacks are so awesome and cool, therefore especially tragic for having suffered', and 'homos & trannies are the angels of new spirituality'. Clearly, the white 'right' is far saner than the white 'left'. Still, what is most tragic is neither side will understand why there is this rift within the white race. Why did so many whites come to hate their own kind, especially in service to Jews and blacks(and really no other people)? And why did they come to believe they are Good Whites on account of celebrating Sodomy while others are Bad Whites because they don't believe Bruce Jenner is a 'woman'? Because people on the white 'right' are relatively less mind-controlled by Jews, they are more independent and balanced than the morons on the white 'left' who are truly pathetic puppets of Jews who control academia and media.

But the problem is 'white 'conservatives' are too stupid and/or ignorant to realize that the main reason for this white-vs-white hatred is Jewish Power. Even as they rant about the 'left', they hardly say anything about Jewish Power that has driven the wedge between white people, dividing them between 'right' and 'left'. That Jewish Power has a hand in both the 'right' and the 'left' is easily proven. Why is it that, even as the 'right' and 'left' berate and insult one another, they go out of their way to prove that they are supportive of Israel and happily servile to Jews? Donald Trump and his minions are supposed to represent populism and the 'right', but there's hardly any talk of white identity/interests but instead endless gibberish about "Muh Israel". In that sense, the white 'right' is only relatively more independent-minded than the white 'left'. Sadly, it is beholden to Jewish Power even as Jews do everything to dump on it. Things are screwier yet. Jews are dominant in American Liberalism, and that means progs and 'leftists' are beholden to Jewish Money. Also, Jews have funded blacks and non-whites as allies against whites. But this also means that, at least on the grassroots level, there are many on the 'left' who sympathize with Palestinians against Zionists. And such numbers seem to be growing. But at the upper echelons of Liberalism, the power is entirely with Jews and their cuck-progs and toadies who grovel at the feet of Zion. Still, even if muted and muffled, the most vocal anti-Zionist voices are found on the American 'left' at the grassroots level. BDS is dominated by grassroots left and totally crushed by Jews. 

In contrast, given the Jewish animus toward the American 'right', one would think most conservatives and the like would be anti-Jewish. But sadly, many on the 'right' are even more supportive of Jews and Israel than those on the grassroots 'left' are. In a sane America, both white 'right' and white 'left' should unite in a 'civil war' against Jewish Power, the real supremacist force in American Politics and foreign policy. But in Crazy America, the Jews, the most insanely tribal and supremacist people, have convinced idiot white 'progs' to revile and attack other white people as 'supremacist' on account of them saying "It's Okay to be White." White 'progs' seem to believe that Jews suppress 'white supremacism' for the sake of equality and social justice. In truth, Jews suppress white identity/interests to make whites cuck to and serve Jewish Supremacism. Are white 'progs' really this retarded? If they are truly about justice and morality, why have they been silent about Wars for Israel under Obama and Hillary as puppets of Jews? For all their yammering about justice for all peoples around the world, their political perspective is so provincially centered on the US Big Media Narrative spun by Jewish oligarchs. They never question the education or information pushed on them; they just mindlessly believe on faith on account of being told that people who adopt such-and-such viewpoints are 'woke' and 'progressive'. But in truth, the current 'left' and 'right' are fluid, both manipulated by those above. Today's 'left' is about globo-homo vanity over working class interests, and today's 'right' is about 'gay marriage is okay but trannies in washroom is not'... but wait a few years and 'trannies in washroom' will be the new 'rightist' value while the 'left' finds some other kooky issue to foam at the mouth over. The 'left' is retarded, but the 'right' is dumb. Haven't white 'rightists' figured out that the Jewish agenda for them is White Nakba? Jews are using Diversity-Inclusion to bring about the Great Replacement of whites by non-whites in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US. Given such an agenda, when will whites wake up and begin to identify with Palestinians? But these idiot white 'rightists' go on supporting Jewish Supremacism EVEN AS Jews never tire of accusing them of 'white supremacism'. Morons.

Now, there have been elements on the Right that have been critical of Jewish Power, but too many turned out to be Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Denier cranks. Richard Spencer is a prime example. Instead of arguing against Jewish Supremacism and neo-imperialism/globalism, he just wants Anglo-Germanic supremacy to gain dominance and mess up the world in some Nietzschean game of chess. What's the point of opposing one supremacism to push another? What's the point of vilifying Jewish supremacism if one is going to extol Nazi-German supremacism? It's utterly idiotic. 

The American Civil War was not a white-versus-white war, at least not thematically. Sure, it was mostly a war fought among whites, but the driving force behind the conflict was not anti-white animus. It wasn't as if Northern whites were anti-white 'ni**ger-lovers' who decided to kill bushels of Southern whites. The war was over preservation of the Union vs Secession. While some Northern Whites were inspired by abolitionism, most supported the war to preserve the Union. Abraham Lincoln felt the same way. And in the years after the war ended, Northern Whites and Southern Whites came to an understanding, and they saw the need to control the blacks. 

In contrast, many whites today are truly mentally deranged in their anti-white lunacy. But there is no logic or consistency to their worldview. The cult of 'white guilt' is purely selective, usually decided by Jews who push the mental buttons via their control of media and academia. After all, if indeed white progs are surely anti-supremacist, anti-tyranny, and anti-injustice, why were they so silent about or even supportive of Obama-Hillary puppet regime's destruction of Libya and Syria? Why weren't they supportive of efforts on Trump's part to end US entanglement in Syria? Why are they silent about all those dead Iraqis and suffering Iranians as the result of US pro-Zionist policy? Why didn't they march in support of Palestinians in the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms of 1948? 

One thing for sure, the white 'left' is not motivated by true sense of justice but vain opportunism of virtue-signaling. Iraqi lives mattered when Evil Bush II was invading Iraq, but Libyan lives didn't matter when Obama destroyed that country. Progs whine about 'nazis' but were silent about Jews working with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine. They claim to abhor supremacism, but they are okay with US foreign policy favoring Jews/Zionism over Palestinians. They've done nothing about blue cities/states banning BDS. They express outrage over 'sexism' when it comes to Trump but feign ignorance when it comes to Bill Clinton, black athletes, and homo degenerates. There is no rhyme or reason to their moral logic. When illegals were detained under Obama, they were silent. When they are detained under Trump, it's the New Holocaust!!! They didn't care about all the dead Muslims caused by Obama-Hillary's wars(guided by Jewish supremacists), but they suddenly made a big fuss about all those poor-poor Muslims travel-banned by Trump. They talk about history and 'white guilt', but they say almost nothing about American Indians, the most tragic people, the only one that suffered something like genocide in the New World. Even though mass immigration finished off the Indians, progs celebrate mass-immigration. So, what is prog mentality really about? It is just childish parroting of whatever is fed to stupid white minds by Jewish control of media and academia. If Jews say, "Be outraged about this", white progs are outraged about 'this'. Russia Collusion!!! If Jews say, "Be outraged about that", white progs are outraged about 'that'. Black Lives Matter!!! Never mind these urban progs supported stop-and-frisk, mass-immigration, and gentrification that pushed many blacks out of rich cities. The prog mind is all about fashion. It's about flavor of the month. It is the product of political advertising. It is so shallow that it lacks any sense of real history, memory, and moral logic.

But then, the American 'right' is only slightly better. Even as it chooses pride over guilt, it shares basically the same premise as that of the 'left', which is why it keeps losing the debate. The premise is, "Jews are especially wise and wonderful", "blacks are holy and noble", and "the greatest evil in the world is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'." So, the American 'right' agrees with all that but only argues that America isn't so bad because it redeemed itself with progress and wealth-creation. But didn't anyone realize that favoring Jews and blacks uber alles is a form of 'racism'(defined as racial supremacism)? Just ask the Palestinians. And why is it a matter of justice to pay special heed to blacks even when they act like savage apes while ignoring the plight of other groups harmed by blacks? It's one thing to redress historical wrongs but quite another to endow certain groups with the license to cheat, lie, steal, rob, rape, and murder on account of 'muh victimhood'. It'd be like making excuses for American Indians who go from state to state to scalp people and hack them to death on account of 'muh suffering'. 

One thing for sure, the notion of 'civic nationalism' is total bull. There can be 'civic imperialism' but never 'civic nationalism'. Many have a false impression of the US as a 'civic nationalist' republic for most of its history because of the Constitution, but in fact, the US has mostly been a racial-nationalist republic(if not a ethnic one). The facade of 'civic nationalism' was possible ONLY BECAUSE the US was a solidly white majority nation, one that was founded and built by Anglos who then Anglo-ized the Germanics. Later, Anglo-Germanic America compelled all Europeans, from South and East, to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic norms. As most Europeans were racially close, they could blend into this new identity called 'American', which upon closer inspection was really Anglo-Germanic American. That was the essence of American Nationalism. It was race-nationalism. The solid white majority of Anglo-Germanic norms became the spine of American Nationalism. Unlike in Europe where each ethnic group maintained its separateness in their distinct territories, the understanding among various European immigrants to America was they would adopt the Anglo-Germanic norms as the main characteristics of Americanism; that gave them license to move, live, and settle anywhere in America. This was why US didn't end up like Yugoslavia. This Americanism was passed off as 'civic nationalism', but it worked only because most immigrants were white and could blend into Anglo-Germanic America in their willingness to assimilate. And many naturally wanted to assimilate as they readily realized that Anglos and Germans had created a superior order of productivity, relative liberty, and opportunity in the New World. 

Would 'civic nationalism' have worked in the US if most immigrants from the beginning were from Africa, Asia, Middle East, brown parts of Latin America, and etc? No, it would have been much more difficult for non-whites with strikingly different cultural backgrounds to assimilate into Anglo-Germanic America. Even after all these centuries, the color lines remain notable in Latin America even though Latin American nations officially make big noises about civic nationalism and people not seeing color. US worked as a race-nationalist republic. All this talk of 'muh constitution' misses the point. Latin America had constitutions nearly identical to that of the US, but things turned out differently because the racial demographics and dynamics were different. Indeed, Canada didn't rebel against the King, and Australia started out as a depressing penal colony, and yet, isn't it odd that US, Canada, and Australia turned out more alike in many respects than with democracies in Latin America inspired by American Independence?

Now, 'civic imperialism', though problematic, is a possibility, as it was in the era of the Roman Empire. With no racial, ethnic, and/or spiritual core to unite all the people, Roman citizenship was a matter of the law and loyalty to the state. And Civic Imperialism seems to be the general direction of the globalist enterprise with the US as metropole. But unlike the Roman Empire where the Romans ruled, any people can come to the US and climb up the ladder to elite status. And whites, whose ancestors founded and built this country, are not only supposed to tolerate and accept this transformation but welcome and celebrate it as 'progress' based on 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. 

But then, this model in some ways resembles the Roman Empire in that the ruling elites will not be chosen purely on meritocratic or ideological basis. There will be meritocracy in that smarter ones will rise higher, and there will be ideology at work in that 'diversity' and 'inclusion' will mandate the promotion of blacks and browns with lesser credentials. But at the very top will be Jewish Power that shall go unchallenged. Jews have the most money, control key institutions and mass media, dominate popular entertainment(that shapes so many minds), and etc. Also, Jews know that MOST PEOPLE are apathetic and disengaged. So, all they have to do is buy off the 'elites' of various communities. It doesn't matter if most blacks aren't keen on Jews. As long as Jews control the black 'leaders', black politics won't stand in the way of Zionism and Jewish Supremacism. Same with 'Latinos' and Asians. Even Muslims, especially those from nations like Pakistan who feel little affinity for Arabs. Still, to the extent that all peoples are allowed to emigrate to the US and climb up the elite ladder, the globo-homo US empire will be more like Byzantium where the leadership was far more varied than in the Western Empire. 

While Civic Imperialism is doable, it's extremely expensive. Unlike Civic Nationalism that can exist on a humble level, Civic Imperialism requires tremendous power and expenditure. Empire is about over-reaching. It is about power at the epic level. It's like the mega Hollywood Epic must spend lots of money and make lots of money. There is no other way. Nationalist loyalty isn't based on super-power or super-wealth. A person could be living in a middling nation or even a poor nation. But he may still have a deep sense of nationalism and loyalty to country and folks for reasons of tradition, sentimentality, and sense of roots. It doesn't require much for nationalism to operate. Rich nation or poor nation, nationalism is possible. Strong nation or weak nation, nationalism comes naturally. 

But empire means stretching power over vast distances and diverse peoples, many of whom have little in common. Empire demands that these diverse peoples pledge allegiance to ANOTHER power that would play the role of center-of-the-universe. But the ONLY way to persuade various peoples to obey a foreign power is through the combination of big sticks and big carrots, both of which are extremely expensive. The various peoples must be threatened with force and/or bought with bribes. They must be made willing partners or unwilling partners. It is the ONLY way an empire can be maintained. It requires extra-exertion of power and wealth. 

For those in the metropole, it is both exhausting and exhilarating. The empire must always scramble for more lands and peoples to control. It's a 24/7 enterprise of more wars, more markets, more peoples, more agendas. And yet, those in the metropole feel the power and importance. They become addicted, just like the Romans did. And even though the peoples of other nations who become subjects to this neo-imperial power feel resentment, they also long to be a part of it. And as long as mass immigration is allowed, they would rather take part in the empire than resist it, especially as immigration to the US means a better material life. Also, PC gives the impression to non-whites that they are on the rise, on the cusp of taking power. Even as they are submitting to and taking part in the empire, they feel that they are serving 'social justice' because they are rising at the expense of whites who are being diminished demographically, politically, and economically. 

Thus, if old Western Imperialism was about white rule over non-whites, the American neo-imperialist globalism is about maintaining an empire that facilitates the takeover of the West by the Non-West. At the twilight of the Age of Empires following World War II, the Non-West took up National Liberation against Western Imperialism. Today, the idea is that the Non-West should take part in the Neo-Imperialist Enterprise, a kind of mutual imperialism where the West and Non-West invade one another and merge into one. 

Or so it seems. Because behind all this is Jewish Power that is determined to remain at the very top. No matter who rises and falls in the elite hierarchy, they are to serve the Jews and support Zion. And why? Jews got the money and power; they get to play thumbs up or thumbs down as to who joins the elite ranks and who doesn't. Jews know that whites are too castrated and cucked to disobey the Jews. But Jews are taking no chances. They sniffed pitchfork populism in the candidacy of Donald Trump and intend to crush it for good. As for non-whites, Jews know that the diverse bunch can never come together to take on Jewish Power. Jews can play divide-and-rule among the various groups forever. 

Can this Civic Imperialist enterprise succeed? It may for some time because the US is so vast, rich in resources, & plentiful in food, and have so much talent. Past empires had an Achilles Heel in the size ratio. The imperial center was far smaller and poorer in natural resources than the imperial possessions. Thus, more stick had to be used as there wasn't enough carrots to go around to bribe the subjects. But the US is an empire unto itself, especially with Alaska in tow. It has vast riches all on its own and generates excess food, fuel, and resources. It has a big stick but also lots of carrots to go around. So, unlike the Italian peninsula, Spain/Portugal, Britain, Holland, and France, it is better able to meet the demands of expenditure necessary to maintain the empire. (It also has Dollar Supremacy.)

Still, there are so many contradictions in the American Way. How long can Jewish Power remain hidden? Also, as long as it remains hidden, it's hard to tell who is ruling America? If Jews, the top power in America, won't declare themselves the ruling elites, who is the captain of the ship? White people? But white people have been so discredited morally, racially, and historically that this isn't workable. Notice that white political candidates NEVER talk about white interests and instead try to justify their careers on what they've done for Jews, homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. Are blacks in charge? The problem is blacks are too much in victim-complaint mode to take over as ruling elites. The mode of black politics isn't "We have the broadness of vision and magnanimity to rule" but "blackity-blackness". Their focus is too narrow to represent all of America. Black political mindset isn't about "what is good for all Americans" but "what all Americans owe us blackity-blackity blacks." So, we have a strange situation. America is the most powerful nation on Earth, but it looks like a headless emperor. Jews are really the head of America but won't show it. If the white head shows up, it is egged on as 'white privilege' or 'white supremacism'. If the black head appears as the godhead of Americanism, all it says is "We da victim, gimme gimme gimme", which isn't exactly dignified or 'presidential'. Obama did seem to introduce a new kind of black politics at a higher level, but he turned out to be a worthless puppet of Jewish Power and then ended up torching America with another round of black rage politics. It's hard to tell the future under such circumstances. 

TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY by Brother Nathanael

Can Russia Survive the Neo-Barbarian Onslaught of the West under the control of Satanic Jewish Supremacism? What must Russia do to revive the culture and push back against Globo-Homo lunacy? — Notes on Anatoly Karlin's argument for Russian counter-censorship against Jewish-Western-Media

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/will-russia-block-jack-and-zuck/

It's a question of Big Idea vs Little Ideas. Big Idea subsumes little ideas. Big 'Truth' redeems small lies.

Also, of the Big Conviction and Small Criticism. Nothing is perfect and can be criticized. During the Cold War, there were plenty of faults with both US and USSR. One could pile up countless things wrong with the US, the West, capitalism, and liberal democracy. Same with the Soviet Union. And yet, some Big Ideas and Big Systems, despite all the problems and imperfections, are better than other Big Ideas. Take Freedom vs Slavery for example. One can find much that is wrong with freedom and find some advantages to slavery. So, when it comes to nitpicking, one can find bad things about freedom and good things about slavery. But as Big Ideas go, most people prefer Freedom to Slavery. 

Communism, as a big idea, argued that capitalism is just a form of exploitation and doomed to failure. It argued the state must control everything to prevent one bunch of people from gaining all the wealth and power to exploit the rest. Capitalist liberal democracies argued that capitalism can reform, the democratic process allows for checks/balances, and only a market economy can function properly, create lots of wealth, & lead to innovation. In both argument and delivery, capitalist democracy won over communism — what Francis Fukuyama called the 'End of History'(or Conflict among Big Ideas). But then, what Fukuyama failed to understand was that, as liberal democracies are essentially plutocracies(where politicians are vetted and selected by the rich), their character reflects that of the ruling elites. Lucky for America, the Anglo-Germano-American ruling elites, for all their faults and hypocrisies, were among the best the world had ever seen. They had some sense of common good and higher principles. And some sense of shame and honor. In contrast, when elite power passed to Jews, many of whom turned out to be utterly shameless in their hypocrisy, megalomania, and paranoia, the Jewish character came to shape the direction of democracy and capitalism in the West.

In Russia, the unfettered extreme Jewish kind of capitalism led to the crazy 1990s when a handful of oligarchs, mostly of the Tribe, took control of much of the Russian economy while leaving most people destitute. And as 'democracy' is a plutocracy, the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin merely did the bidding of Jewish oligarchs.

 Though the US has been much richer and better prepared to weather economic storms, something similar happened there. The increasingly financialized and monopolized economy became less principled, less fair, and less rational. It led to ever greater concentration of wealth, especially as globalism undermined the checks-and-balances among the classes, i.e. globalism gave capitalists access to cheap labor all over the world and pretty much destroyed the US working class that had once been a real political force. Moral Hazard totally went out the window; if anything, the 'experts' smeared it as hypocritical hand-wringing by economic illiterates. And the media, another corporate entity, became a total propaganda machine. When the internet promised to spread the power around, the Jewish monopolists and their allies used all manner of dirty tricks to shut down free flow of information and debate. And of course, Republican politicians, shills of plutocracy, haven't done anything. (There is a 'libertarian' argument for letting the rich do as they please, but notice the so-called libertarians are oddly silent about the state's role in shutting down BDS. Shouldn't libertarians at least be opposed to STATIST suppression of activism and discourse?) At any rate, even though Fukuyama focused on the value of Big Ideas, he failed to understand that any set of ideas, big or small, is shaped by the character of those with the power. Indeed, the failure of Latin American democracies is ample proof that worthless elites lead to worthless democracies. Freedom is better than slavery, but Freedom controlled by rotten scum can be as bad or even worse than slavery(dominated by enlightened tyrants).

Anyway, the Big Idea and Big Conviction works like an umbrella against the storm of small ideas or small criticisms. People with a clear sense of Big Idea can weather the storm of small criticisms. (Same goes for Big Feeling vs Little Feeling. No family is perfect, but the deep wells of emotion keep the family united against threatening forces, like in THE GODFATHER.) But people without such conviction can easily lose faith and go with whichever side is making the Most Noise. The question is, do most young Russians have a Big Idea/Conviction about Russian people/culture, history/culture, and destiny? If they do, they could brush off subversive foreign efforts to undermine Russian unity and power. If they don't, they will likely be swayed by whomever has the means to make the most noise(as most people cannot think for themselves and allow others to do the thinking for them).

Among the primary ways of persuading people are the means of associative ideology and associative idolatry. Globo-Homo spread by both means. The elites associated 'gay'-this and 'gay'-that with 'equality', as in 'marriage equality' even though the notion of homosexuality being of equal value/worth with real sexuality is ludicrous. But in a political culture that lionizes the notion of 'equality', it did the job in persuading many people that homos are deserving of 'marriage equality'. But there was also associative idolatry. Homos were made sympathetic, 'cool', joyous, colorful, wonderful, and even sacred by endless propaganda in movies, TV shows, advertising, 'gay pride' celebration days/weeks/months, and etc. They were made 'iconic'. And of course, as the West is most associated with power, wealth, and status, many around the world seek to burnish their image by being pro-'Western'. It is the Polish Disease — Pathetic Polacks are Slavs who want to be thought of as being part of the West, not the backward East — , and it is spreading in Russia as well. Ireland is falling apart because it too has the Polish Disease.

Another example of associative ideology can be seen in the West's coverage of Ukraine and Hungary. Even though Ukraine is run by Jewish gangster oligarchs, it is associated with 'liberal democracy', whereas Viktor Orban's style of governance in Hungary is associated with 'autocracy' or 'anti-democratic' impulses. This may seem odd when Orban came to power through free election whereas the current Ukrainian regime is the product of US-backed coup or 'color revolution'. But for many fools who rely on the media, such ideological sleight-of-hand tricks do the magic. Of course, many wanna-be-elites and would-be-educated rely on New York Times, The Economist, New Yorker, and the like for status-reasons. Though ostensibly about 'freedom of the press', their main value is as status-signalers. They offer fashion-news, or the kind of ideas one must espouse IF he or she is to be accepted into Elysium, if only 'psycho-virtually' — even those who come nowhere near elite bastions of power/privilege like to smugly feel that they belong to the 'better kind of people' because they get their information from stuff like The Atlantic, a journal read by 'important' people.

As for another example of associative idolatry, there is the cult of Noble Negro, what with some European nations being even more enthused about BLM than the US is. The idolatrous idea or 'idological' notion is that blacks are 'cool', badass, noble, awesome, and etc., therefore anything is made better if associated with Negroes. Why is that taco better than this taco? Because it has been advertised as 'BLM'. BLMour(or blamour) is the new glamour.

Vladimir Putin has been around for some time, and he's been a good manager. But has he supplied Russia with a Big Idea or Deep Conviction about Russian Civilization? Being a good manager is important but not enough. In the end, managers serve the idea. Without a Big Idea about the worth of Russian Civilization, many young Russians will just become minions of Pop Culture and silly memes. Their worldview will be mostly that of associative ideology and associative idolatry pushed by the West, which isn't even Western anymore but Judeo-Afro-homo or JAH-ist. It is ironic that Anatoly Karlin is worried about the West's infection of Russia, but he bought the Covid-hysteria nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Covid was never going to be a mass-killer, and Jews pushed it to destroy Trumponomics and to restore power to globalist governments to shut down populist-nationalist challenges.

If Russians have a Big Idea about the Motherland, they will be able to weather the storm. For all its faults, they will see Russia as worth preserving and defending against the globalist tide. If not, Russia will become a big Ireland or what Poland is destined to be, as its young are total minions of JAH-ist garbage. Russia must articulate its role in history. How it came to be, how it survived(sometimes against impossible odds), and how it is unique. A sense of how Russia overcame communism and Jewish oligarchic capitalism.

Also, Russia must be honest about Jewish Power. The current US and EU animus against Russia was cooked up mostly by Jews. Russians must know this. Russians must know the Jewish Mind, i.e. that Jews believe that they are so smart and Russians are so dumb, and therefore, Jews deserve to dominate Russia and Russians deserve to be helots of Jews. In a way, the Jewish vision of Russia isn't much different from the Nazi vision of German 'Aryans' lording over Russian Slavs as helots. Russians must understand that most goyim in US and EU are puppets of Jews.

The reasons are twofold. Naturally, most politicians whore out to Big Money, and Jews are the richest. But the other reason is Jewish Power replaced Christianity with Holocaustianity. Therefore, white goyim not only serve Jews-as-oligarchs but Jews-as-god. Now, Russians make a big deal of how Russia defeated Nazism and saved Jews, and that is a legit historical and moral argument. But, Russia must also understand that Jewish radicalism and subversion did great harm to Russia prior to rise of Nazism and, if anything, led to Adolf Hitler's rise because Germans(among others) had enough of crazy Jews. Furthermore, Jewish craziness is buried deep within the Jewish Core. Karl Marx thought communism would cure Jews of greed, but Jewish communists turned out to be bloody greedy for power. Libertarians and conservatives think capitalism and Zionism will cure Jews of radicalism, but today's super-capitalist Jews are pushing insane radical agendas. (But the lesson of Nazism is one shouldn't fight craziness with more craziness.) Russians must also understand that Globo-Homo is the proxy tool of the Jews. Jews relish the sight of the vast-majority of straight people groveling at the feet of homos and even trannies. (Homos went from liberation to inquisition. First, they were liberated from traditional restrictions and could do their homo thing. But that wasn't enough for their vanity and vengeance. They weren't content to be homo and distorted the law and other means to FORCE straight people to comply to homo demands or else be purged. In other words, straight society had to swallow the notion of 'gay marriage', and we must make-believe that a tranny is a 'woman' or some guy is a 'they' than a 'he'. Of course, Jews love the sight of this. Just as they relish the sight of hapless goyim groveling at their feet, they just can't get enough of the vast-majority of straights being kicked around by a bunch of trannies. Jews or homos/trannies, it's a case of elite-minority supremacism over the majorities.)

Russians must also realize the threat of the Cult of Negro. So far, most Russian athletes are Russian, and Russians look up to Russian idols as 'national heroes'. Russians must realize that the promotion of Negrolatry is to rob the white race of their own idols and heroes. In the US, white boys and girls worship Negro stars in pop culture and sports. And this is spreading all over Europe. Presence of Negroes leads to white cuckery. Look at the Africanization of France and UK. Why would anyone want this? Well, Dumb Polacks want it because they have the Polish Disease and are so eager to be petted by the West as 'good doggy'. But Russians should not play this game.

Of course, it is tempting to play the Noble Negro card. The USSR did it during the Cold War by spreading propaganda that Noble Negroes were being oppressed by Evil Whites. And Europeans who felt moral inferiority-complex vis-a-vis the US(especially because of WWI and WWII) played the same game. But what is the result of this? Tug-a-Gro(or Tug-a-Negro) where all sides pretend (1) Negroes are so special and (2) they love Negroes more than others do. "With Negro on our side." What kind of moral argument is this? Elevating the most savage and destructive race as sacred/noble and premising one's moral value on the extent of slavishness to Afromania and BLM. Russians and Chinese who, cynically or sincerely, brandish BLM memes need to understand that it is a Jewish Ploy against the National Majority. Jews rule the US, and Jews spread BLM to morally browbeat the white majority. Russians and Chinese must stop believing that US is run by whites who oppress blacks. US is run by Jews who oppress whites by invoking black holiness. So, if China and Russia really want to counter Jewish Power that controls the US, they are better off with PLM or Palestinian Lives Matter.

How many Russians know that Russia is a world unto itself and has so many potential(and that Russians are the biggest under-achievers around the world)? If Russians got their act together, the sky would be the limit. But they do so little with what they have and look to the outside world(that is dominated by Jews, homos, and white cucks) for meaning and purpose. This is truly sad. For all the rottenness of Jews, imagine the things they could do if they were the majority group in Russia. In some ways, Jews have done more for Israel than Russians have done for Russia. Too many Russian elites are corrupt, and too many Russian masses are stupid 'white trash'. They really need to clean up their act. While Putin made things more efficient and streamlined, he hasn't altered the essential character flaw of Russians. He hasn't cultivated a new crop of visionary and inspirational leadership. All around him are flunkies and hangers-on. This is why when Putin eventually leaves the scene, Russia could become a big Poland or Ireland. The Polish Disease is spreading.

The value of the Big Idea can be appreciated by using land as analogy. Big Territory is harder to conquer than Small Territory. If Russia had been the size of France or Poland, Germans might have  prevailed over the Soviet Union with its Blitzkrieg attack. But the sheer vastness of Russia allowed the USSR to move its industrial base to the east while Germans became over-stretched across vast territories to the point where their logistics broke down, especially with rain and snow. Likewise, China was able to weather the Japanese invasion because of its vastness. In contrast, Taiwan and Korea were easily swallowed up by Japan. 

Same goes for Big Ideas. They are much harder to conquer than small ones. Now, a people don't need a Big Territory to have a Big Idea. Jews are a prime example of this. For much of their history, they had no territory to call their own. But they preserved their identity and culture because they had a Big Idea, that of the Covenant that linked the Jews as a special people to the one-and-only God. This is why Jews, among all the immigrant groups in America, were not conquered by Anglo-American-ness but, in time, came to conquer and reduce the 'Wasps' into pathetic puppets and tools of Jewish Power centered around a Big Idea. In contrast, all other groups, from Germans to Filipinos, have been utterly conquered by Anglo-American-ness and are now being converted to globo-homo cuckery to Jewish Supremacism and Afromania. The ONLY group that may follow the Jews in their identity-insistence is the Hindus who, like Jews, are ethno-religionists, or identity over ideology. In contrast, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists are credo-religionists, or ideology over identity. Russia has been able to survive due to Big Territory, but does it have a Big Idea that can fend off the slings and arrows of other ideas, hostile and foreign? Of course, many foreign ideas can be useful and productive, but they're usually in the fields of science and technology. Especially in the post-modern world, there have been no great new ideas. Indeed, we are living in the Age of 'Idology', or idolatry-as-ideology, and Russia need to develop its own 'idology' that resists that of the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Negroes.

Jews want all the world to worship the Holy Holocaust uber alles. Jews want all nations to replace its national idols with Negro athletes and stars. Jews want all houses of worship of whatever faith to hoist the 'gay' flag and celebrate sodomy as globo-homo-mania is the proxy agenda of Jewish Supremacist Power. Do most Russians understand this and realize what is at stake? If Russians lack the Big Idea of what their people, culture, and history are about, they do not understand, and it's only a matter of time before they will succumb to the Polish Disease.

Now, there are smart and dumb ways to spread the Big Idea. Russians need a Big Idea about Russia, and to some extent, Putin has tried to bring this about. He built more churches and promoted more nationalism. But building more churches is only symbolic. Most Russians will not visit these cathedrals and won't care. In our age, people are persuaded by electronic signals, not stone objects. Electronic signals are the 'spirit' of the modern world. Also, a generic kind of nationalism isn't enough. A nationalism needs a clear sense of 'who we are' and 'who hate us'. While Russians are clear about their enemy during World War II — the Nazi Germans — , they aren't about the New Enemy, the Jewish Globalists. Now, this doesn't mean Russians should bash all Jews. Just like not all Germans were enemies(and Russia and East Germany could be friends after the war), not all Jews are enemies. Still, Russia needs to spell out what is really happening. The problem isn't EU or US per se but Jewish control of US that controls the EU. And why do Jews hate Russia? Jews look upon Russians as vodka-swilling dummies who should serve the smarter/superior Jews. All Russians need to understand that the current Jewish animus against Russia goes back to the 1990s and even earlier. In both the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution and the gangster-capitalist 1990s, Jews nearly had Russia and are still livid with rage that the big dumb Russian fish slipped out of their grasp. But Jews are like Captain Ahab and won't give up until they get their whale. If Russians understood this basic fact, they would see foreign anti-Russian sources of News for what it is. While anti-Russian news/opinions may well have kernel of truth to them, it would be understood by most Russians that the PRIMARY purpose of these news isn't to spread truth or serve justice but to turn Russians into deracinated globo-homo minions who worship Negroes(than their own national idols/heroes), thereby easing the path for Jewish Supremacists to take over Russia. Such a Big Idea of what Russia is up against would weaken all the small ideas/criticism of Russia by outsider and Russian cucky-wucks. Putin's style of nationalism has been the Silent Majority kind. Building churches may have some symbolic value but lacks dynamism. Byzantine Empire built many churches but couldn't prevent the enervation and decline. Under Byzantine rule, Christianity became a dogma controlled by corrupt elites into court intrigue. In a way, as bloody as the Catholic vs Protestant conflict was, it might have been good for both and for Western Christianity that it fostered competitiveness. Neither could take things for granted as a monopoly. The Protestant challenge also meant that Western Christianity couldn't just be a bureaucratic labyrinth. Individual conscience mattered. Even as Catholics denounced Protestantism, the threat from the New Church forced them to reflect and make reforms. In contrast, no such challenge compelled the Eastern Church to make reforms and revivify itself as the soul of Byzantium. It became the mummified religion of the elites behind the walls. Against the threat from Muslims who, for a time, had all the youth, excitement, and energy, the Byzantium World only knew conservatism, wall-mentality(against Muslim war mentality), and status quo. When one side pushes to gain new ground while the other side stands only to hold territory, the former will eventually win. Against the pusher, one must push back. Byzantium failed to push back. And today, Russia won't push back against the Jews. Even as Putin took measures to restore some degree of nationalism and restrain out-of-control Jewish Power, he hasn't taken up the necessary challenge. 

Also, Russia has failed to offer anything of itself to the Western World. For example, RT News doesn't convey Russian ideas, Russian values, and Russian grandeur. Rather, it just hires Western SJW types and 'leftists' to offer 'progressive' assaults against Western Imperialism. It's like the 'conservative' game of 'Democrats are the real racists', i.e. it accepts the enemy's platform as the main moral premise. Now, if this was just a facet of RT, it wouldn't be so bad. But it's about 99% of it. Even when Russia gains access to other nations, it does little to impart Russian ideas, culture, and values. It just hires 'leftists' with somewhat more integrity than the usual 'liberals' in the Western Media. So, Christopher Hedges and Rick Sanchez have shows on RT. Now, this isn't entirely a bad strategy: Use Western Left to attack Western Liberals. Also, whereas the educated class in the West may scoff at Russian culture and values, they might listen to True Leftists or Dissident Progressives who've been fired, purged, or blacklisted by Jewish-dominated 'liberal' mainstream media.

Still, it's just Russians offering an alternative Western viewpoint against the 'mainstream' or official Western Agenda. America is now a satanic and crazy empire(with both its elite and mass culture in a state of total retardation), BUT what it has to offer still excites people all over the world. Something always seems to be 'happening'. It's an 'event'. It's 'cool', 'badass', and/or 'awesome'. Whether it's comic book movies, rap concerts, globo-homo-mania, BLM, or whatever, the West seems to be always 'rocking'. 

Now, there is pro and con to the current 'Western' Way. It is highly effective because it's so well funded and charged. It's abuzz with energy as the Jews control all the hype machine. Also, the West's shamelessness means that it will promote and disseminate ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous(or more outrageous the better), that might have mass appeal or immediate sensory excitement. Like 'twerking'. It's demented, but it has spread all over because, by the lowest common denominator, people are hairless apes. But there is a downside to all this. It's the Disco Factor. At one time, Disco ruled and was everywhere. It seemed like it would last forever... except it vanished almost overnight. What had been so 'cool' was deemed clownish and insipid. People were embarrassed that they had anything to do with Disco. Usually, something sensational has a short shelf-life. And so much of current 'Western Values' or 'Western Causes' are like fireworks without the fire. They are so much about hysteria, outrage, thrill, orgasm, or etc. When fireworks are over, they are really over. This is why the West has to keep generating sensationalism and excitement to keep up the thrill-level or outrage-level. Nothing it puts forth has any intrinsic value except as hype or Da Bomb. Whether it's the buzz over the new blockbuster or new video-game OR hysteria for something about homos, BLM, illegals-are-dreamers, or Covid lunacy, the Western Media have to keep injecting new doses of sensory overdrive. Thus, there's a lot of energy but almost no meaning. 

Take the hysteria about J.K. Rowhling and trannies. Sane people would not attack a woman for saying 'man with balls is not a woman', but so many young people in the West are so charged with 'moral' outrage and hysteria about holy homos and precious trannies that they can't think straight. Of course, they can't think at all, and their 'morality' or 'ethics' is just a matter of celebrity-worship and Political Correctness. Celebrity Worship makes them agree with whatever Hollywood and Music Industry pushes at the moment, and PC molded their minds to think in terms of holy vs taboo. Despite its term, 'Critical Theory' is the most anti-critical tool in the academia. It says certain groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos, are sacred, whites are especially guilty & wicked, and the rest better side with Jews, blacks, and homos against whites. This is why there is no rhyme or reason to current 'progressive' thought. Leftism used to be premised on class ideology, mostly of Marx. Liberalism used to be based on either the theory of individual rights or universal justice. But current 'progressivism' is mostly about idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks. Antifa and billionaire oligarchs chant the same mantras about trannies being treasures or BLM even though all facts show blacks kill blacks(and non-blacks). And if Jews are truly liberal, why do they insist we support Zionism and Jewish imperialists over Palestinians? Jews used to bleat about socialism or individual rights, but now, most are totally okay with super-capitalism(that made Jews the richest people) and into globo-homo, which lionizes homos as the favored pets of the ruling elites class. And this is being broadcast all over the world in a kind of new cultural imperialism.

Now, Russia could stand for Nationalism against Imperialism. The problem is many people all over the world are mesmerized by the cultural imperialism of globo-homo, rap music, Hollywood, celebrity culture, pornography, and etc. Why don't they stand for their national culture against imperialist junk culture? Because most people around the world are unimaginative folks with nothing to say or express. They are passive than active creatures. As people are easily bored, they crave distractions. It's like a dog wants someone to throw sticks so it can play fetch. Most people need others to toss them the stick. They can't create their own culture. It's no wonder few religions dominate the world. If most people can't create their own stuff, they will gravitate to whatever has the most mass appeal or generates the most buzz. If someone had to sit in a theater without anything on screen or stage, he'd be bored to death. He wouldn't be able to entertain himself with his own ideas and imagination. But if there's a fun movie on screen or show on stage, he could sit there for 3 hrs, even 4 hrs, in pure delight. He wants his heart and mind to be captivated by another. Most people around the world feel like bored nobodies sitting in a theater with nothing playing. So, they are grateful for ANYTHING that grabs their attention. Anything to stave away the boredom. It's like sitting on a sofa for 5 hrs is a boring notion, but you forget all about the boredom if the TV is on. It doesn't matter that most stuff on TV is dumb. At least, Dumb isn't Boring, which people hate more. Now, if people are bored, shouldn't they create their own stuff? Shouldn't they try to be creative and seek truths? But most people want others to do it for them. This is especially true of conservatives. Even as they bitch about 'liberal' domination of movies and music, they hardly create their own. 

It's been said the US is very creative, but there are just few centers of creativity. Most Americans in most of America are passive and do nothing. It's just a few centers in cities that make most arts, culture, entertainment. 1% of America is 'New York', rest is 'Nebraska'. It's just a few universities that create new ideological trends. This is why people sound like clones. Ministry of Information says "trannies are holy", and soon, just about everyone is spouting the same nonsense. It is why most US conservatives are such servile dogs to Zion. GOP as standard-bearer of American Conservatism says it's one's God-given duty to support Israel(even though Jews hate Christians and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah). 

Most Russians are not creative. They just like to get drunk, dance on tables, and curse. They would wrestle bears too, but there aren't too many bears around Moscow. Just about the only happening place in Russia is Moscow, but not much happens there compared to any major city in the US. Also, despite their small number, Jews do far more thinking, speaking, and creating in Russia than Russians do. Now, most Jewish ideas may be crazy or harmful, but they are saying something. Meanwhile, Russians are just getting drunk and acting dumb. To be sure, this 'dumb' quality, along with corruption, may have allowed Russians to become relatively more independent of Jewish Power. Anglo-Americans, being better educated, more sober, and more conscientious, could be easily baited and cajoled into looking up to Holy Holocaust Jews as the ultimate moral arbiters. In contrast, the more slovenly and rule-breaking Russians are less likely to be conscientious, therefore less likely to be morally baited by Jews. (You can fool a well-meaning person but not a gangster who cynically believes EVERYONE, even the so-called 'good', are up to no good.) Indeed, one key difference between the Russian Revolution and Jewish takeover of the US is that Jews had to pander to Russians in the former whereas goyim ended up sucking up to Jews in the latter. Though it's true that the Bolshevik Revolution put many Jews in power over Russians, Jews themselves had to de-emphasize Jewishness and speak up for the common good for all those in the Russian Empire. While Russian chauvinism was suppressed, so was Jewish identity. This may be why Jews eventually lost out in the Soviet Union. In contrast, Jewish takeover of the US after WWII was premised on elevating Jews as a specially holy and tragic people. The Holy Holocaust People so full of woe, wit, and wisdom. The idea was the US had to support Israel because the ultimate truth is about Holy Jews vs Their Evil Enemies. Anglo-Americans were well-meaning and conscientious enough to fall for the moral bait. (A cynical Sicilian would have seen right through the BS.) If Jews are holy, their demands are godly. And if Jews are godly, those who displease Jews are ungodly and must be crushed. Look at today's US. Jews shit on Donald Trump day and night, but Trump's big message is "I love Jews, I serve Jews." If Jews cut off one of his legs, Trump would say, "I will hobble around on my remaining leg to serve you holy Jews and give you anything you want." Is it any wonder this country is so screwed up?

Against all this, what can Russians do? Against the insane fireworks of the New West, what can Russia offer? There is nationalism to be sure, but it must be substantive than symbolic. Parades and pageantry are nice, but such didn't save the USSR. And they won't save Putin's Russia. Also, while military parades and big rallies have a galvanizing effect, they can also become routine and boring, especially with young people. Of course, young people eventually turn into old people, but as the young are more active than the old, nationalism must have the hearts and minds of those who are young. Karlin wonders maybe Russia should censor like China to win over the young, but that is a form of retreat. In the long run, it won't work because the young will feel that the ONLY way the system can win is by shutting down speech and availability of information. To truly win over the hearts and minds, the System must offer the better vision and solution. 

1. Russian youths need to be instilled with a deep sense of Russian-ness. Such depth has been lost in the US, UK, and EU, replaced by PC and Pop Culture. Deep Nationalism requires family life and its connection to history and heritage. Consider the film SIBERIADE by Andrei Konchalovsky. What that film teaches us is that family, community, and personal memory are the glue between the individual and the nation/civilization. In the West, there is a sense of the individual and a sense of history/civilization but hardly any sense of family, kinship, and memory. It's almost as if the individual is independent of or separate from the civilization. No wonder then that anyone can become anyone. An African can become a Frenchman or Briton. Now, if a European had a personal, familial, and ancestral consciousness, he would know that he is bound to his nation by blood of relatives and forebears. Without such mindset, a civilization is just a bundle of ideas, and that means ANY individual who applies for citizenship and learns to speak the language is part of the nation. Such is recipe for national suicide and decline. Today in the West, young people are taught history, but they are not encouraged or guided to cultivate a personal link to the story of the past. What links an individual in a deep personal sense to history and nation? He is linked by ancestry. People were aware of this in the past, especially as their cultural outlook developed in close proximity of family and community, independent of the constant distractions of TV and pop culture that make young ones primarily identify with pop idols, most of whom are shallow dolts or freaks. A Briton had an ancestral and cultural sense of who he was. But today, Britain is just an idea. Anyone can become 'British', and even British history no longer belongs to the ancestors of the White British. Rather, it's a just a bunch of narratives that can be molded by BBC to feature past Britons as some multi-culti polygot. Now, Britain is diverse in the sense that it was a coming together of various ethnic groups, some of whom to this day have a sense of distinctness. Still, they have deep roots in that land, real ancestry of blood and soil. For this reason, no people can survive for long if they just focus on the individual and civilization. It must focus on familial ties and ancestry as the binding element between individual and civilization.  

2. Russia or any civilization that wants to survive in the long run must prioritize organicism over individualism. This doesn't mean individualism should be quashed. It is valuable for freedom, enterprise, and creativity. But just like the body isn't a collection of individual/independent cells, a civilization cannot simply be about individuals. The fact is individuals are different and serve different roles. Imagine if liver cells decided to serve as pancreatic cells. This doesn't mean a return to serfdom where people are strictly bound to occupations or obligations. But it does mean one should think of one's place in society than merely "whatever I want to do". The individual must ask, "how does my ideas and my actions serve the nation well?" Also, men and women are fundamentally different. True, women are equal in intelligence and, especially in our mechanized age, can do most jobs men can do. Women can be good doctors and accountants. But any healthy society must prioritize jobs for men, especially well-paying jobs for men. Whereas men will marry women without jobs, vice versa is rarely true. So, if women take jobs from men, far fewer men have incomes necessary to attract wives. Therefore, most key jobs should go to men. Now, women may call this 'unfair', but this is because they prioritize individualism over the common good. Favoring men in the economy is a form of biological socialism. If men and women are allowed to pursue jobs as individuals, men with good jobs will marry women with good jobs, and most of the wealth will accrue to such people. Meanwhile, men who can't get good jobs will have a hard time finding a wife, and many women without good jobs will end up single. There is something to be learned from Islam. A people must work for the common good. They must have a sense of what is good for most people than just 'myself'.

3. As for arts, culture, and entertainment, Akira Kurosawa presented the best formula in HIGH AND LOW. There must be both substance and style. Not just hardy boots or flimsy high heels but a shoes of quality with measured style. The kind of work that can bridge the elites and the masses. Kurosawa's films certainly did that. They were serious and entertaining. They were unique to Japanese culture but had universal appeal and reach. Russians need to follow this model to revive culture and gain soft power around the world. 4. Russia should promote a kind of universal nationalism that respects the differences and particularities among nations in history, culture, values, food, attitude, and etc. Now, there are universal values in our day and age. We don't want a culture to practice human sacrifice, slavery, or torturing animals as blood-sport. Still, one-size-fits-all globalism must be countered with true appreciation of diversity. When PC globalists claim to celebrate 'diversity', they show no interest in other peoples, cultures, and values. Rather, they mean the diverse peoples of the world should all listen to rap music, worship the Holocaust & praise Jews, and wave the homo flag. It's McDiversity where all groups must go for Happy Meal of Jewgromo-centrism(Jew-Negro-Homo-centrism). There are so many peoples and cultures in the world. The world is truly diverse. The best way to preserve and honor diversity is for every nation to secure itself against the threat of mass-invasions(aka immigration) and to respect the uniqueness of other peoples. Of course, there should be trade and travel among nations but never to the point where it leads to the Great Replacement and Deracination(as preparation of the satanic globalism that would have everyone bow down at the altar of sodomy, black thuggery, and Jewish gangsterism). There was a time of national cinema. The world came to appreciate the films of other nations in a spirit of mutual respect and curiosity, but each nation produced its own movies with uniqueness and distinctness. But look at French and British culture today. French are now like Americans who speak French, and the British might as well be members of the 51st state of America. And just look at the state of Polish and Japanese cultures. All globo-homo and Negro-worship.

Now, it's a tall order for vodka-swilling Russians to sober up and get off their asses to do what's right. But this looks like the repeat of the Roman Empire. The Western Empire fell but Eastern Empire survived. Western Europe seems about to fall to host of diseases like feminism, globo-homo, BLM, and etc. If things continue, Russia will be the last remaining bearer of European Civilization. Now, Byzantium, even as it survived the fall of the Western Empire, failed to achieve much and just slowly rotted. Can Russia survive the new Western Fall and also avoid the fate of the Byzantines who lacked the dynamism necessary to keep the fire going? THE OFFICIAL COVID NARRATIVE IS FALLING TO PIECES

How 'Facts' are Spun to Make Whites serve Jews and the Other — Spin than the Fact is More Crucial to Political Control, i.e. anything can be spun to push anything

The spin is more important than the fact in political control. Thus, the 'facts' of white superiority, white equality, and white inferiority can all be used to make white people tolerate, welcome, celebrate, 'include', and serve the Other. The current order manipulates all three modes among whites to make them serve Jews and/or non-whites(usually as proxies of Jews).

1. How white superiority is used to make whites serve Jews and non-whites. Whites are made to feel special, rich, powerful, and accomplished. They are great whereas so many other peoples are pathetic, especially those starving or diseased black Africans. Therefore, superior white people should be decent and take care of all those non-whites by allowing mass-immigration and providing endless super-aid. The White Knight Syndrome. Jews play on this psychology too. Jews paint themselves as forever Holocaust Victims, and great-good whites must step up to the plate to save Jews from 'new nazis', such as Iranians and anyone who dares to criticize Jewish Power or Zionism. There is also an aspect of white superiority in LGBT stuff, i.e. whites are 'more evolved' than the rest of humanity because they are most enthusiastic about queer culture, therefore whites should guide the world to celebrate homosexuality and trannies. So, feelings of white superiority are made to serve non-whites or to spread Jewish-concocted 'Western Values' via globo-imperialism. (Globo-Homomania is totally the brainchild of Jewish supremacists.) Of course, no one explicitly says whites are superior, but the implication of White-Knight-ism is based on feelings of enlightened superiority. Even 'white guilt' is intrinsically white superiorist in that it judges whites by a higher standard. All of humanity practiced slavery and waged murderous wars. So, why are whites judged more harshly? Because they deemed as higher beings and should have known better. "Oh, how could the white race have done such a thing?" If Arabs, Africans, and Asians did it, oh well, that was because they didn't know any better. But whites? As higher beings, they should have known better.

2. How white equality is used to make whites serve Jews and non-whites. Whites are told that all races are equal or that race is just a fantasy. There is just common humanity, and therefore, it doesn't matter if white world is demographically taken over by non-whites or if whites mix with other races. Whites and non-whites, they are not only equal but virtually the same. It's just humans and more humans. So, whites should welcome mass immigration and be either demographically replaced or miscegenated out of existence; it doesn't matter because whatever happens, it's just humans replacing or mixing with humans. As whites are the global minority, such an attitude would make white world subordinate to or supplanted by non-whites in the long run. What will happen to Europe if 100 millions of black Africans go there? Anyway, white equality as currently understood doesn't bestow white people the equal right to survive as race and culture(as Jews in Israel do). It's not about universal nationalism. Rather, whites must be erased like Palestinians and accept it as a 'good thing' in the name of equality.

3. How white inferiority is used to make whites serve Jews and non-whites. Whites are made to feel that the Other, especially Jews and blacks, are so awesome that whites should worship and serve them. If we go by images than ideas(or idolatry than ideology), the current Western Culture is totally racial supremacist in entertainment and emphasis. Sports, sex entertainment, and music are heavily about black dominance, black power, black prowess, and black whatever. Blacks are so highly prized that even black lies are favored over truth. Take BLM, based on a total lie but a quasi-religion among so many foolish whites. When it comes to sports, diversity has led to something like 'monoversity', or monopolization by one group in a diversified world. California is very diverse with a white minority population, lots of Asians and many more browns, but its sports teams are heavily black. Europe celebrates diversity and has many more Muslims and Asians than in the past, but its sports are turning more and more black, with France leading the way. So, diversity doesn't lead to more diversity at the top but to domination by one group. Today, the typical European Sprint Events have nearly all blacks(representing France, UK, Holland, etc.) 'Monoversity' also results in brainy fields. Technology is an open field in welcoming diverse talents from all over the world, but the top are dominated by Jews/whites, Hindus, and yellows. And finance sector around much of the world is dominated by Jews. It's not about more people having equal possession and control of wealth but about Jews gaining more financial access/control over other nations. Across Southeast Asia, diaspora Chinese dominate much of finance and economics. So, the promise of diversity hasn't led to diversity at the top but a kind of 'monoversity' where more diverse peoples come under the domination of a single or few groups. Globalism promotes diversity as equal opportunity for more diverse peoples, but even if it were truly meritocratic, innate genetic differences turns meritocracy into 'monoversity' of one group or few groups hogging most of the trophies or prizes. But it's actually worse because Jewish Power at the center of globalism rigs the game to favor Jews and their allies/puppets over much of the world(Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, 'uppity' whites who believe whiteness is okay). Domination by meritocracy isn't enough for Jews. They must also rig the game by having the US sanction Russia and Iran(and any nation that does business with them). Also, Jews, who once used to take pride as champions of civil liberties, now use media monopoly, platform monopoly, financial service monopoly, and all kinds of lawyer tricks to shut down speech and discussion that goes against Jewish power and its favored Narratives. At this point, ACLU is just a wing of AIPAC. In a way, equality of opportunity allows for even greater manifestations of racial superiority. Allowing equal opportunity in sports led to black supremacy. Allowing equal opportunity in academia, media, and finance led to Jewish domination. Even as 'anti-racist' whites so often point to black success in sports and music as proof of 'progressive' triumph over white supremacy, they overlook the implications of black supremacy. After all, if blacks totally beat whites in sports, it may disprove white or 'Aryan' supremacy but it also suggests black supremacy, at least in sports. And if blacks are more 'athletic' and rhythmic in their music that excites people, then blacks must have certain advantages in sound & sensuality. What is 'liberal' rock culture but an idolization and imitation of blacks? It's about white sensibility under the spell of black sensuality. Dave Marsh the famous critic always posed as a 'liberal' or even 'leftist' who denounces white 'racism', but his entire worldview can be boiled down to whites should revere blacks because blacks are so much more awesome than whites. There's a book called GOOD BOOTY(by Ann Powers) that seems to be about how whites gained so much from the bouncing black butt. And what is all this Philosemitism about? It's a case of Heil Hillel. If the West is about equality and 'anti-racism', why is its current sacred law, "Thou shalt serve Jews and Zion uber alles, especially Palestinians and Arabs?" It's based on the notion that Jews are so awesome as businessmen, thinkers, entertainers, and etc. that white people should get on their knees and worship and serve the REAL SUPERIOR RACE. In other words, inferior whites should serve superior Jews. Now, how is it possible that white superiority, white equality, and white inferiority, though contradictory with one another, all serve the same purpose? Because 'facts' or assumptions are secondary to the spin they are given. Under current dogma and narrative control, all three modes have been spun to make whites serve the Other, especially Jews and blacks. Heads I win, tails you lose. It's like the story of the Talmudic Rabbi, the goy, and the chimney. Regardless of the scenario or situation, the Jewish guy comes out on top. Different 'facts', but same spin: "Jew is right, goy is wrong" https://aleph.org/resources/the-rabbi-is-in-two-men-come-down-the-same-chimney In Ryunosuke Akutagawa's short story "In the Forest"(basis for Akira Kurosawa's RASHOMON), three people tell three different accounts of the same murder, but in a way, they're telling the same tale as each is driven by ego and vanity. In a similar vein, current whiteness, whether spun as 'superior', 'equal', or 'inferior', is spun to serve Jews and the Other. Whether it's a white knight, white man, or white slave, he exists to protect, welcome, or serve Jews(and their favored allies). Lawyers and pundits know this trick. Whatever the fact, no matter how irrefutable, they spin it to suit their agendas. Whether the truth is white superiority, white equality, or white inferiority, the power of spin is with Jews who spin whiteness around and around to serve Jewish Power. ZIOBOLSHEVIK TAKEOVER; SURVIVAL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Notes on Steve Sailer's Review of CASTE: THE ORIGINS OF OUR DISCONTENTS by Isabel 'the Dumbell' Wilkerson

https://www.takimag.com/article/caste-aspersions/

(Dwight) Garner is a normal white guy from West Virginia, so I guess he feels he has to say these kind of things to avoid being canceled from his nice job at The New York Times by ambitious underlings.

On the other hand, if Garner is from W. Virginia, then caste-over-race theme may be advantageous to his kinfolk. After all, prioritizing race lumps ALL whites together as ‘privileged’ and ALL blacks as ‘under-privileged’. But if we focus on caste, poor whites in W. Virginia become objects of sympathy while rich blacks get lumped with rich whites as members of the upper caste. Because of the fixation on race, poor West Virginia hillbillies get lumped together with billionaire Jews and white goy oligarchs like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. By the way, how do Jews feel about the caste issue? They are the ultra-brahmins of the West, both ‘spiritually’ and financially. They are deemed the Holy Holocaust race/caste, i.e. a historical event sanctifies Jews just for being Jewish. No matter what they do, their crimes are automatically washed clean by Shoah Soap or 'shoap'. They invoke Nazi evil to perpetuate Nazi-like evil against Palestinians and countless other goyim. And because of their great wealth, goy politicians and others flock to them like dogs to their master. Because Jews count as white, they can veil their power and wealth as 'white'; therefore, whites get blamed for Jews having too much. But if American discussion focuses on caste as well as on race, people may become more conscious of the fact that Jews are the uppermost caste among whites, that is if they should be counted as white at all.

Hence, many of her memories involve less-than-electrifying encounters with fellow passengers in first class who give her a funny look when she asks for help lifting her carry-on luggage or the like.

Isn’t she being caste-conscious? Why should she take offense at being mistaken for a flight attendant or airline worker? Why the touchy pride of an elite member of the scholastic class who only handles 'clean' work with ideas? If she is truly against caste-consciousness, she should be PROUD of being mistaken as a member of the Proles or regular working folk. But, she wants others to recognize that she belongs to the master class, the better kind of people. Oh, she’s not the type to handle baggage. That is for the LOWER CASTE losers of society, not for her esteemed self.

Isabel Wilkerson: “Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,” said J. Craig Venter, the geneticist who ran Celera Genomics when the mapping was completed in 2000.

One can argue that race is a social construct in that it has often been misapplied. But, the discipline of genetics, especially with the latest technology, is not a social construct. Geo-genetics or 'geonetics' is real. It’s like, even if alchemy isn’t real, chemistry is real. ‘Race’ can be deemed a social construct insofar as people with insufficient knowledge about genetics in the 19th and early 20th century leapt to broad conclusions, some of which were baseless and even harmful. But then, the notion of ‘racial equality’ is an even bigger social construct, and it too has done much harm. Indeed, the pretense that Europe should take in tons of black Africans because 'race is merely a social construct' will lead to the tragic Africanization of the continent: Europe will look more and more like Africa. Of course, white 'liberal' ideas about race went from believing that blacks are merely white people with black skin(or same with whites in every way except in skin color and hair texture) to believing blacks are the superior race for being better at sports, funkier in music, and wilder in sex. So, the current welcoming of black Africa into Europe is less about racial equality than about white bedazzlement with blackness. By the way, if the notion of race is to be rejected, is imperialism now acceptable? If race A invades race B, no one should complain because there’s no such thing as Race A and Race B? The ONLY issue is that some are more privileged than others regardless of the invasion? 'Nation' is a social construct, and so, does that mean any nation can invade any other nation on the basis that "nations are not real"? So, your nation wasn't really invaded by another nation since your nation and the invading nation are both 'social constructs' or falsehoods? So, Palestinians shouldn't complain about Zionist invasion and the great replacement. Jews and Palestinians, what's the difference? It was just one bunch of humans replaced by another bunch of humans. Nothing changed. The only issue is Israel and Occupied Territories have rich and poor. And Jews shouldn't make so much fuss about the Shoah because it wasn't really about Germans killing Jews but humans killing humans. People who think they are German killed people who think they're Jewish. So, Jews shouldn't think in terms of 'they killed us' but 'we killed us' or 'they killed themselves' because Germans and Jews are the same thing. Nation and Culture are far more social constructs than race is, but people believe in them and, furthermore, people are nothing without memory and myths. This is why nations are important even among the same race, such as Europeans. Or between Chinese and Mongols. Social constructs matter. They shouldn't be confused with scientific categories but people don't live on cold reptilian data alone. Race has both scientific basis and meaning as social construct. It's an indefinite term with multiple meanings, like the term 'nature'. But there is a definite scientific meaning to it, and to emphasize this, a new term is necessary for the scientific discussion of differences caused by evolution. As race is essentially the product of genetic differences that developed via evolutionary divergences due to geographic separation, maybe 'geonetics'(geo-genetics) or 'geonet' should be considered.

Isabel Wilkerson: Were height the measure for determining race, as arbitrary a measure as any and less arbitrary than some, the Dutch people of the Netherlands would be the same “race” as the Nilote people of South Sudan or the Tutsis of Rwanda.
Steve Sailer: No, they would not, because race is about who your ancestors were.

Furthermore, people naturally identify others as ‘my people’ or ‘not my people’ based on combination of facial features, hair texture, and skin tones than height or body size. It’s just the way of human psychology. People don’t categorize human groups by height because it simply isn't natural for human psychology to do so. Same goes for sexual differences. A small woman and big woman both feel as women first and foremost. A big woman doesn’t primarily identify as ‘big person’ alongside a big man. Height is an adjective whereas race and sex are nouns. Race comes first as existence, size follows as characteristic. It’s like there must be canines before there can be sizes of canines. Race and sex are facts, height and size are features. Some dogs may be more comparable in size with wolves but they are still dogs first and foremost. Before we notice the sizes of apples, a feature, they must exist in the first place as a type of fruit, a fact. There are big apples and small apples, but both are apples first and foremost. Same with peaches. People categorize fruits by kind, not size. Consideration of size follows categorization of kind. Apples and peaches are not placed in the same basket based on size.

In reality, there is of course a country where the racial groups are distinguished not by color but by height: Rwanda.

Height is merely one of the differences between Tutsis and Hutus. More significant are facial features. Tutsis have more angular features, Hutus have more round features(and look more typically black-African). Tutsis are Abbots, Hutus are Costellos. While Tutsis are taller than Hutus generally, there are surely Hutus who are taller than Tutsis, just like there are Japanese who are taller than Dutch. But a Tutsi surely sees a short Tutsi with Tutsi facial features as one of his own than feels natural kinship with a tall Hutu.

While Wilkerson is wrong about race, she may be onto something about the future of America. Much of American History was about race and caste. In the South and even in the North, being white had advantages over being black(or any other race). Race mattered. But as race becomes less of a factor, caste may come to dominate the debate. New groups are being formed on the basis of intelligence, ability, and connections than on the basis of race. Consider the high rates of intermarriage among Jews and Asians and increasingly among whites. And with 'Affirmative Action' opening many slots for blacks in elite institutions — Harvard is 12% black — and with most white elites being enthusiastic about race-mixing, they may form new elites who are products of high IQ mating with high IQ. Lots of elite white women seem especially hellbent on marrying outside the race or adopting black kids who, even if not the brightest bulbs, will benefit from connections and racial preference. Purely on meritocratic basis, there shouldn't be so many blacks in elite institutions, but Affirmative Action is real and, furthermore, whites and others are so willing to believe that the 'affirmatives' are just as intelligent. There is also the jungle fever factor. If Hinduism and Jimduism(Jim Crow) developed by trying to prevent race-mixing as much as possible, the new caste in America(and EU) will be created by enthusiasm for race-mixing. Race-mix or not, there will always be the upper-crust, middle crust, and lower-crust. If smart whites, Asians, Jews, Arabs/Muslims, 'Latinos', and blacks mix, they will form a new kind of caste. The only kind of race-mixing that might lead to broader equality is a random one based on lottery, e.g. match high IQ white man with low IQ black woman, match high IQ Latino with low IQ white woman, match high IQ Jewish woman with low IQ Arab, and etc. But race-mixing among the elites is not happening randomly. It's the Ivies mating with Ivies. Now, Wilkerson seems to be either confused or disingenuous. Her book is ostensibly against caste but ultimately argues for it. Without racial or national identity, there is only one's social position. If you don't matter as a person of race, a patriot of a nation, or member of a culture, the only thing that matters is money and status. It's the only thing that provides meaning and comfort, that is as long as you're high up the ladder. If Wilkerson rejects race as a 'social construct', then she likely rejects other social constructs such as 'nation' and 'culture'. Then, what else is left but success, status, and money? That being the case, how can she make a case against caste when, devoid of things that give people meaning and sense of belonging(such as race, nation, and culture), there is only money and one's socio-economic position? And in a status-conscious world, people will be even more eager to marry smart people and have smart kids. This may lead to more race-mixing among the smart and smarter(among blacks), but the end-result will be more racial stratification. Latin America, unlike India, allowed far more race-mixing, but there is still lots of stratification based on race and caste. Also, as a person of upper caste favored by the powers-that-be, why would someone like Wilkerson really want to be equal with everyone else? She is feted, favored, and promoted. She is a 'made' person. Better 'made' than maid. Maybe the upper caste should be called the 'mades' as the US is turning into a gangster state. I'm sure she's an admirer of Barack Obama, and what does he represent? High IQ black and High IQ white producing a child favored by ultra-rich Jews who even made him president, one that fixated mostly on globo-homo issues, the pet cause of the super-rich who prefer Gay Day to Mayday. So, Wilkerson's book is really a manifesto in favor of caste. Her only gripe is that not enough blacks are allowed into the upper crust. Her message to Jews and rich whites seem to be, wink wink, "If you don't want people like me to badmouth your wealth and privilege, give us some more." So, paradoxically, Jews and whites should be 'colorblind' and let in more blacks into the upper-crust. "We don't see color, and that's why we are welcoming MORE BLACKS into the club." The layers of deception are truly astounding. COVID TRANCE: HOW THE IRISH WERE HYPNOTISED BY THE MEDIA (WITH JOHN ANTHONY)