It makes little sense to blame Joe Biden(or his predecessors) for America's outdated Cold-War-era policy toward Cuba(but then, the crazy US seems to insist on Russia as the bogeyman in a 'new cold war'). Biden is just a senile puppet of the Jews. Indeed, he is perfect exemplar of what has become of the White Goy Elites. They are little pimps serving the Jewish mafia dons. This latest Cuban business is all about Florida. Donald Trump won Florida decisively in 2020 because he played on the Cuban vote. Apparently, Obama's semi-conciliatory policy toward Cuba rubbed off badly on many Cubanos. As Florida is a key swing state, it's mostly a matter of electoral politics. True, Cuba, as an ally of Venezuela, which in turn has warm relations with Iran, has upset many Jewish hegemonists who cannot tolerate anything that defies, directly or indirectly, Zion.
What is to be done about this? Cold War is long over, and US should stop with the sanctions against Cuba. But both political parties play to the Cuban-American vote which is most decisive in Florida. Is there any viable solution? I think there is, something akin to the Indian Casino Policy. Casinos were allowed to proliferate all across the fruited plains on the basis of their reparatory benefit to Indians. Personally, I think it was a bad idea to expand casinos as gambling is theft and invariably Jews will skim off the casinos as the 'Injuns' are too ill-educated and backward to run the daily operations, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, there might be a way to sweeten the bitter pill of ending the anti-Cuban sanctions for Cuban-Americans. How about, for the next fifty years, all the (or at least 50% of) business between US and Cuba must be through the Cuban-American community? Lots of money to be made by Cuban-Americans, and 'greed' alone might persuade the Cubans in Florida to take the deal. Just like Indians got a sweet deal with the casinos, give Cuban-Americans an extra-sweet deal in the prospect of ending sanctions. All or much of the selling to Cuba must be done through Cuban-American businesses. And Cuban goods must be brought to the US via Cuban-American owned companies. That might be a win-win for both those who want the sanctions to end and the Cuban-American community that figures to cash in on doing business with the devil. It could be called THE WILD BUNCH solution. In one scene, the young Mexican bandit Angel refuses to go along on the train heist but changes his mind on condition that he could take one case of rifles and one case of ammo. Angel did it for his village at the cost of his share of gold, but gold is what usually mints the deal. It's like the guy in STATE AND MAIN. Jews gave him money, and he just goes along.
Cornel West says that most of his black colleagues failed to back him because they are afraid of Jews. He'd be closer to the mark in telling them, "Jews gave you money." If not Jews, then super-rich oligeeks like Jeff Bezos in cahoots with Zionists. He gave $100 million to Vance Jones the 'communist'. You can bet Jones won't make much fuss about super-capitalism or Zionism; he will just spout off about those 'white supremacist' truckers and opioid-addicts. If commerce can buy commies, it sure can buy Cubanos in America into accepting the end of sanctions on Cuba. For all their principled protestation against Castroite Tyranny and Communist Evil, they will sing another tune when ending-sanctions comes to mean mucho dinero for the Cuban-American community. Mormons want to invest in Cuba? They have to go through the Cuban-American community. Jews want to invest in Cuba? They need Cuban-American contacts. Hindus and Chinese-Americans want to invest in Cuba? Call you local Cubano. (Of course, Jews will be one exception. More than Cubans, they own Florida and there's no way Cuban-Americans are going to say NO to anything Jews demand.)
While the continuation of sanctions after the Cold War made little sense, the Left hasn't made much sense either. On the one hand, they say US and capitalism are all about exploitation and piggery. If so, shouldn't Communist Cuba be blessed for not having economic relations with the capitalist Yanqui US? And yet, the very communistas or socialistas, who condemn the US and capitalism, argue for economic ties and trade between Cuba and the capitalist US. Why is this? It seems capitalism works a helluva lot better than communism or radical socialism. And even social-democracy needs a vital capitalist base that produces goods and wealth that can sustain a degree of socialism. Communism was bound to fail because it's like City Hall running everything. Imagine if your city hall or town hall had to run all the hotels, restaurants, health clubs, boutiques, markets, auto-shops, drug stores, computer stores, electronics services, and etc. There's no way it would be efficient.
Granted, it's understandable why Cuba turned against capitalism. Its variant in Cuba was associated with old oligarchy, the mafia, CIA shenanigans, Jewish bankers, and all-around US-meddling. Cuba was turned into something like Disney Land for the hedonists, degenerates, hoodlums, goons, and imperialists. In that, Fidel Castro and his men did achieve something heroic. And it's understandable why Cuban Independence couldn't allow 'liberal democracy' and 'free trade'. So-called Liberal Democracy is really rule by money. US-funded or US-associated Cubans(as puppets) would have gained control of all media and institutions, and the 'democratic' politicians would have been shills like Marco Rubio. The Yeltsin-Russia of the 1990s was proof that 'liberal democracy' is bound to fail when rich and powerful foreign forces meddle in domestic affairs. Russians weren't allowed to develop and shape their own democracy but had to live under one imposed by World Jewry that protected Jewish gangsterism and fostered Russian cuck-compradors. To this day, Vladimir Putin hasn't done enough to remove this poison. (Jewish media always play up sensational stories about Russia poisoning this person or that person, but Jewish Power poisons entire nations with financial blood-sucking, globo-homo degeneracy, and socio-cultural destabilization.)To the extent that Fidel Castro created an independent Cuba, he did good for his country.
Where he failed was in adopting communism than fascism. Now, given the negative connotations of the term, it wouldn't have made sense to call any system 'fascist'. But one can have fascism with a different name. Look at current Israel, Russia, and China. They are closest to the fascist model. Israel and Russia are democracies but, especially in Israel, there is a higher principle than mere 'liberality' or 'individualism'. The core political theme of Israel is Jewishness, Jewish state, Jewish identity, Jewish culture, Jewish unity, Jewish survival, and Jewish power. Where Zionism went wrong was it turned imperialist and morphed into Yinon-ism, but Zionism, at least as a limited nationalism, is far more viable than the so-called 'liberal democratic' model of the US, Canada, and EU, now in disarray because its central emphasis on 'individuality' and 'liberality' prevent those systems from emphasizing the core themes of ethnos, territory, and heritage — with the rise of Political Correctness, 'Wokeness', and Censchwarzship, the so-called Liberal West is even losing freedoms and rights once associated with individual liberty and conscience. (The only racial/cultural identity and nationalism that white people are allowed to express is their gushing and undying support for Jewish People and Israel.) Another problem with 'liberal democracy' is the super-rich end up controlling everything. Worse, as businessmen tend to be shallow/hollow, they come under the influence of rasputin-like charlatans. Look at the US today. Consider the super-rich hollow/shallow jerks like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the like. Sure, they are smart people but have nothing on their minds but making money. So, to burnish their credentials as Good, Committed, and Important People, they consult the 'leading' 'intellectuals' and 'activists' who are either crazy, cynical, delusional, and/or opportunistic. (If Jewish-controlled media promote Kendi X as the guru of the moment, all these rich fools are slobbering all over him and the like. Jews do control the gods.)
Then, 'woke capital' makes perfect sense. These shallow rich people are smart enough to make money but shallow/hollow about everything else. Out of fear, anxiety, and/or desire for approval, they latch onto the latest fads and fashions foisted by the 'intellectual' class ensconced in the elite institutions of media and academia, both of which are controlled by Jews. To be sure, in a paradoxical way, the current West is profoundly ultra-nationalist precisely because it is so extremely anti-nationalist, i.e. in the interest of "Is it good for Jews"-based ultra-nationalism, all vestiges of white nationalism must be expunged. Jews suppress nationalism among whites not as a general anti-nationalist principle but to bolster and secure their own nationalism-imperialism, much like the British suppressed Indian Nationalism to maintain British national-imperialist rule over India.
This is why a secure and healthy system must be fascist. Mao Zedong was nutty in many ways, but he was sensible about how Politics must command Economics. As a young man, he'd seen how so many business-minded Chinese were willing to sell out their nation for personal profits in association with imperialists. He didn't want China to become one big Hong Kong. And Castro understood this as well as he grew up in a Cuba dominated by US gangster-capitalism. What the capitalists couldn't do in the US(which has some rules and regulations), they did in Cuba as if the island-nation was little more than one big Red-Light District for Ugly Americans. Where both Mao and Castro failed was in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of working to develop national capital, they waged total war on capital and enterprise, thus depriving their nations of incentives and innovations necessary for a modern economy. But China since Deng's reforms understood this. It followed in the footsteps of Japan and the so-called Asian Tigers, and then, Vietnam followed as well. Though China and Vietnam lagged behind in economic growth, they had one advantage. They created systems where Political Power would control Economic Power, whereas Japan and the 'Asian Tigers'(especially with the advent of 'liberal democracy') became all about corporate dominance. Just like shallow/hollow business class of the West, the ones in Japan now promote jungle fever and ones in Taiwan & South Korea promote tranny craziness and globo-homo nonsense. Businessmen are soulless and, if allowed to rule, will just take cues from charlatans drawn from the so-called 'intellectual' class. (What passes for intellectualism in a world defined by Popular Culture is mostly junk. Idolatry over Ideology.) And in our post-religious age where so many are hungry for spiritual meaning, the cult of vanity and narcissism(especially of Negroes and Homos) is provided for the pop-culture and political-correctness addled masses. Fascism provides a Moses-like prophetic figure to counter-balance the excessive influence of the Golden-Calfers. How the history of Cuba could have been different if Castro had chosen a fascist than a communist path. He could have had a far healthier economy with elements of capitalism and socialism, both bound to nationalism and sovereignty.
Of course, there is the black problem in Cuba. Though no one wants to live in a police state, Cuba has done better with its black problem because blacks have a tendency to abuse freedom and go wild. While a police state suppresses a lot of good freedom, it also clamps down on bad freedom, and so, the black problem never got to the level of Brazil or Venezuela. Still, Cuba suffers from TMB or Too-Many-Blacks, and the liberalization of society may turn parts of like the favelos of Brazil or the hellholes of South Africa & Haiti.
In the past, blacks gained via cultural crossbreeding with whites. Whites also gained this way, especially in music. Charlie Parker and Miles Davis both had extensive knowledge of white and/or modern music. James Baldwin read extensively the classics of Western Lit. There was little race-mixing back then. The dynamics of racial mixing then was cultural and intellectual.
Nowadays, blacks don't care much about white culture. The attitude ranges from blissful indifference to toxic hostility bordering on phobia. Everything white is 'racist' or has something to do with 'white privilege'. Or, it is 'sexist' or 'homophobic', amusing coming from nonwhites because all human societies, white and nonwhite, have been mostly 'sexist' and 'homophobic' by today's insane standards. But then, many whites don't care about white culture either. Raised on insta-thrill pop culture centered around rap, superhero movies, videogames, and pornification of just about everything(even kiddie culture at Disney), a lot of white kids haven't the patience or curiosity for anything that requires some effort and commitment. Or, they've been indoctrinated that Western Civilization is 'racist'. And yet, because of the undeniable greatness of the West, there is the OTHER agenda of blackening it. It used to be 'Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Civ has got to go', but we increasingly hear, 'Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Civ was Negro'. Not only are there theories that Ludwig van Beethoven was black but even clearly white historical figures, male and female, are increasingly depicted as black by Jewish-and-Cuck-run media. British queens, Finnish heroes, Roman generals, and etc. have been presented as black.
Maybe Robert E. Lee will be rehabilitated if he's presented as black while the slaves are made white. The 'Hamilton'-ization of history. Then, maybe blacks and progs will feel, "Black Robert E. Lee was a great man for fighting to defend an institution that enslaved all those evil racist honkeys who deserved no freedom." What blacks denounce as 'racist' is suddenly cool if the great white man/woman is made black. And white cucks and even conzos seem to embrace this. Maybe they figure it's the only way to save Western Civ. Any great white figure in history or culture can instantly go from 'punkass lowlife racist honkey mofo' to 'badass supercool dude' IF black-faced. Maybe it will even impact Neo-Nazis who decide to make Hitler black.
Anyway, if cultural crossbreeding of yesteryear is gone due to black self-absorption and decline of serious appreciation of culture and ideas, it seems the only way left for blacks to gain from whites is via miscegenation. The hell with white ideas and culture. Rather, hump the white ho and appropriate white genes(pertaining to higher IQ and attractiveness) for the black race. After all, the product of white/black mixing is considered fully black than half-black/half-white. No one called Obama a half-black president. No one called Tiger Woods a quarter-black golfer. And this is gaining steam because race-mixing is considered as 'progressive'. But is it really?
Actually, race-mixing isn't leftist or anything new. It's older than the oldest profession of prostitution. The fate of Neanderthals can attest to that. Men like to pork anything, the age-old tradition of victors taking the women of the vanquished. This is why white folks got some Neanderthal genes. Cro-Magnons defeated and destroyed the Neanderthals but porked their women as sexual trophies. So, race-mixing isn't anything new but a weapon and product of war, invasion, conquest, oppression, domination, and humiliation. And what is happening today between whites and blacks is just another chapter in this power struggle of winners and losers, not of equals.
Were the Ancient Egyptians 'progressive' or 'leftist' for taking women of defeated tribes for sexual pleasure? Were the Romans 'progressive' or 'leftist' for having done the same? Were Arabs 'progressive' for having used white slave women as sex objects? Were the Moors 'leftist' for having humiliated Southern Europeans by race-mixing with white women? Were the Ottoman Turks 'progressive' for having used Greek girls(and boys) as sexual trophies? Were the Mongols 'leftist' for having sexually exploited all the peoples they conquered? Did Persian and Russian rejoice over this 'liberation' by the Golden Horde? Were the Spanish Conquistadors a bunch of 'leftist progressives' for having forced race-mixing on the brown natives of the Americas? Were Southern slave-owners 'leftist' for having sexually exploited black slave women? Were US troops 'leftist' for having turned the women of Vietnam into a whores for the US military? (If memory serves me right, it was the Viet Cong that was considered leftist in that struggle.) So, there is nothing that is intrinsically leftist or progressive about race-mixing. The history of race-mixing has been mostly brutal, aggressive, and humiliating(especially for the men of the losing side).
Now, there is a way race-mixing could be construed as leftist or progressive. The universal strain of leftism may argue that all men and women are brothers and sisters under the skin. Therefore, the ideal is for all of mankind to acknowledge one another's humanity and shared destiny and fall in love regardless of race and skin color or whatever. A colorblind coming together of the races based on the global union of the heart. But is this what is happening? No. The fact is Jungle Fever isn't colorblind but color-bound because black men associate white women with more attractive features and because white women associate black men with more muscle and bigger dongs. It's about ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs premised on BAMMAMA, or Blacks-Are-More-Muscular-and-More-Aggressive. It's about black sexual imperialism, conquest, and colonization of the white race. There was a time when genuinely leftist Jews(though they could have been disingenuous back then) pushed the notion that all races are essentially alike apart from skin color. Especially Jews who grew up under communist parents seem to believe this. David Horowitz was one, but in the Sixties and Seventies, he couldn't help realize that blacks were about thug-muscle power and felt hostility toward geek lefty Jews. Blacks cynically exploited Jewish idealism whereas Jews, for all their smarts, were blind to the actuality of racial dynamics. In the book DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION, the story of Fay Stender, a Jewish leftist lawyer who defended black criminals and had sex with them, suggested that there were racial-sexual dynamics between Jews and blacks that went beyond common cause based on ideology.
Since then, Jewish Leftism has pretty much vanished. Almost no Jew accepts Marxist theory of anything. No Jew of any consequence is a communist, or even a real humanist. Most Jews who matter know privately that race does matter and that racial equality is just a pipe-dream. Most Jews now regard themselves as superior and deserving to rule over dumb and/or weak-willed goyim(like the 'darn tootin' guy in FARGO). If Jews carry on with the proggy-sounding agenda of 'anti-racism'(in a world where they instigate wars and crises in which Zionists are favored and countless Arabs are pushed through the meat grinder), it is only to guilt-bait whites into cucking and sucking up to Jewish Supremacists. The current prog-agenda isn't to defeat all forms of supremacism but to sustain Jewish supremacism by labeling any hint of white autonomy and agency as 'white supremacist'. Bait-and-Switch.
Indeed, this is why today's race-mix propaganda is so different from that of yesteryear. In a movie like Stanley Kramer's GUESS WHO BE COMING TO DINNER?, the white girl hardly notices that she's hooked up with a NEGRO! She just goes on and on about his fine character and social status as successful doctor. So, it's all about content of character or some such. It's not about Jungle Fever but a sexual version of TO SIR WITH LOVE, with Sidney Poitier reliably playing the capable and upstanding Negroid. Fast Forward to today, and the message is clearly race-conscious, or Jungle Feverish. It's not about color-blind unity of the races but how white women should go with black men because they are superior to white men in manhood. It's essentially the Saigonization of the white race. In Saigon during the war, Vietnamese women were turned into whores and sexual property of the conquering white and black soldiers whereas Vietnamese males' roles were as cucks, collaborators, and coolies. Today, this dynamics is pushed all across America. Robin DiAngelo's stuff about White Fragility is just BS. We know she has Jungle Fever(and most white men have Cuckitis).
The massive race-mixing in the US isn't part of anything new. It's not 'leftist' or 'progressive' but continuation of the age-old racial dynamics of the conquering race taking the women of the loser race. Whites may be smarter than blacks, but that doesn't matter because Jews are smarter than whites. With their money and power of persuasion(with sticks and carrots), smarter Jews have pressured smart whites into worshiping dumb but stronger blacks. If there's only Bob and Billy, and if Bob is smarter than Billy, Bob will likely control Billy, even if Billy is stronger. Brains often wins over brawn. But if there's also Bruce and if Bruce is smarter than Bob, and if Bruce favors Billy over Bob, Bob too will end up favoring Billy over himself because smarter Bruce insists it be so. And that is where the US is at today. If there were no Jews in the US, whites would be better positioned vis-a-vis blacks. Whites would use their smarts to come up with best ways to control blacks. But because Jews are smarter than whites and effectively control white minds, if Jews say, "Blacks are holy whereas whites are assholy, therefore whites must kiss black ass for redemption", plenty of whites go along in obedience to Jews with the prestige of higher IQ.
Today's race-mixing isn't about colorblind coming together of the races. Rather, it's about power and preferences. Jewish and black power prefer white women, and white men just accept their lot as cuck-losers and not only shut up but CELEBRATE Shtetl Fever and Jungle Fever as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Even though the power-dynamics have changed drastically in the US, the public discourse still carries on with outdated paradigm of 'white supremacism' or 'systemic racism'. This is especially so because Jewish Power has yet to rear its head as the true master of New America, and white morons, cucked and craven, don't have the guts to spell out the nature of the new reality. The effect is downright surreal. We have the Jewish supremacist overclass forcing white cuck-elites to carry on with the charade that the US is ruled by 'white supremacists' who must be resisted in order to create a society of greater 'equity' and 'inclusion'. If so, how about including some Palestinian-Americans in Joe Biden's Jewish-packed government? How about some real talk of equity between Jews who grow ever richer and goyim who grow ever poorer? Super-rich Jewish Supremacists control all the institutions and industries with supremacist sway over us, but we are supposed to believe that the 'supremacist' threat comes from truck drivers and lower-middle class & working class whites who call for fair elections.
The current race-mixing propaganda is about dominating, humiliating, and erasing the white race. It's about the white race reduced to a mere prize or trophy. Like horses, or canines at a dog show. The race-mix message is that White Beauty now belongs to Jews who got all the money and blacks who got the glory as rap stars, athletes, and studs. In other words, Jews and blacks are active agents of power. Jews are in the game of money and influence. Blacks are in the game of celebrity and sports. As white males lost to Jews in the brain-game and lost to blacks in the brawn-game, they should accept their loser-dom. They no longer deserve to keep white women as racial possessions. No, white women are for sale or up for grabs as trophies and prizes for the real winners of America, Jews and blacks. Trophy or Prize is coveted but passive, not active. Athletes are active. Winners take the trophy. Men in business and institutions are active in the struggle for power. Jewish message is clear. Jews and blacks are active as competitors in the power-grab. Whites, especially white women, are merely passive as trophies. If white men want to play an active role, it must as 'assists' to Jews and blacks, much like Sikhs were sidekicks to the British Imperialists. Active in assistance, not resistance, that is the Rule for Whites according to Jews. No wonder Jewish 'conservatives' tell whites that the Critical Race Theory(pushed by 'progressive' Jews) isn't anti-white but just anti-something-or-the-other. Jews of all stripes feel they must snuff out any spark of white consciousness. Both 'progressive' and 'conservative' Jews insist that white activism must be to ASSIST than RESIST Jewish Supremacism. So, while Jews tirelessly call for RESISTANCE to 'white supremacist' MAGA, whites are supposed to embrace ASSISTANCE to Jewish Power. Even when Jews ravaged Trump's presidency, what did the orange-man clown do? He pardoned Jewish crooks.
Jewish supremacist race-mix message is as follows: "You white guys lost to us in mental power and lost to blacks in muscle-power. So, just be a bunch of dweeby cucks while your women come over to us as our trophies." This is NOTHING NEW. It's the same sexual dynamics of age-old imperialism and conquest. It is like when Spanish men sexually conquered native brown women or when US neo-imperialist G.I.'s turned Vietnam into one big race-mixing whore-house. It's just that the Saigonization is now happening to the white race. This is what the removal of Robert E. Lee statues and Confederate monuments are all about. And there is hardly any resistance from Southern Whites, especially as white men down there are also cucked in their mindless worship of black-dominated college football where Negroes take white women. This is especially so as Jews pegged the New Morality to idolatry than idealism, a policy as profoundly eventful as the creation of the Petro-Dollar where oil was fixed to the value of the dollar. If the Petro-Dollar meant Oil = US currency, the creation of the Jewgromo(Jewish-Negro-Homo)-Dollar meant Jews, Negroes, Homos = Morality and Spirituality. Moral Currency has been pegged to Jews, blacks, and homos. It isn't about all races bound by same rules and being judged by the same yardstick but about some groups being intrinsically precious whereas others are innately tainted. So, celebrating blacks even as blacks burn down cities and beat up innocent people is deemed 'moral'. Praising Jews and Israel to high heaven even as Jews spread terror and mayhem all across the Middle East and Ukraine is deemed 'moral'. Celebrating homos and trannies even as they turn mainstream culture into one big degenerate infestation is deemed 'moral'. Never mind what these groups do. Whatever they do must be right because their very identities have been pegged to moral righteousness and spiritual sanctity. As a result, the white race isn't merely sexually cucked but spiritually cucked to Jews and blacks(and homos). Of course, there is ONE way white males can gain some holy 'woke' points but it is as homos who take dongs(often black, as with Andrew Sullivan) up their bungs or as trannies in flowery dresses and pretend to be 'women' despite the hairy chest, pud, and balls. (Jews will favor white male trannies over women because they tend to favor deviant-minority over any natural majority, seek to undermine morale-boosting moral clarity among goyim, and insist that reality is what Jews say it is regardless of any objective truth. Anyone who can make others accept 2 + 2 = 5 despite the obvious truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has awesome power indeed.. like the overlords behind Big Brother Cult in Orwell's 1984.)
Every 4th of July, Americans love to pontificate about 1776. Some now rhapsodize about 1619.
But most relevant and significant for us is the stealth revolution that began in 1992 when the boomers took over. Among boomers, Jews were the most powerful, something that wasn't true up to the 'greatest generation'. So, the ascendancy of the boomers meant the rise of the Jews and their eventual supremacist takeover. Billy Boy Clinton was, in this sense, the First Jewish President. Still, being a Sixties guy, he had just enough idealism to try to broker a deal between Jews and Palestinians, albeit one heavily tilted in favor of the Jews. Liberal Jews used him for this end, but many other Jews were angered by his partial empowerment of Palestinians and cut him off at the knees with the Monica Blewinsky scandal. The next boomer president, George W. Bush, operated on the basis of Jew-Envy. Jews are the richest and most influential in top institutions. Also, they gained holy credit via Holocaust Narrative. But most Jews are Democrats. Furthermore, most Republican voters disagreed with the Jewish domestic agenda of globo-homo and anti-whiteness, thus alienating powerful Jews. This meant the Democrats had a bigger schwarz than the GOP, leaving it anxious with schwarz-envy.
So, how could the GOP win over the Jews? Give Neocons everything they want. Let them triumph and become the premier Jews with the most prestige. Hopefully, that just might persuade more Jews to become Neocons and come over to the GOP than remain as nay-saying 'Liberal Jews' among the Democrats. So, we had 9/11 and Iraq War. Dubya would be like the New Churchill standing side-by-side by heroic Neocons who would remake the world for the better. And Jews would be so shocked-and-awed by this that more of them would won over to neoconservatism. Well, the Iraq War didn't go so well. Also, Dubya was an embarrassment, a caricature of the dumb silver-spoon Wasp in decline, and the bi-partisan handing over all the financial decisions to Wall Street Jews led to massive bust in real estate that led to the Great Recession. (Besides, after the yuppie 80s, the fall of the Soviet Union, and Bill Clinton's New Democrat singularity-triangulation strategy that adopted free trade and financial deregulation, there wasn't all that much difference between the two parties. Neo-Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews were essentially two sides of the same coin, working under the table to further Jewish supremacy uber alles. Thus, both the 'left' and 'right' had no real home in either party.) Jews used the foreign policy debacle and financial crisis to push through the Big One. The first mulatto president, a product of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. The message was white wombs exist to be colonized by black seed, and white folks must worship the product of jungle fever. Obama's significance was most crucial in terms of sexual politics. His rise meant whites were totally cucked, much like South Vietnamese who offered their women as whores to US invaders. Also, it was under Obama that Jews pushed through globo-homo and without any GOP opposition. The Zeroeth Amendment of America became "If Jews want it, they get it." It's no wonder GOP is so eager to attack China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and etc. Even though Jews are the main enemy of white patriots, the cuck elites are too afraid of Jews to confront them and seek out external enemies, often imagined or exaggerated, instead. They are like dogs that, afraid of master's stick, bark at strangers and other animals.
So, we need to revise the discussion of US history and talk about this Stealth Revolution. It was a profound transformation, no less than the fall of the Soviet Union, aka Russian Empire in 1991. But because of the semblance of political continuity, conceit of 'muh democracy', and continued prosperity, it was assumed that the American system remained intact. No, something profound took place and seriously altered the trajectory of American History. All of US history had been about Wasp-Christian domination until the Rise of the Boomers. That American reality quasi-officially ended in 1992 with the boomer-Jewish takeover. Pat Buchanan was correct in the 1992 Republican Convention speech. He called it a Culture War, but it was essentially an Ethnic War as it was the Jews who drove the New Agenda to subvert, discredit, and undermine White Christian America. Of course, the Wasp order was already on wobbly legs by 1992(indeed even by the Sixties). It was on its last legs as the children of the Wasps had already been indoctrinated in elite colleges by Jews and their useful idiots, the shabbos goy collaborators. Jews have big minds, whites have small minds, and big minds control small minds. Prophets direct the priesthood. Jews think like prophets with the vision(now satanic), and whites go about like priests who receive dogma and enforce it.
This Stealth Revolution took off in 1992 and was completed in 2008 with Barack Obama. Donald Trump seemed to promise to reverse things in a Counter-Revolution or a kind of Restoration, but how could he when he (1) couldn't name the Jew and (2) his Jewish Policy was same as the Dubya Neocon strategy: Mindless support of Israel, deranged vilification of Iran, hostility toward Russia... even though he ran on an essentially anti-war platform in regards to Syria and anti-cold-war proposition in regard to Russia?
So, forget about 1776. That was about the beginning of the Wasp-American nation, now fallen and turned to dust. Forget about 1619. That's just Jews using CRT to guilt-bait whites into moral paralysis, all the better to use them as 'redemptive' cucks beholden to Jewish masters. No, what must really be discussed is 1992 or 1992-2008, the total Jewish takeover. Since then, we are living in a New America. Unless this ethno-revolution is addressed, there can't be any honest assessment of what is really happening in America. And there can be no White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism, the only hope for mankind as Jewish Evil will collapse without white cuck-collaboration, just like British Imperialism came tumbling down in India when the natives refused to collaborate with the empire.
Incidentally, US and Russia fell to Jewish Takeover around the same time. Fall of communism paved the way for the rise of Jewish oligarchs in Russia. The Clinton presidency heralded the Jewish-boomer takeover of just about everything. Paradoxically, the weakness of Rule of Law and sheer gangsterism of Russian realities allowed Russians like Vladimir Putin to regain a measure of autonomy and independence from Jewish supremacist power. In Russia, Jews played dirty but so did the Russians, especially the veterans of the KGB seasoned in gangster tricks. Lack of Rule of Law meant Jews could pull all manner of dirty tricks and take over much of the economy, but it also meant Russians could play dirty and use the same gangster tricks on the Jews. In contrast, American Jews, though no less gangster-like, used the Rule of Law established by Anglo-America to gain power & dominance and continue to rely on the long-existing legal infrastructure to maintain their power. Thus, their power has more legal protections. Putin could go 'Michael Corleone' on the Jewish oligarchs in Russia, but such is nearly impossible in the US where Rule of Law still matters. But as American Jews do think and act like gangsters, the Rule of Law has become more ethno-centric, arbitrary, unprincipled, and corrupt. Jonathan Pollard walks free, moves to Israel, gives middle finger to the US and urges more Jews to betray the US to serve Zion, and stands next to beaming Netanyahu, at whose feet US politicians of both parties groveled. The New Rule of Law allows such things. We were told 'Jeffrey Epstein killed himself', and there's been no real inquiry into what really happened. Those who pushed Russia Collusion Hoax face no punishment, just like no Jewish Wall Street crook got jail time after the 2008 fiasco. Jews allow BLM and Antifa to attack patriots in the streets, and the cops protect BLM and Antifa scum and arrest patriots when they fight back. Jews bitch and whine about how Rule of Law in America had been 'systemically racist' in favor of whites over non-whites for most of its history(which is true enough), BUT their agenda isn't to make the law color-blind but to favor Jews over Palestinians(thus the suppression of BDS), homos over moralists(thus the attack on Christian bakers and florists by trannies and homos), and illegals over American citizens.
And yet, because of stealth revolution of 1992 and the Jewish takeover as the godlike overlords of America, all we get from both political parties is, "We worship, honor, and serve Jews." Jewish Power f---d Trump in the rump, and his message to Jews is, "Can I suck your dic*?" It'd be more honest if we did away with the pretense of democracy and announced that, especially since 1992, the US has undergone a profound revolution that elevated Jews as the master class in the US. As such, Jews are above the law and can do as they wish. The worst kind of Jewish crooks are pardoned by US puppet-presidents, not least Trump, while white patriots are put in solitary confinement and tortured, waiting to be hit with stiff sentences for minor infractions. Jews keep invoking defense of 'liberal democracy' to justify their rule, but their power is about ethnic supremacism, distortion of rule of law, betrayal of Constitutional principles, massive censchwarzship, denial of financial services to patriots(despite banks being bailed out by ALL tax payers), and even use of BLM-Antifa gangsterism to suppress dissent. When politicians run for office in the US, they don't sign a pledge to defend the Constitution but a pledge to blindly support AIPAC and the Zionist Yinon-Plan.
Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.
In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.
Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.
Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."
At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.
The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.
Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.
Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.
At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.
The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.
Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.
This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.
This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.
the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.
More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.
William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.
I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.
Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.
One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.
Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.
To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.
As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?
White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.
Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.
But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.
The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should one be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.
And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man matters in World War I. Modern War isn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes claiming to fight for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier is worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.
Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.
Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.
Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.
It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTERS having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTERS. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.
It all comes down to whether one has man-mentality or dog-mentality. When a man believes something is right and wants it, he feels it in his bones. He tries to get it, and it's not matter of what others think. He prioritizes what HE feels to be right and righteous. He has autonomy, agency, and independence. In contrast, no matter how much a dog wants something, the desire takes backseat to the dog's need for the master's approval. This need for approval stands between the dog and what it really wants. No matter how much the dog wants something, it won't run after it IF the master will be displeased.
This is why Charles Murray is ultimately worthless. He has a dog mentality. He may want good things for white folks in a country defined by liberty and civic nationalism, but when push comes to shove, this Biden-voting lowlife scumbag's innermost emotion is abject servility to the Jewish Master. (I can understand Murray despising Donald Trump and not voting for him, but how can anyone who cares for America vote for Joe Biden? Only a status-starved craven scumbag who wants to be invited to cocktail parties.) Because of Murray's dog-mentality, even what he wants very dearly — decent treatment of white folks like himself — must take backseat to sappy servility to Jews and eagerness to win their approval. So, even as he lays out the argument for innate racial differences, it all comes down to, "I'm doing this for YOU, my Jewish Master. It's to prevent the rise of white consciousness lest it challenge your deserved Chosen-People supremacy over us inferior goyim." What a worthless cuck pile of dung. We can't have such dogs to speak for the white race. A true patriot must be pro-white because he feels it in his bones. Because it is his innermost desire and passion. All his thoughts and actions must flow from his pride of whiteness. Anxiety about Jewish Approval must not stand in the way between him and his desire.
When a man wants to hunt rabbit, he does so because he wants to. He doesn't look over his shoulder for approval. In contrast, even when a dog is most eager to hunt rabbit, it first looks over its shoulder for the master's approval. If the master signals NO, the dog refrains from its biggest desire because its innermost emotion comes down to servility to master's approval and abject fear of his disapproval. Murray is just a white dog, a pathetic hound.
But then, Jared Taylor isn't much better. Unlike Murray, Taylor will express pride of whiteness and need for white interests. But when push comes to shove, he is ever so fearful of spelling out that the main enemy of white consciousness and white liberation is Jewish Supremacist Power. He's not full-dog like Murray but is nevertheless half-dog. One of the unfortunate aspects of HBD is IQ-centrism. As Jews both count as white and possess the highest IQ, there's this ridiculous awe laced with sentimentality that dreams of a magical Jewish-White Alliance, especially useful to whites as Jews come with moral shield as the Holy Holocaust people: "How can we HBD people be 'racist' or 'antisemitic' when Jews are on our side?" Keep dreaming! But philosemitic HBD clowns do keep dreaming and hoping that their position may gain the seal of approval of the Jews with higher intelligence and holier morality points. It's dog-think.
White Consciousness and Liberation must be based on man-think. White people must want what they want regardless of what Jews think, feel, or demand. If Jews want to join the White Liberation and Empowerment Movement, fine, but if not, the hell with them. If whites want to hunt rabbit, they should just do it. Don't look over the shoulder for approval from the Jewish Master. That is White Liberation, the only real path to freedom and power. Especially when Jews are calling on black thugs to hunt whites, whites shouldn't need permission from Jews to go hunting and choosing their own targets.
By the way, it's not enough to mention higher crime rates among blacks. The real problem is BAMMAMA or Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Reality is race-ist, and evolution produced different races. Blacks evolved to be more muscular, more aggressive, wilder, and less inhibited. THAT is why they act the way they do, and that has been the cause of White Flight and Jew Flew from blackening areas. But because Jewish Supremacists need to keep whites in submissive mode in servility to Zion, Jews concoct horror stories about 'systemic racism' to paralyze white folks with 'white guilt'. This is all very amusing since Jewish bankers funded much of Western Imperialism and Jewish merchants played a role in the 'genocide' of the American Indians. Jews were also the biggest sellers of opium to the Chinese, destroying millions of lives(and recently Jews peddled opioids to the white working class, leading to the deaths of 100,000s of whites). Jewish Bolsheviks worked with Josef Stalin to kill millions of people. And of course, Jewish Power ethnically erased the Palestinians in the tragic Nakba, and the Jewish-led Wars for Israel effectively led to the ongoing Arabocaust in which over a million Arabs and/or Muslims have died. So, where is Jewish Guilt in all this? Jews feel NONE. What a vile bunch of people, and yet, sucking up to Jews is the highest value in currently sicko America.
The woman in the video above can throw all the tantrums she wants. It won’t make a difference. Actually, NOTHING will make a difference unless people begin to Name the Jew. Indeed, Jews prop up stuff like globo-homo and tranny-tyranny partly to (mis)direct people's outrage at ANYTHING but themselves. Thus, globo-homo is a win-win for Jewish Power. When accepted by goyim, it has a weakening and deracinating effect on them. When resisted by goyim, it fixates moral outrage at homos and trannies than at Jews, the real puppet-masters behind globo-homo. This is why people must expose the Jew. They must name the Jew for blame. If a puppet hits you, should you direct your rage at the puppet or at the puppet-master? While homos and trannies do everything to further their agenda, they never would have amassed the kind of power and privilege without the backing of Jews who control finance, media, academia, entertainment, law firms, and courts. If you want real change, you must name the Jew. If you are unwilling to do so out of philosemitic sentimentality, craven cowardice, or mere opportunism, just give it up. You are hopeless.
Why must the Jew be named? Imagine the following scenario. Suppose there's this nasty spoiled-rotten kid Billy. Billy is causing a lot of trouble — spraying graffiti, throwing trash, making loud noises through the night, setting things on fire, kicking dogs, stealing property, smashing windows, puncturing car tires, and etc. — , and wreaking havoc all over the place. Now, what must the good people of the neighborhood do in order to end the madness? One thing for sure, Billy will not stop with his rotten behavior unless HE is named and blamed. If people get angry and mention all the bad deeds without naming Billy as the miscreant, why would he stop? Even when his actions are condemned, he himself would be spared any culpability. Worse, suppose all the neighbors flatter and fawn over Billy even as they detest all the bad things he does. If someone kicks you and you denounce the kick but don’t name-and-blame the kicker, what good will it do? Worse, suppose you complain about the pain in your arse but shake the hand of the very person who kicked you and praise him highly. You can be sure he will do it again and again and again, just like the Marx Brothers never stop tormenting their hapless goy victims.
Globo-homo and tranny-tyranny are proxies of Jewish power. Jews fund them(and also BLM). Jews control academia & publishing and favor certain 'intellectual' trends and ideologies for promotion. Jews have in their pockets all those whore politicians who dare not voice any criticism of Jews, even though Jews are tireless in their anti-white tirades. (At most, some conzos will make a big show of standing up to some Jewish-backed agenda, only to back down in due time and revert to the role of ‘beautiful losers’. They'll just shrug their shoulders and mumble about how it is now 'law of the land', and there's nothing that can be done about it.) And Jews always feel smug and arrogant in the knowledge that, even as their agendas may be opposed and condemned, they themselves will never be. Take the Jewish attacks on the Second Amendment. Jews are the main force behind disarming white goyim, and many conservatives passionately resist such measures. But, for all their fuming and fist-shaking, even the most vociferous defenders of the Second Amendment dare not name the Jew as the force behind Gun Control. If anything, even as they denounce the Jewish-led-and-funded agenda, they praise Jews as the most wise & wonderful people on Earth and dream like a silly little girl about winning Jews over as allies. (Or, they will say they need guns to protect Jews from 'Nazis' and Muslims even though, LOL, it's the Jews who want to take away their guns and leave them defenseless against black thugs, Antifa nuts, and deep state goons.) Likewise, many conservatives who oppose the agenda of tranny-tyranny(and 'wokeness' in general) dare not name the Jewish Power as the main wind behind its back. So, unless Jews are named as the pushers of globo-homo and tranny craziness, they have nothing to fear and will gleefully continue in their ways.
Now, think of how much things could change if people did begin to name the Jew. Imagine if people called it what it is. What if, instead of relying on misleading labels and brands, they called a spade a spade or a bagel a bagel. Take the media landscape. It's so full of fake news and BS all around. But nothing changes because the controllers of the media are never named and blamed, therefore, they never feel the heat for what they really are. Most people refer to it as ‘mainstream news’ or ‘liberal news' or 'leftist media' or whatever. There's no mention of the crucial fact of Jewish monopoly control. Why would Jews stop with their bad behavior when they are not named and blamed for all the fake news, anti-white vitriol, warmongering, race-baiting, and deep state propaganda?
After all, idiot conzos prefer to blame anything but Jewish Power. Some even refer to the media as 'communist', as if mega-corporations are managed by adherents to Marx and Engels than by globalist Zionist Jewish supremacist super-capitalists. What morons! No wonder Jews run circles around such fools. (Or idiot conzos like Alex Jones will pretend China controls US news and Saudis control Hollywood.) Behind closed doors, Jews laugh at them and indeed they're deserving of the mockery. If we are truly serious about waking people up to the truth, we must attach the accurate label of ‘Jewish’ or 'Jewish-Supremacist' to the industries and institutions of power. Then and only then will people come to realize and understand the real power equation in the US. And then and only then will Jews feel the heat as the most powerful group in the US. As of now, even when Jews do terrible things, they never get blamed as JEWS. No matter what evils they perpetrate, they know the aggrieved will blame anything but the Jews: The Left, the Liberals, the Communists, China or Russia, the Globalists, the Neocons, or Wall Street or Hollywood as the bastion of 'white privilege', LOL. Only if we Name the Jew will Jews take notice, and then and only then will they think twice about being so vile because their evil deeds will reflect badly on their Jewish identity. Angry with Big Tech collusion and censorship? Don't just call it Big Tech; call it Jewish-dominated Big Tech. Angry with Finance Sector robbing the world with insider trading and denying service to patriots while lending total support to Zionist Supremacists? Don't just call it Wall Street or the finance sector, but call it Jewish-controlled Finance Sector. Outraged over Deep State corruption and abuses of power? Always mention that these deep state operators are cuck-minions of Jewish supremacists.
While the Deep State has immense power, most insiders just go with the flow and do as told. Every nation has its own deep state. Deep State on its own has no agenda but is just a bundle of power/control centers. Its overall direction is decided by whichever group that happens to control the money, the ‘science’, and the ‘gods’. If Muslims controlled the US deep state, its agenda would be very different from what it is now. Jews control the Deep State, and we have the current mess resulting from the bad behavior of Jewish Supremacism. This power must be properly named. If a tiger is traumatizing a community, would it make sense to blame any animal but the tiger? Suppose people blame the buffalo, the sloth bear, the elephant, the heron, the turtle, wild boar, and etc. but never mention the tiger. They express outrage over the harm caused by the tiger but never ever name the tiger, and so, the tiger is allowed to roam freely and kill or maim people. People go on naming scapegoats but never the tiger. Unless the tiger is named, it is a doomed community. It's like hating and treating the symptoms of a disease but loving and nurturing the disease.
In the current US, even those who denounce Jewish policies feel obligated to praise Jewish identity. It's akin to praising the murderer of your family even as you lament the actual murders. The relation between Jews and whites is akin to one between god(s) and man than between man and man. Even if mankind loathes what the gods do, they must revere and honor them as wiser and superior beings. Likewise, even when white goyim detest what Jews do, they must praise Jews and Israel as the best of the best. Not a winning formula for white goyim… and Jews know it. Will whites ever?
The fact that Jews push all this censchwarzship suggests that they've given up on being Good Jews. After all, if Jews were committed to being good and fair, they could easily get along with most goyim who only want happy co-existence with Jews. Why would most goyim hate Jews if most Jews acted good? Goyim will grow increasingly hateful toward Jews ONLY IF Jews continue to act badly or even worse. The fact that Jews feel a need to push more censorship and implement more social controls suggests that they aren't committed to good behavior and mutual respect between Jews and goyim. Rather, they look upon goyim as subhuman cattle that exist to be exploited and abused by Jews. Naturally, when goyim are treated that way, they will come to hate Jews. To counter such hatred, Jews push for more censchwarzship and use their power of media/academia to instill goyim with 'white guilt', as well as mindless servitude and blind faith in Jewish sanctity and awesomeness. Enough already.
