Power is about the Mindful Leading the Mindless — No wonder then that Power in the US is about Mindful Jews leading Mindless Goyim... and Jews want it this way because it's easier to lead the mindless fallen under your spell

Power is about the mindful leading the mindless. This explains why the Power wants the young and the status-driven to be so 'woke'. Mindless minions are far more useful than thinking and questioning individuals. They can be led like hounds whose emotions come before reason, whose faith comes before doubt. But as 'wokeness' is disseminated in colleges, it comes with the veneer of higher knowledge. But then, educational institutions throughout the ages have been more about indoctrination than real intellectual curiosity. And to many 'woke' students, what they are taught may indeed seem 'intellectually' and 'critically' stimulating because they are the products of simpleminded religious upbringing, milquetoast middle class values(mostly bland), idiotic pop culture, silly peer pressure, or the like. Thus, even though PC has only the veneer of intellectual pedigree, so many young ones are fooled because college was the FIRST TIME they encountered any 'intellectual' idea. There is also the 'revenge of the uncool' factor. From kindergarten to high school, most of the positive attention goes to the 'cool' or 'popular' kids, the ones who do better in sports, making friends, and the looks department. The smart kids, loners, nerds, wallflowers, and outcasts get little love. But in college, the more cerebral, eccentric, deviant, and/or dweeby types finally begin to feel they matter; so, they dominate and set the agenda, and they just love the power. They feel like Bolshevik Jews unleashed on post-Tsarist Russia.

Now, when I say power is about the mindful leading the mindless, 'mindful' doesn't necessarily mean being thoughtful, mentally sound, contemplative, and/or intellectually honest. Rather, it means to be in-the-know about the cold, calculating, and ruthless nature of power. Also, it especially applies to those whose First Emotion is tribal as one's identity and roots are the most crucial foundation of power. It's like Russian-ness and Chinese-ness have outlasted the ideologies of Marxism-Leninism, and all those Jews who once used to be socialist, communist, anarchist, or libertarian have gravitated back to Jewishness. Real power is about ideology serving, not sacrificing, identity.

Power cannot be about the mindless leading the mindless. The mindless of their own accord will go nuts, drive off the road, and self-destruct sooner than later. Can anyone imagine Antifa leading anything? Or BLM? Or insane feminist wenches? On their own, they'll end up like the morons of the Jim Jones Cult, a case of the mindless leading the mindless, and it soon turned into a total disaster.
Also, the mindless cannot lead the mindful, especially those who are mindful in a good way that is thoughtful and critical. The mindful ask too many questions, are too skeptical & rational, and critically demand the evidence to be carefully weighed.
How about the mindful leading the mindful? This is possible ONLY IF the elites are mindful in a positive way. Imagine an enlightened and principled elite that is concerned with truth, justice, and fairness and is imbued with humility, sense of limits, and healthy dose of realism. Such a positively mindful elite can use its power of academia and media to foster a generally mindful society where the populace is encouraged to know more, think harder, and ask serious questions. Such an elite wouldn't be obsessed only with power, wealth, and privilege. They would want to be good leaders than misleaders.

But what if the elites are negatively mindful, much like today's Jewish Supremacist ruling caste whose worldview is (David)Mametian. Mamet is profoundly Jewish in that his First Emotion is Jewish This, Jewish That, Jewish Everything. His 'libertarian' shtick is just that, shtick. He's a conman through and through(yet sufficiently honest as an artist to explore the ways of power, though he doesn't really spell it out and dabbles in esoterics). According to people like Mamet(and Alan Dershowitz), Jews are the master race and deserve to rule. Why? They got the combination of covenant, chutzpah, and sense(especially in intelligence). Now, the master-race perspective can still be enlightened, i.e. Jews can believe that their higher intelligence obligates them to use their smarts responsibly for the betterment of all mankind, like what Peter Parker's uncle told the kid who would become Spiderman. But, Jewish master race worldview is closer to the Nazi-kind though Jews hide it better. It is based on arrogance, contempt, resentment, and even murderous genocidal hatred. It's like what a certain Israeli rabbi told his flock: "Goyim only exist to serve Jews who should have all the power and wealth and eat like effendi." Now, not all Jews think this way, but the Jews of Power, or JOPs, most certainly do. It's like that piece of turd Jerry Nadler who used his influence to get a terrorist Jewess sprung from jail but lying through his teeth about Russia Collusion and calling it the worst thing since Pearl Harbor. Imagine that, a lie upon a lie. Charles Schumer, being a Democrat, is supposedly a 'liberal', and his ilk whine about 'white supremacism', but his agenda is to maintain white servitude toward Jews to ensure America's total support of Zionist supremacism.
So, the US is certainly not about the positively mindful leading the mindful, or the mindful promoting mindfulness among the masses. Rather, it's about the negatively mindful Jews(who are in-the-know and mainly obsessed with tribal power, privilege, and wealth) turning the people into mindless minions who make ideal suckers. Their #1 goal is Jewish supremacism, and it doesn't matter if it's so-called 'neo-conservative' Jews or 'liberal' Jews. Scratch the surface of both Jews, and what you find is Jewish tribal supremacism. Unlike idiot white libby-dibs and white conzo-wonzos who really hate one another because they think in terms of 'ideology'(or worship different idols), Jewish 'conservatives' and Jewish 'liberals' are simply two arms of the same person. They work together in a quasi-fascist understanding that REAL POWER is the fusion of left and right, not the opposition of one against the other. Of course, Jews inflame animus between goy left and goy right, and it is to weaken them. Keep the goy house divided unto itself. If Jews feared fascism the most, it was because certain goyim finally figured out that the proper formula is "right + left in service of blood and soil". But then, white fascism failed because the cult of personality around Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler encouraged mindless servility among the masses willing to do the bidding of Il Duce or Der Fuhrer without asking questions. Zionism is smarter in that it doesn't ask the Jewish masses to become sheep in blind obedience to some Jewish super-leader. It doesn't say the Jewish masses should turn off their minds in total obeisance to the great leader with the one true mind.

Just think. Why would the negatively mindful Jewish elites(into Mametian power games) want to encourage and support a positively mindful population? It wouldn't be good for Jewish Supremacism. After all, people who are taught and trained to be skeptical, rational, factual, and critical cannot so easily be fooled and manipulated. They are likely to be curious and listen to all sides. They are likely to be doubting thomases who question the narratives dropped from above. They are prone to oppose dogmatism and fanaticism. They'd be wary of sacred cows and taboos. They would ponder how the power really works and wonder as to who really controls the most influential institutions and most powerful industries.
Such a positively mindful educated populace wouldn't be very useful to Jewish Power. Indeed, they could be downright problematic on the matter of supporting the Jewish globalist agenda that is often slanderous, hateful, contemptuous, perverse, corrupt, demented, murderous, and even close to genocidal.
It's like kids begin to question parents and adults in general once they get over Santa Claus and the Bogeyman. They aren't so easy to manipulate anymore. If adults try to put one over on the kids, the kids want to know, "Where's the beef?" Therefore, the power tends to reinforce certain infantilizing tendencies among the populace. On certain issues and topics, control them through mechanisms of magic, dreams, hopes, taboos, and superstitions that aren't all that different from a child's starry-eyed faith in Santa, fairies, demons, and superheroes. It's been the same with the Catholic Church. Even though the Church did much to further learning, thought, arts, culture, and science, it also controlled the faithful through myths and miracles. But that is to be expected of religion as its primary foundation is faith and the supernatural. But when it comes to the modern world and secular education, a truly positively mindful society requires people to be rational, thoughtful, skeptical, and critical. A truly free mind mustn't be clouded with flaky mumbo-jumbo or stricken with rigid dogma or demented fanaticism. But Jewish Power promotes such idiocy because it controls the academia, media, and the state. Of course, such nuttery could be bad for Jews IF anti-Jewish elements controlled the state, media, and education. In National Socialist Germany, the anti-critical cult of Hitler as god-man and savior of the nation was controlled by Josef Goebbels and the like. So, irrationality was to the advantage of anti-Jewish elements. And of course, the Christian Church long relied on mysticism and dogma against the Jews. As Church doctrine was sacrosanct, it couldn't or wasn't questioned by many people. Against such unquestioning power of devotion/faith, Jews(as 'Christ-Killers') could find themselves in precarious situations. This is one reason why Jewish intellectuals came up with Critical Theory. Initially, there was promise in the project, not least because Jewish intellectuals not only questioned the shibboleths of the Goy Right but raised questions about the problems of Marxism and why things weren't likely to turn out as Karl Marx had prophesied. As Paul Gottfried said, certain members of the original Critical Theory were genuine intellectuals. As long as Jews lacked dominance in societies still burdened by unquestioned power and unexamined customs, habits, & attitudes, Critical Theory could do some good. It could contribute to the conversation, and it did. But over time, Jews became the most powerful group, and unsurprisingly, Critical Theory went from an acute questioning of the structures of power to a means of safeguarding and expanding the newly dominant power of the Tribe. It went from being critical of power to being critical of those questioning the power; it effectively turned into Censorial Theory.
It's like Franz Kafka's works read differently today. Back in the early 20th century, Kafka's writings represented the neurosis of the Jew in a dark, hostile, and bewildering world. Today, the writings come across more as a Power Manual for the Jewish elites. Look around, and it's especially the dissident-rightists and Palestinians who are made to feel like Joseph K's. Meanwhile, Jews, flush with power, concoct some of the weirdest (il)logic to defend and expand on their mechanisms of information, law, finance, and the state to supplant reality with their brand of surreality. Consider the Covid hysteria and the utterly Kafkaesque 2020 election. Medicine and Law, once highly respected, have turned into Games-Jews-Play. BLM and Antifa that have led to burning cities and more dead people are promoted as 'justice'. When a man says he's a 'woman', that is 'true', but if you correct him and say he's a man, you are 'misgendering' him. Legal logic, moral logic, they no longer make sense because the premise of current American Thought is "Is it good for Jews?" than "Is it true?" Jew-over-true. Indeed, why would Jews want us to think honestly with transparent access to facts and figures? People might finally realize that Zionism is acting evil and that Jews are the biggest hypocrites.

Consider the current illogic. The Jewish Way is to berate whites about 'racism' and make whites feel sorry for having discriminated against blacks. This would indicate 'racism', the favoring of one race over another, is bad. But do Jews allow whites any moral agency? If whites had any, they'd think, "It was wrong to favor whites over blacks, that was 'racism'. So, against the injustice of 'racism', we whites must use our moral agency to not favor one people over another." Of course, such consistency of moral logic would mean it's wrong for whites to favor Jews over Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and/or Iranians, that is IF whites had moral agency as free-thinking people of principle. But Jews don't want that. Jews preach against 'white racism' not to change and elevate white moral agency but to rob them of it in shylock manner. In other words, guilty whites must hock or hand over their 'moral agency' to Jewish justice-pawnbrokers. Thus, Jews get to decide how white morality shall operate. It's like Donald Trump hocked much of his authority to Jared Kushner to placate the few Jewish bigwigs on his side. Now, what do Jews do with their possession of white morality? Do they use this outsourced material in a good way? No, they pervert, corrupt, and use it to serve Jewish supremacist ends: Hatred against Russia and Iran, support for Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, more Wars for Israel, endless hosannas to Jews, and NO noticing whatsoever of Jewish Power and its vile agendas. Of course, sucking up to Jews-and-Israel per se isn't sufficient to appease Jewish Power. Tucker Carlson is a cucker dweeb who sucks up to Jews and Israel all the time. Still, he is positively mindful enough at times to question the globalist agenda pushed by Jews. This is enough to trigger the nasty Jews at ADL who work hand-in-glove with other powerful Jews to suppress and censor free inquiry and thought. ADL wants the US to remain a shlomocracy, not a democracy.
When whites hocked or outsourced their moral agency to Jews, they pretty much lost everything. After all, it's not the end of the world to be criticized and judged. If Jews were sincere in their moral criticism of whites and if whites freely used their moral agency to do good, things might have turned out rather well. But Jews didn't want this because a self-improving white morality would not only criticize what is bad about whites but what is bad about Jews, blacks, and any other group. A truly moral person is both self-critical and critical of badness everywhere and in everyone. True morality doesn't turn a blind eye to certain bad things and certain good things. It praises goodness of all kinds and condemns badness of all kinds. Jews didn't want this. Jews wanted whites to see only the good about Jews and only the bad about Palestinians and Iranians. On the matter of Russian history, Jews demand that whites see Jews only as innocent victims and see Russians only as baddies; Jewish attitude toward Russia is not unlike Hitler's insane animus toward the Slavs, but then, it's only natural as both Nazi 'Aryans' and Jewish 'Semites' share the vile conviction that inferior backward Slavs should be ruled by the Other. Even when Zionist soldiers beat up Palestinian kids struggling for independence, Jews insist that whites see Jewish victims and Palestinian 'terrorists'. It's like, even though blacks beat up whites and non-blacks, Jews insist that we only see poor innocent blacks being terrorized by 'white supremacism'.
Of course, Jewish Power knows all of this is bogus. No mindful Jew ever believed in Russia-gate. That was for the goy birds, the suckers and chums. It's like Mamet's con-men know exactly what they're doing. They are mindful, mindful of the game where the players know while the played don't know. To Jews of Power or JOPs, it's all a House of Games.
But they are negatively mindful as they're like gangsters than gentlemen. They got the power and money and want more, then more and more. So, what Jews now push as 'critical theory' is the biggest 'punching down' operation in history. It's Jews punching down on whites but with whites propped up as Goliath. Imagine a boxer who's down for the count. Suppose this boxer is lifted up and tied to a pole to create the illusion that he's still in the fight. And so, it's game to keep punching him. Of course, the real champion in the ring is the vicious Jew, but he tells others that the propped up white palooka is still the Evil White Supremacist Champ who must be punched and KO'ed. At this point, whites might as well be scarecrows. Jews use Critical Theory to defend their power and to attack its critics, but the very notion of 'critical theory' lends the impression that it's about 'fighting the power'. It's rather like a human making dogs chase a fox. It's the human who has power over the dogs, but the dogs fixate on the fox as the biggest problem in the world that must be snuffed out.

Now, one wonders how so many people could have gotten suckered over the years. Aren't there more college graduates than ever? But perhaps, larger college bodies led to dumbing down of the curriculum and replacement of intellectual pursuit with easily digestible nonsense. Quantity isn't quality. Still, the core real problem is Jewish Power. Jewish monopoly of the media and dominance in the academia(that also trains people to work in media) led to all information, idols, icons, 'facts', and narratives being molded by Jews.
Still, it wouldn't have been so bad IF people could at least discuss Jewish Power. After all, there was once a time when Anglo-Americans dominated most things, but people could still name the power, blame the power, and shame the power. If anything, Jews led in this exposure and criticism of WASP power. At the very least, Anglo-Americans didn't make themselves out to be sacrosanct and above criticism. But Jews have been different. With increasing power, they pathologized any honest discussion of Jewish Power and influence as 'antisemitism'. Look around today, and Jews throw the label 'nazi' and 'white supremacist' at anyone. If anyone notices Jewish Power, he is said to be spreading 'antisemitic tropes'. In the minds of the ADL and SPLC, there's hardly any difference between Adolf Hitler and some normal person who notices Jewish Power.

Jewish supremacist pathology pathologized ANY view that is critical of Jewish Power as 'antisemitic'. This has been the crux of the problem. Not only did Jews gain monopoly in media and dominance in academia BUT used the power to forbid honest discussion of the extent of Jewish Power and its abuses and corruptions. Why, any such talk would be 'nazi' or 'antisemitic'! So, that means Jews in media and academia(and the state) were able to push narratives, promote idols, and spread dogmas with hardly any opposition. Over the years, the accumulative force of such lies fed to generations of goyim led to the current state of mindless 'wokeness' among whites. They are mindless because they don't play the game but are played by the game. Indeed, they don't even know the game exists. As mindless minions in the game, they see themselves as the 'resistance' fighting Nazi dragons and 'white supremacist' goblins in defense of the race of Anne Franks, the race of Emmett Tills, and people of tutti-fruity. They are terribly easy to activate and manipulate because they are easily triggered by a handful of signals. Jews only need to push a few buttons, and the 'woke' mobs pour into the streets in the name of globo-homo or Noble Negro, just like Mao needed to flash a few signals to bring out millions of Red Guard youths on the eve of the Cultural Revolution. The mindful leading the mindless. If whites weren't so mindless, would the negatively mindful Jews be able to control them so easily? No wonder Jews spread mindlessness as the New Normal in 'thought'. With the 'woke' idiots, Jews only need to yell 'racism', 'white supremacism', or 'nazi' to get them barking and running wild for another fox hunt. Those signals don't induce thought among whites. Rather, they trigger certain emotional responses that fuel 'woke' rage. Much of 'wokeness' owes more to idolatry than ideology, and as such, it's more like a cult or quasi-religion than a thought system. It's like the Catholic Church never proved that God is real or Jesus is the Messiah. There is no factual basis for such claims, but so many people came to believe because of the emotional responses stirred by the combination of storytelling, magic, music, ritualism, and spectacle. All those whites who grew up weeping over the mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a little white mouse(and may indeed be god hisself) in THE GREEN MILE have been rendered incapable of rational thoughts about the Negro.

In a way, the current mindlessness is appealing because of its three-chord narrative. Just like people prefer pop songs over symphonies with their range and depth, most people prefer a few potent themes that ring loud and clear. It's amazing how many hit songs were composed of mere three chords, outselling the far more complex musical works. Pop songs are mostly mindless, but that is the appeal. One need not invest oneself in a pop song. It's all there, the essence of melody, harmony, and beat.
And 'wokeness' is structured that way. The three narrative chords are Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. For all the talk of diversity, the main chords in the same old/new song is Jews, Negroes, and Homos... Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The holy trinity of PC.
As for the villains, they are 'anti-semites'(anyone who notices Jewish Power), 'racists'(anyone who notices black crime and thuggery), and 'homophobes'(anyone who says sodomy is ewwww or that a tranny isn't a woman). The three evils are like 'lions, tigers, and bears' in THE WIZARD OF OZ, an apt movie in our age when fools are indeed being played by hidden forces. (Come to think of it, was Trump really anything more than the Cowardly Lion in a Duck-Soup-like musical orchestrated by Jews? All growl, no bite.)

If domestically, the villains are 'anti-semites', 'racists', and 'homophobes', around the world the usual baddies are Russia, Iran, and China(if only as a distraction from Jewish Power).

PC may be stupid, but it's easily digestible and uncomplicated. To be 'woke', you need not think. Just chant along, march along, and tag along. All you have to do is suck Jewish pud,, kiss homo ass, and wash black feet. And in 'lions, tigers, and bears' fashion, all you have to do is shudder about the dangers of 'antisemites, racists, and homophobes'. And such mindlessness might as well be manna from heaven for Jewish Power. The negatively mindful leading the hordes of the mindless whose buttons are so easy to push.

THE MYSTERY OF JUDAS by Brother Nathanael

Our is the Age of Deformation than Reformation — While Morality May be Protestantist, Culture Need be Catholicist — Conscience is Inherently Intolerant but Culture Is Ideally Tolerant

https://www.bitchute.com/video/UQ3yIZF374GK/



There was the Reformation. Now, there is the Deformation.

Reformation was often violent and bloody, but its core themes were God and holiness.
In contrast, the Deformation is vile and rotten to the core. It's about idolatry of the Negro, the most savage race, because he be best at basketball, rapping, and bumping-n-grinding. It's about celebration of homo-mania and tranny lunacy. It is about mandatory submission to Jews as the new master race and god-folks.

The Reformation believe in a Power and Truth above man. The current Deformation says the holy three of Negroes, homos, and Jews possess(indeed monopolize) the highest authority, and all of humanity must kneel, bow, and grovel before them. What about blacks committing the most crime and destroying entire societies? Never mind, 'black lives matter' and get on your knees. What about Jews in supremacist mode spreading wars, wrecking entire nations , looting entire economies, and spreading the culture of degeneracy? Never mind, just suck up to Jews as the eternal holy holocaust people and obey them... or else you're an 'anti-semite'. What about Homos being obsessed with vanity & narcissism and indulging in fecal-penetration and spreading disease while trannies are messed in the head and go for penis-cutting to get fake vaginas? Never mind, just celebrate all they do, and even drag your children to drag-queen story hours... or else you are a 'homophobe' or 'trannyphobe'.
And being a porny slut with tattoos and piercings(and green hair) is the new 'empowerment' for women.
An entire generation raised on demented violent video games, Tarantino gore-fests of sadism & nihilism(despite the recent partial redemption with ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD), retarded rap music, easily accessible porn even for kiddies & dick/vagina pic-'sexting' on smart phones, endless homo propaganda as the New Normal, vilification of whiteness as the new devil, ugly MMA filled with deranged lunatics with tattoos(made worse by female MMA slug-fests), erasure of heritage, and ends-justify-the-means nihilism(made worse by having ends that can never be met). In the case of Emma Sulkowicz, acting porny was the new puritanism. She actually made porn to make a 'moral' statement. And how fitting in our Deformed Age that George Floyd the junkie porn actor has been elevated as black moses-christ? But then, how surreal that the opportunistic sleazebag Donald Trump was embraced by so many as the nationalist hero. It's like we're living in a cartoon world.
The so-called new 'left' is about Negro Worship and Globo-Homo-mania or Queertianity financed by super-rich globalist capitalists. And why are Negroes and Homos favored over others? They found some of the biggest successes under capitalism. Blacks in sports and music, and homos in fashion and design. Classic Leftism, for all its problems, was humanist and saw value in all lives. The new 'left' pretends to be about justice, but its distorted and deformed notion of Truth rests on idolatrous capital valuation. Since Negros have value in sports/pop and homos have value in fashion/fanfare/pageantry, they matter more than other peoples. Palestinians, like 'white trash', mean nothing because they have little capital value. That is the new 'leftism'. It's no wonder that the proglodyte mobs don't attack Apple or Google headquarters. Or California agro-business for exploiting brown labor. As long as Big Capital wave the Noble Negro and Holy Homo banner, they have 'god on their side'.

Personally, I prefer Protestantism for conscience and Catholicism for culture. While the puritanical streak in Protestantism can be annoying(and even dangerous), the Protestant model is closer to true conscience because it's about individual agency and accountability in relation to God or the Truth. Instead of relying on the bureaucratic middleman and rigid dogma, you yourself need to peer into your own heart and make amends before God or Truth. On some level, one must be one's own priest.

But culturally, the Protestantist outlook can be destructive toward all that is deemed false or idolatrous. In seeking what is truly true, it has little tolerance for all that is deemed wicked, wrong, or deviant. It can lead to a cultural drabness. (Today, things are worse because the New Puritanism is in service to utter puerility. It is 'pueritanism'. Infantile idolatry of the trashy and trivial has the highest 'spiritual' value in our Deformist age. With Hollywood as the new vatican, is it any surprise that pop culture tropes and celebritism have become objects of highest reverence among the masses? And now that 'forever young' boomers are the old folks, we have childishness from old to young.)
On the cultural level, the Catholicist mindset is preferable, and one doesn't need to be a Catholic to cultivate and practice this approach. Catholicism found a compromise between the glories of paganism and the New Faith. It came to revere and preserve tradition in the arts and cultural expression EVEN WHEN those objects didn't conform to the spiritual ideals of the dominant Faith. Thus, it was multi-iconographic than iconoclastic in search of purity.

Martin Scorsese, in his two deeply personal documentaries about cinema — the American and the Italian — exhibited a Catholicist perspective on film history. They was criticality but also empathy and reverence. Sure, some of the past works may now seem 'racist' or were made under the Fascist regime, but they too are part of film history and should be studied, preserved, and appreciated. If certain narratives were overlooked or repressed in the past, the right way is to make new movies that address those matters than destroy old films. (In other words, don't burn all prints of Otto Preminger's EXODUS but makes some movies about Nakba from the Palestinian perspective.) After all, if puritanism takes hold in the cultural sphere, there is no end to the excuses for attacking, denouncing, and destroying just about anything. Also, puritanism can go into micro-purist mode, seeking out micro-aggressions even after macro-offenders have been banished. Iconoclasm can go into germ-freak mode. (PC is oddly quasi-fascist. Even though it denounces fascism as a kind of pornography of power devoid of classic idealism, PC sees everything in terms of Power and No Power. It is less interested in right and wrong than Power vs No Power. If your side has no power, then empowerment BY ANY MEANS is justified. It's no wonder Jews, homos, and blacks, along with feminists, have gotten so nihilistic. Jews no longer care about ideology. All that matters is More Jewish Power. Feminism used to side with socialists, but they now celebrate any woman who reaches the top, even if she serves US imperialism or predatory capitalism. Blacks just want blacks to be on top regardless of the ideology or agenda they're serving. So, who cares if Obama destroyed entire nations? He be a black dude who be calling the shots, sheeeeeiiit. Or consider the feminist praise of that vile movie THE LAST SEDUCTION. The femme fatale bitch in it is just awful and preys on innocent victims, but hey, it's FEMALE empowerment. In a way, the 'anti-fascists' really envied fascism because the 'pornographics of power' meant anything was possible without moral restraint. It's no wonder Nietzsche and Foucault became such neo-leftist icons in the postwar period. Classic leftism meant progressives must seek power in service to a set of ideals. Thus, there were brakes on empowerment. Attainment of power had to be justified on moral grounds. But once identity politics and power-for-power's sake came to define the new proggism, all that mattered was More Power for Myself or My People by any means necessary and for whatever ends. Jews really set the template in this as the Jewish Left and Jewish Right converged on More Jewish Power. Notice how Bernie Sanders eventually turned out to be a Jewish Supremacist First and socialist second because he willfully took a dive and chose not to lead a potentially true leftist movement against the System controlled by Jewish supremacists.)




Now, morality, in seeking what is true, cannot hold too many conflicting values together. If you're opposed to slavery, your morality cannot say "slavery is not okay here, but it's okay over there." You should oppose slavery as a principle. However, culture isn't only about morality. It's a remembrance of the past, the realization and understanding that ideas, values, and attitudes changed over time, a sense that we can't expect other times and other cultures to think and feel just as we do in the righteous moment.
Thus, cultural(and historical) sense has to be more tolerant and empathetic than the moral sense, which by its nature cannot be too tolerant. Ideally, one should be morally righteous but culturally broad in the appreciation of the arts. Surely, even an atheist should be able to appreciate Angkor Wat, Temples of India, Mosques of Arabia, and Cathedrals of Europe. Likewise, even an 'anti-racist' should see merit in THE BIRTH OF A NATION, even an anti-communist should see value in BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, even sympathizers with American Indians should recognize the glory of American Westerns, and even a Jew should see value in Richard Wagner's operas and Leni Riefenstahl's two landmark 'documentaries'(which are more like 'propamentaries' or propaganda-documentaries). And even an anti-Jewish person should see value in Gustav Mahler, Mendelssohn, and Mel Brooks.

The current Deformation is the worst of all worlds. Not only does the Rage of the Moment dictate moral puritanism that is utterly destructive and demented but the supposed morality is really an immorality. The truth sought in the Reformation was about God and Holiness. One could disagree with the interpretations and arguments of the opposing sides, but at their core it was about genuine search for and defense of sanctity as they understood it. At the very least, they knew better than to worship the cult of man and things. Even Catholics accused by Protestants for idolatry understood that God, Jesus, and Truth were infinitely higher than anything made of stone by human hands.
In contrast, the Deformation cannot conceive of anything higher than George Floyd as Magic Negro. Or consider when Michael Jackson died. You'd think it was the death of god hisself. Deformation cannot conceive of anything holier than drag queens and homos prancing about by hogging the word 'pride'. Deformation cannot think of a higher loyalty that 'Muh Israel' and 'We stand with Israel(as it sucks out the life of remaining Palestinian communities in West Bank). The Deformation isn't merely about tolerance of vices, such as gambling, but promotion of vice as the new virtue, e.g. "Look, gambling is morally justified because it provides reparations for them Indians, thus washing away America's sins!" (How about a casino at Auschwitz?) The Desert Inn Has Heart, the Desert Inn Has Heart. Las Vegas, the Christmas Place To Be!!! Homosexual vanity isn't merely to be tolerated and contained in the homo community. It has to be 'spiritualized' and its symbols must hang in churches!

We've been fed this narrative about linear human progress, but spiritually and morally, are people in the West better off in the crazy 21st century than during the Reformation? Is it 'more progress' to worship Mammon, Magic Negroes, Tooty Homos, and Insane Jewish Supremacists? We were told that mankind went from religion and superstition to reason and sense. So, where is rationality in elevating the criminal Negro up on the spiritual pedestal? Where is the sense in supporting Zionist lunatics in their maniacal schemes? Where is the science in saying a man with penis & balls and wig on his head is really a 'woman'? This sounds more like the Age of Endarkenment than Enlightenment.

If this keeps up, even Scorsese's two magisterial documentaries will have to be scrapped in the spirit of 'canceling' bad culture because too many works discussed can be associated with this-ism, that-ism, or whatever-ism. For the longest time, the Left made kids read Arthur Miller's CRUCIBLE as a warning against authoritarianism, ideological puritanism, and the culture of paranoia. But the warning has now become the blueprint. But then, the same happened with Kafka's THE TRIAL and THE CASTLE. The way Jewish oligarchs are behaving with their power, we must all navigate like K in the novels. We must deal with repression with vague rules where goal posts are constantly moved. We're rendered like the anti-hero in COOL HAND LUKE who must keep digging and digging. But then, there was something disingenuous about Jews like Arthur Miller. He attacked the political puritanism of the American Right in defense of communists whose puritanism and purge-culture were through the roof. This suggests that, in essence, Jews resisted repression not for the ultimate goal of more freedom for everyone but to amass the power to repress all others.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/vBk6JIrZPOk/

Universalism as Political Force Is Less about Adherence to Universal Principles than about the Power to Force an Agenda Universally

Universalism as a political tool is not about peoples around the world mutually agreeing as to what constitutes universal values but about the Preeminent Power(aka Superpower) imposing its ideas(dogmas, narratives, and idols) and interests as 'universals' on all other peoples.
It's been thus from the onset of the universalist movements eons ago, as demonstrated by the practice of the great universal religions. Catholics were universal in the sense that the whole world had to be made Catholic.
Muslims were universal in the sense that the whole would had to be made Islamic. It was about Universal Imposition or Universal Coercion than Universal Consensus. This was also the case with modern ideologies with universal claims of 'truth' and 'justice'. Communists, for example, were universal in the sense that the whole world had to be made communist where people around the world wanted it or not.

Today, Globalism is a Universal Imposition(the new inquisition) that pressures the entire world to conform to the favored ideas and interests of the Rulers of the US. With Jews as the ruling elites, Homos have been recruited as the main proxies & agents, and blacks have been sanctified as Sacro-Negroes(to perpetuate 'white guilt') and sensationalized as Electro-Niggaz to generate Jungle Fever & Cuckery; the dominant themes of Globo-Universalism are Holocaust Worship, Homomania, and Afromania. According to globo-homo-shlomo-negro logic, colorblind Human Rights must take a backseat to the Selective Entitlements of the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos.
After all, if globalist-universalism is really about 'anti-racist egalitarianism' for all of humanity, it should be just as sensitive to the needs and interests of Palestinians as to those of Zionists. But it isn't so, not even close. All those politicians in Congress say they support 'universal values', but they totally ignore the tragic history and the plight of Palestinians caused by Jewish influence on US politics. Several years ago at the UN, when the Iranian president Ahmadinejad raised the question as to why Palestinians were punished for the crimes of Europeans in WWII, the European delegation ignored this most relevant issue and walked out en masse despite their professed commitment to universalism.

So, univeralism as political phenomenon is not about what the whole world sincerely, rationally, and morally agrees upon as the basic shared values that transcend all cultures and nationalities. It is not about all nations, great and small, submitting to the same principles but about the Great Power forcing its agenda and biases on the universal scale on all other nations. Using the analogy of nature, it's not about all species of animals agreeing on shared animal-hood but about one dominant species pressuring all other species to 'universally' bow down before it.

Consider the matter of 'gay rights', which of late has become more like Gay Rites, a form of Queertianity meant to replace Christianity, a religion much-loathed by loathsome Jews. The cult of Gay Rites is promoted as 'universal values'. But who said so? Did the whole world wake up one morning and agree as one that the principal guiding light for all mankind must be a blind faith in the magic of homos? Now, if certain nations argued before all the world that some people are born homo and this fact should be considered in the amending of laws for the humane treatment of homosexuals, it would at least have facts and science on its side as the basis for a universal agreement on the proper way to deal with homosexuality. But the current mania for Gay Rites or Globo-Homo is not about persuading the world to come to terms with the truth but about proselytizing rapture and reverence(bordering on worship) for homosexuals, as if the only way for humanity to be 'saved' is by waving the homo 'rainbow' flag and weep like sappy women glued to soap operas.

Now, if 'gay rights' means that all peoples should acknowledge, based on scientific evidence, that some people are born homosexual, that it's not their fault, and that homosexuals should be allowed to pursue professions based on ability, that is a workable and sound principle. It is factual, rational, and humane; it can be held up as a universal principle in the name of reason, tolerance, and meritocracy(as some homos are skilled and talented). But what currently goes by the name of 'gay rights' in the West is Homomania, a mindless fandom for homosexuality as something awesome; it's about homo narcissism & vanity as not only next to godliness but bigger-than-god. It is sick, perverse, and degenerate. It is a fruit-sade, the new crusade. Homomania says even churches should be converted to homo-worship. Sacred texts should be re-written or reinterpreted to spread the 'gayspel' that God, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad are on the side of homo-fecal-penetration, tranny penis-cutting, and 'gay' neo-aristos stuffing dollar bills into the scanty garments of a freako-boy imitating female strippers.

'Progressives' denounce the Inquisitions of Old, but they are avidly for the use of of vast globalist power to push the Imposition of their sick agenda on all the world. It is often done through bribery of foreign regimes(candies and prizes if they put out to 'gay pride' parades), spread of decadent Pop Culture as narcotic & opiate, and promotion of PC that suppresses free speech, ironically in the name of 'liberal values'. PC limits the range of inquiry, constricts the Narrative spectrum, and insists on loaded terminology as dishonest as loaded dice. A term like 'homophobia' favors homomania since it implies that those who oppose the homo agenda are clinically sick in the head. And 'racism', as currently defined, is a loaded term since it presumes that anyone who believes in the reality of races is also a racial supremacist.
Anyway, universalism as political force is more about the power to impose one's agenda universally than about the adherence to universal principles applying equally to all nations and cultures. The simple fact of globalist universalism is that the Empire of Judea controls the US as a lone-superpower-battleship that holds a big gun to the head of all humanity and makes an offer that the world cannot refuse. It is the universalist thuggery of Jewish gangsterism to force all the world to suck the Jewish cock and swallow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

This mentality also existed among aristocrats who, for the most part, preferred the Catholic realm to the Protestant one. After all, the Catholic penchant for pageantry complemented the aristocratic flair for ostentatious vanity. Excessive aesthetic narcissism was bound to be less approved in Protestant social orders where the prevailing cultural mode was to favor the spirit of the Book over the sparkling Look. And yet, aristocrats and quasi-aristocrats everywhere had a tendency toward fanciful displays of status and privilege. Talent and wealth were not enough. One had to have the right kind of look. So, the quasi-aristocrats of the American South were far more conscious of their looks, manners, and styles than the more buttoned-down bourgeois elites of the North. Because Southern elites were less restrained in displaying their wealth and privilege as a form of stagecraft, they could easily overestimate their power because they looked so good, especially in relation to the more utilitarian North. And yet, real power is a matter of substance and numbers, not style and aura. The fact is the North had many more people and a far bigger industrial base. Also, most of the new manpower in the form of European immigrants were entering the North. Imagine two sports teams. One not only has a powerful lineup but great depth in reserve players who can take over when the starters are exhausted. But their uniforms are plain, and they do NOT LOOK very impressive. In contrast, the other team has a solid starting line up but no depth in reserve players. But they are dressed in flashy uniforms that make them look so amazing. Now, which team will likely win? Despite marketing hype, wearing Air Jordans doesn't make you a Michael Jordan. It is indeed telling that, over the years, military uniforms got less & less ornamental and more & more utilitarian until the modern soldiers were dressed and fitted only with practicality & efficiency as considerations. But for much of human history, there was great emphasis on the LOOK of power. Were those plumes on top of Greek and Roman helmets really useful? Did wearing feathered-wings serve any real purpose among the Polish Hussars on horseback?

Why did so many militaries throughout history don or equip themselves with appendages that had no clear use in battle. Indeed, such ancillary fittings could very well be an hindrance. While an Ancient Greek helmet looks nice with stuff on top, it is simply added target for the enemy who could mess up the helmet by taking a swipe at what is on top of it. And on gusty days, the winged gear on a Polish hussar would created more wind resistance. And in close quarter-fighting, it would be something an opponent could grab to pull the hussar to the ground. But for much of human history, wars were monopolized by kings and aristocrats than by entire peoples and nations and, as such, were far more limited affairs, often more like sports games than full-on total war, the aim of which was to totally crush and vanquish an enemy. The vanity of the aristocrats to look impressive and their code of honor created and sustained an agreed upon set of formalities. Aristocrats regarded themselves as having ‘evolved’ and elevated from the brutish ways of their barbarian ancestors who fought more like beasts than men. And as long as the aristocratic order prevailed, warfare could be managed as elaborate rites with the usual fanfare. But the rise of industry and big guns, the formation of mass national armies(far bigger than anything in the age of aristocracy), and the nature of conflict as Total War changed all the dynamics of warfare.
It’s telling that, even up to World War I, German soldiers still had spikes on their helmets. But then, World War I was the last great war of the aristocrats, indeed the great war that brought down all aristocratic orders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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