We've been told over and over, we need to support Israel because it's part of Western Civilization even though, ironically enough, Jews are at the forefront of unraveling whatever that has held the West together as a people, culture, history, and territory.
We have a situation where Jews, who are said to represent the West, push mass non-white immigration on the West, making the West less Western but in the name of 'Western Values' that apparently have nothing to do with race, history, or territory but only a set of beliefs and 'principles' that are supposedly 'universal' in application. These ideas, though having originated in the West, are understood as having implications far beyond the West, thereby encompassing all of humanity that, in order to attain progress and liberty, must also embrace those ideas as their own. I suppose there is a kernel of truth to this as what the Greeks embarked on was a search of objective truth(based on observation and logic) as opposed to cultural subjectivity(based on customs and visions) and the idealization of man as a seeker of truth and justice than mere receptor of tradition or creature of tribalism. Greeks were mighty proud and chauvinistic, but ironically, their pride of achievement rested on breaking freer from cultural gravity than other peoples who remained more mired in their customs, myths, and lore.
Jews were similar to the Greeks in one way. They too came upon a universal concept — the one God of truth and justice for all the world — but insisted on tribal chauvinism, one where they are the Chosen bound in a special Covenant with God. Both peoples were universal in imagination but tribal in pride. And history would have been very different but for the fact that the Greek Way and the Jewish Way came together like chocolate and peanut butter in the Roman Empire. Far more than Alexander the Great(whose dream of Hellenistic Empire fractured and dissipated), the Romans took Greek Ideas and turned them into Imperial Principles. Also, the Roman adoption of Christianity, a Cult that began with heretical Jews, meant that universalism inherent in Judaism could be divorced from Jewish pride and insularity. Thus, armed with universal Greek ideas without the Greek chauvinism and with universal Jewish ideas without the Jewish chauvinism, the Romans set the template for the future West.
Of course, the Romans too were awful proud and aggressive, but far more than the Greeks and Jews, were willing to allow non-Romans a stake in the new imperial order. Though considered as part of Western Culture and History, had the Roman Way been allowed to continue and prevail, Rome would have been less the foundation of later European Civilization than the center between the West, East, and South. After all, at the height of their power, Romans had far greater regard for peoples of the Near East and North Africa than for the Northern Barbarians. Though many people invoke the Fall of the Roman Empire as a warning about the future West, it was probably a great thing for the white race. Germanic tribalism prevailed over Roman Imperialism that would likely have served as a bridge not only of Europeans into non-Europe but non-Europeans into Northern and Eastern Europe. Of course, much that was good about Roman Civilization was destroyed, but there was no guarantee of civilizational health even if Romans had prevailed over the Germanics. After all, Rome was decaying from within, and if the Eastern Byzantine Empire was any indication, civilizational longevity is no guarantee of health and vitality. Indeed, it's possible that the fall of Western Rome was like a forest fire that made the future soil of Europe richer for something like the Renaissance. Also, the fall of Rome(as the bridge between the West and East/South) made the North safer from invasion, thus more racially and territorially secure. And over time, the North came to greatness because it had both the security of homogeneity and the fruits of diversity from the South.
Initially, Southern Europe with its 'diverse geography' had a great advantage over cold Northern Europe that was isolated from trade routes. In contrast, the Mediterranean was the greatest Petri Dish of cultural ferment as it allowed trade in goods, exchange of ideas, and clash of inspirations among the various peoples/cultures of North Africa, Near East, and Southern Europe. Isolation was impossible even if desired. There was a constant flow of ideas, goods, and peoples, friendly and hostile. So, naturally the Greeks and Romans were far ahead of Northern Europeans of both the North-West(Germanics and Celts) and North-East(Slavs). But, the problem of geo-diversity was instability. With so many great powers in near proximity to one another, massively destructive wars were commonplace. Also, even with relative peace, the clashes and frictions among peoples with different myths, customs, & values and of different colors & looks didn't lead to much of a culture of trust and cooperation. So, diversity led to a lot of sparks but also lots of fires that burned out of control. Diversity giveth but also taketh away. (Still, it must be said the Mediterranean Sea was a divider as well as unifier. It's possible that, had there been no Med-Sea and had Southern Europe, Near East, and North Africa been just one land-mass, there might have been less civilizational spark. Med-Sea was 'small' enough for various peoples to travel & trade and big enough for them to maintain relative security. Indeed, the bigger threats to the Greeks came from land than from sea. Also, it's telling that Jews regarded the sea as divider or isolator than unifier. In the Noah story, a righteous family is isolated in the ark from sinful humanity. The point of the ark is to survive and keep intact a family and culture, not to set out on voyages to unknown lands. And in the Moses story, the Hebrews cross the sea on foot under the divine protection of God, whereas the Egyptians perish under the waves. And Jesus walked on water. And Jonah's experience with the sea was with a whale as a kind of spiritual ark.)
But when the foundational ideas forged in a world of Diversity made their way up to Northern Europe, it was like the best of both worlds. The ideas could develop and grow uninterrupted in a relative world of homogeneity, stability, and security. Then, it's hardly surprising that the Ancient Foundation reached its greatest apex in the isolated kingdom of Britain. On their own, the Brits would have remained isolated barbarians. But equipped with ideas that arose in a world of diversity, they could push those ideas much further as the result of their trust culture made possible by greater homogeneity(relatively speaking) and territorial security. What the Romans ultimately failed to do, the Brits did do. Brits created the greatest empire of not only military power and economic wealth but cultural achievement and scientific progress. They were like the ultimate Romans, and yet, ironically, the source of their power wasn't merely rooted in Classical Civilization but racial consciousness forged through eons of relative isolation. So, in a way, the Anglos had something in common with Greeks and Jews as well. They perfected the Imperial Formula for uniting the entire world, indeed far more than the Spanish(who soon began to stagnate) and the French who could never make up their mind if they wanted to dominate Continental Europe or compete with the British for World Hegemony. Though unprecedented as imperialists who came closest than ever before of creating a universal world order, the Brits were racially proud and chauvinistic, much like the Ancient Greeks and Jews. British Empire was about bringing the brightest light of the highest civilization to all the world, but what that light shone to the world was "Look at our superior white Anglo faces, respect and obey." The British were more ambitious and conquered more than the Romans could ever dream of, but they were far more race/ethno-conscious than the Romans.
So, it took a rebellious offshoot of the British Empire, the United States, to finally detach the universality of British Imperialism from Anglo pride, arrogance, and chauvinism. Though the American Republic also began as a race-conscious nation, its founding principles were far more amenable and even attracted to universality. Perhaps, this owes to Anglo identity never having formed into something distinct and special, something it had in common with Roman identity. After all, Jewish identity and Greek identity survived beyond Ancient Times, but Roman Identity vanished and was replaced by mixture of funny folks called the Eye-Talians. Indeed, despite all the race-mixing and confusion, Spanish identity survived with more distinctness than the Anglo kind. What accounts for this?
Was the rise of the Romans and Anglos too swift and sudden, too identified with power above all else? After all, the core of Jewish identity took shape long before Jews came into their own as a formidable power. And the same was true of Greeks whose culture developed organically for some time before their rise to greatness. In contrast, what were the Romans before they became great? It seems Romans came to define themselves primarily by their greatness. In this sense, even though Macedonians under Alexander the Great came to be regarded as 'fellow Greeks' who expanded Greek power far beyond what Greeks could manage on their own, they had more in common with the late-comer Romans who, if anything, followed their example with certain imperial improvements(that favored systems over personalities) that assured greater stability. That Greek identity survived whereas Macedonian and Roman identities did not tells us something. (Likewise, what is 'Manchu' identity and culture today?) It goes to show cultural resilience owes less to might and money than the formation of a powerful identity rooted in ethnos, narrative, and mythos. Jews and Greeks had a more powerful culture even before they gained power, whereas the Romans had a weaker culture and, upon coming to possess a formula for great power, associated Roman-ness mainly with might, conquest, and glory.
To be a Roman was glorious as long as Rome was the center of the world, but its fall meant loss of everything. In contrast, even in defeat the Greeks and Jews believed their identities and cultures were nevertheless superior and this superiority owed more to tradition and truth than something so crude and transient as political/military power. It could be one reason why American Empire has become so obnoxious owes to a hollow sense of American Identity. Meaning almost nothing and yet everything — anyone from any part of the world can come to the US and, within five years, become 'as American as Apple Pie... or pizza, taco, chop suey, gyros, bagels, etc." — American sense of pride only comes with money and power, especially as democracies are now dime-a-dozen around the world. (When the US was one of the few democracies in the world, there was the pride of being a beacon of liberty. But when millions of Asian-Indians come to the US, they are going from democracy to democracy, and the only difference is US offers more money and is militarily far more powerful; it's just human nature of Will-to-Cower for people to flock to something more richer and more powerful to be part of it.) It's like a person with a strong sense of self in terms of identity, individuality, conviction, and meaning is less enamored of money and possession as matters of pride. While a person of strong identity may still want money and power(indeed lots of it), his core self is nevertheless defined by something other than what he possesses. Thus, even if he loses it all, he still has meaning. In contrast, a person with no meaning tries to compensate with money and power, but without money and power, he feels zero self-value. Jews are a people of strong identity who are obsessed with power and money; the thing is, even were they to lose all the power and money, they'd have meaning in what they are, a part of an ethnicity, spirituality, history, and culture. In contrast, white goy elites seem to possess nothing but the status, success, prestige, money, and/or power as the definitive markers of who they are. But that means they are NOTHING without earthly things(or social status), and perhaps this accounts for white elite class bigotry for the the Deplorables, a bunch of 'loser whites' with little or nothing. (Jews and white goy elites sneer at Rural White America but, for some reason, we must all care so much about Desert Semites in Israel.)
Perhaps, the seeds of eventual Anglo weakness were sown in the creation of the so-called United Kingdom. Unlike Japan that eventually united as one Japanese Folks, the idea of Great Britain or United Kingdom was founded on the prestige and glory of power. When wars came to an end in a united Japan, the idea was that all the Japanese people were rightfully under the rule of the most powerful Japanese clan with the blessing of the divine lord, aka the Emperor. In contrast, the British idea was that different peoples 'agreed' to belong to a united kingdom on the basis that this order was bound for great things. So, if all Japanese bowed down before a greater sense of Japanese-ness, various folks in Britain consented to de-emphasize their core ethnicity in pursuit of greater power, wealth, and glory that would come through their mutual cooperation. And this meant that not only would the Scottish restrain Scottish pride but even the dominant English wouldn't over-emphasize English pride. Of course, one could argue that Japan too had its distinct sub-ethnicities like Britain, but the difference is the central power in Japan insisted that everyone in Japan is Japanese and must submit totally to the central authority and the Emperor, whereas British Political Arrangement was founded on mutual understanding. Thus, British-ness was bound to be more political and theoretic than Japanese(or German) identity. It was like a business partnership where various families agree to forgo extreme clan loyalty for the good of the whole under unity and cooperation. But like business ventures, such an 'identity' could only be justified by success and growth.
After all, if there were no material benefits in the arrangement, why should the lesser 'kingdoms' go along with the greater or united kingdom? So, the seeds of Americanism were already there in British History. Such compromise may have contributed to the rise of class consciousness that prevented the full-blown emergence of a race-consciousness. As racial-minded as the British were, it's telling that they were off-put and disturbed by the German concept of Blood-and-Soil rooted in Kultur. In a way, the British treated race like a class, or a 'rass', and thus they were more rassists and than race-ists. Brits didn't so much considered themselves as the superior race as the better class of race. In a way, the failure to develop a strong sense of British Ethnicity(as Britishness was a compromise position among the various 'ethnicities' that were, by the way, almost homogeneous genetically) meant that the Brits would have to opt for the more generic notion of 'whiteness', which came to define America.JEWISH PROPAGANDIST DEBORAH LIPSTADT NAMED 'ANTI-SEMITISM CZAR' by Adam Green
Jews know that money power isn't enough. And military power isn't enough either. Jews have plenty of money, and the Jewish-controlled US military is by far the most powerful — Jews control the whore-politicians who order the generals to threaten or attack nations hated by Zionists. Jews have the Strong Horse of money and military power. But to seal the deal, Jews know they also need the Sacred Cow of holiness and righteousness. Indeed, this is where China has failed. China has built up a modern military. Though still dwarfed by US military might, it is a great regional power and growing stronger. Also, China has spread a lot of money around, like Japan in the 1980s. So, China has been growing in Strong Horse capacity. But recently, the Chinese are discovering it's not enough as they're coming under even more condemnation that befell the Japanese in the 80s.
It's true enough that people tend to go with the Strong Horse. But Strong Horse alone offers no moral protections unless matched with the Sacred Cow. If forced to choose between Money Power and Moral Prestige, one will generally choose the latter. (Of course, Moral Prestige is usually associated with Money Power. Would Jews enjoy so much moral sanctity if not for their vast wealth and influence? Besides, Moral Prestige isn't the same as true morality. Rather, it is the advantage of officially sanctioned ethos. In communist nations, Marxism-Leninism had moral prestige. So, even as China can wield money power, its lack of moral prestige can lose friends who dread damage to their reputations by association. Chinese money is nice but not so much if tainted with what is hyped as Chinese vice. It's like the Corleones in THE GODFATHER were tempted with narcotics trade but said NO because of the risk to their reputation. As Vito Corleone said, the politicians would not be his friends if he traded in drugs than merely controlled gambling and the unions. If China is made the bogeyman in a New Cold War, US politicians who'd been chummy with the Chinese will wash their hands and join in the chorus of anti-Chinese rhetoric. If it could be done to Japan, a US ally in the 1980s, it can be done with far greater magnitude against 'communist' China.)
This is where Jewish Power and Chinese Power are different. Jewish Power grew dominant in money and politics, but if Jews learned one thing from history, it's that they need the protection of Sacred Cow power. When Europe was proudly Christian, the Sacred Cow was with Jesus and His flock. If anything, Jews were seen as the Killers of Christ. They were dirty rats than sacred cows. So, even as Jews gained Money Power as merchants, they had little moral protection. The Jewish Strong Horse of big money could win over goy aristocrats, but there was no guarantee of deep loyalty. Suddenly, Jews could be exiled by treacherous goy elites(who couldn't pay back loans to Jews) or attacked by mobs who felt exploited by Jews. And so, especially after World War II, Jews made sure that their Strong Horse of money and privilege would have the moral protection of the Sacred Cow: Shoah-Worship or Holocaustianity as the new faith of the West. In the US, we can berate the rich and condemn the 1% in the name of the 99%, but Jewish power cannot be named. Why? Jews are well-represented in the 1%, but we must pretend they're just rich WHITE people. So, even as rich people and 'white privilege' can be targeted, Jews mustn't be mentioned no matter how rich they are. Thus, the Jewish Strong Horse has Sacred Cow protection. If you dare mention Jewish Power and its dark implications, you are purged as an 'Anti-Semite' and potential 'Nazi', a total no-no.
In contrast, look how Japan and China fared in the American debate. Japan was on the up-and-up in the 1980s. It was flush with cash, and Shintaro Ishihara boasted of a "Japan That Can Say No". Japan seemed a Strong Horse then and attracted much attention, admiration and anxiety. But it also came under heavy criticism and scrutiny, even condemnation. Japan had no Sacred Cow protection, so it was fair game to bash the Japanese. Indeed, Strong Horse power paradoxically undermines itself. While influence and favors can be bought with lotsa money, they also draw negative attention, criticism, and hostility. The more money is used to buy influence, the more suspicion it arouses.
Furthermore, influence bought with money is purely a matter of 'business'. Any partnership based on 'business' can vanish overnight. It used to be a national pastime in goy nations to call attention to Jewish Power buying favors from turncoat gentiles. The more money Jews spent, the more they were called out as financial manipulators. So, buying influence and favors was like a double-edged sword. Jews bought off goy elites but could also be called out as 'dirty Jews'. Also, even goy elites who were bought off felt dirty & compromised and might turn on the Jew at any opportune moment. It was only with the Holocaust Theology following World War II that the Jewish Strong Horse of money had the protection of the Sacred Cow of holy victimhood. Today, Jews are more corrupt than ever, but NO ONE dares to call out on the Jews. Jews ram Donald Trump in the arse, but his response is, "Can I suck your d*** stained with my own shi*?"
Compared to the Jews, Chinese are rank amateurs. Global Hillbillies really. Chinese made some serious cash in the past two decades, and they are now going about it like the Japanese in the 1980s. They brazenly seek influence by throwing money around. Of course, it often goes a long way as people all over the world are eager to take money. It's like the guy in IDIOCRACY says, "I like money."
So, money should never be underestimated. But partnerships based on money are shaky and unstable. It's not like the bond within the family. Chinese nationalists feel a sense of unity and loyalty that goes beyond money. While plenty of Chinese are selfish enough to sell their own nation for thirty pieces of silver — Hong Kong Chinese collaborated with 'foreign devils' in the subjugation and exploitation of China — , there are Chinese patriots whose relation to the motherland isn't simply about money or self-interest. It's like there's a difference between 'personal'/'family' bonds and 'business' interests in THE GODFATHER. It's why Michael Corleone feels especially betrayed by Fredo, a family member.
Chinese got to thinking that they could spread lots of cash around and buy influence in the West. They didn't learn the lesson of Japan in the 1980s. The more influence the Japanese bought, the more they were exposed as alien influence-peddlers. Westerners who took Japanese money were derided as 'Japanhandlers'. When public opinion turned against Japan, one's reputation suffered as a 'Japanhandler'. Being bought off by the Japanese led to short-term gain but could mean long-term loss. The money was good but at the risk of being castigated as a whore of yellow peril. Jewish Hollywood even made RISING SUN based on Michael Crichton's novel. (It was like JAP SUSS modeled on Veit Harlan's JEW SUSS.)
And now, we are seeing a similar implosion of Chinese influence in the West, especially in the Anglosphere of US, UK, Canada, and Australia. Chinese used big money to gain influence, but it only exposed them to China-bashers calling out on the 'Chi-Coms'. (East Asians, not a very verbal people, often settle issues with money, and this comes across as underhanded in Western eyes. In contrast, Jews not only pay but have much to say, thereby coming across as more justified and righteous in what they do. Chinese only bribe, whereas Jews follow up the bribe with the diatribe to morally intimidate potential critics of Jews.) There is a limit to what the Strong Horse of money can do. It can gain entry but is resented as a usurper. Besides, even as China has the Strong Horse of money, its military capability is still far behind that of US that virtually owns Taiwan and other 'Asian Tiger' nations as neo-protectorates. US got both the bigger carrot and the bigger stick. So far, Chinese can only buy influence with money, and it goes a long way but not all the way. Indeed, the Chinese Strong Horse is now being exposed as a Trojan Horse.
In the case of Australia, all the influence-peddling with money seems to have done more harm than good. Initially, China gained key access down under, but it also drew negative attention from the US(that can tolerate China as an economic power but not as a world player) and ordinary Aussies who feel their nation is being sold out to the Chinese. Furthermore, anti-Chinese bashing serves as an outlet for growing white frustration resulting from Politically Correct taboos against criticism of Jews and blacks(and homos). Therefore, because whites must always suck up to Jewish Power(that is hostile to white identity & interests), grovel before blacks(who commit lots of crime and violence against whites), and homos(who degrade culture and morality), they are desperate to release their frustrations on something. As there is no taboo against bashing China, many whites blame the 'Chi-Coms' for everything. It's like Alex Jones in the US got deplatformed by Jews but howls about the Chinese 24/7. And even as Rush Limbaugh praised Walmart as a model of American Enterprise, he dumped on the 'Chi-Coms'. Never mind Walmart's success owes to its contract with China. Go easy on US corporations and just blame the Chinese.
The Covid Hysteria seems largely the result of Chinese and Jews. The virus might have originated in China, maybe due to government neglect. But, it was blown all out of proportion by the Western Media and governments because Jewish Power found it useful to undermine Trump's economy(thereby ruining his prospect for re-election) and to grab statist power to suppress populist movements and political activism(unless it happened to be Jewish-favored ones like BLM marches and Antifa mayhem). Nazis associated with germs & pathogens with Jewish influence, and Jewish Power's use of Covid Hysteria has created the illusion that Trumpism & Era of Nationalist Populism = Disease and Plague.
So, both China and Jewish Power are responsible for Covid being hyped as a 'pandemic'. But, notice China is getting all the blame. Even Biden-voters blame China for Covid. China gets all the blame while Jews get no blame(even though Jewish Power blocked early attempts by Donald Trump to restrict travel between China and US and also hyped it all out of proportion to shut down entire sectors). Jews remain blameless whereas China is blamed for the 'China Virus'. So, even though Chinese played the junior partner alongside Jews against Trump and his supporters, they are getting almost all the blame.
At any rate, the terms of the Jewish-Chinese alliances is such that the Chinese do the bidding of Jews but also serve as the Fall Guy while the Jew goes unblamed. If a Jew and a Chinese plotted to steal honey from bees, the Jew would tell the Chinese to go at the bee hive. Both would get the honey, but the Chinese guy would also get the stings while the Jew would only get the honey. Chinese seem to think that their partnership with Jews will lead to Jews defending China, but that's naivete on their part. Japan during WWII treated Jews well in the hope that Jewish-Americans would feel grateful and intercede on its behalf, but it was misplaced hope. Jews invented the atomic bomb that blew up Japan. Likewise, Chinese are foolish if they think Jews will offer them protection in exchange for Chinese helping out the Jews. No, even as Jews take full advantage of the Jewish-Chinese partnership against whites, they expose China as the culprit because the bulk of Western anger at globalism will be directed toward the Chinese than to the Jews(who are its real architects and captains).
Basic strategy seems as follows. So-called 'Liberal' Jews work with Chinese to undermine American Nationalism. Of course, Jews support their own nationalism, Zionism, and their own tribal identity/interests, but they detest and subvert goy national identities and interests. So, nationalism is all very well for Israel(and the West is compelled to support the Jewish State, or else be accused of 'antisemitism', as Jeremy Corbyn of UK found out), but any desire on the part of goyim to preserve national identity and borders is denounced as 'far right' or 'xenophobic'. So, Jews say the West must support ultra-nationalist Israel but condemn Hungary for wanting to preserve its people and culture. Just like Jews believe their God is the only true God while all other gods are false, they believe their own identity is the only true identity whereas soulless and faceless goyim exist only to serve Jews. (Notice that children of Jews and Chinese are Jews first and Chinese second. Chinese-ness is subservient and secondary to Jewishness. Just ask Amy Chua who used her Chinese womb to create Jewish kids.) As the US has been majority white Christian, Jews have made alliances with ANY group to weaken white identity & unity and Christian Culture. Chinese have played along with the Jews to make gains in the West because Chinese believe Jews are the true boss of the West.
But even as 'liberal' Jews push this agenda in cahoots with the Chinese, 'conservative' Jews rant about how China is taking over the world and has spies all over America. So, China gets ALL THE BLAME for globalism's impact on America. And one senses that 'liberal' Jews and 'conservative' Jews are working together behind the scenes. After all, 'liberal' Jews control the media and academia in the West, but they never condemn 'conservative' Jews for ramping up 'yellow peril' hysteria. People like Ezra Levant in Canada and Michael Savage in the US are given free rein to sound the alarm about 'Chinese are coming, Chinese are coming'. So, 'liberal' Jews work with Chinese to subvert American Nationalism but also enable 'conservative' Jews who blame China but never Jews for the globalist agenda. Consider the two articles below: One shows how 'liberal' Wall Street Jews have long worked with China against the US. In contrast, Jews like Ezra Levant and Zionist-controlled Breitbart News spread alarm about how Chinese are taking over everything.
There are many more Chinese than Jews, but quantity isn't everything. In a way, Jews always had a Sacred Cow mentality along with the Strong Horse Strategy; the Sacred Cow among Jews was the Covenant, the sense of the Chosen. So, when it came to the Strong Horse Strategy, Jews only pretended to go with the goy Strong Horse. Even as the Jewish body was serving the goy Strong Horse(be it Anglo, German, Russian, French, or whatever), the Jewish soul remained loyal to the Sacred Cow of Jewish Identity. In other words, even as Jewish eyes and ears could be impressed by Gentile power, the Jewish Soul didn't surrender to the Other. If anything, Jews served the goy Strong Horse to gain more power for themselves and grow their own Strong Horse to be trained to eventually outrace the Goy Strong Horse(like in BEN-HUR) and serve the Jewish Soul. In time, Jews would make goyim serve the Jewish Strong Horse as well. Today, goyim in the US are total servants to Jewish Supremacist Power.
In contrast, Chinese only have a Strong Horse strategy. There is no sacred cow mentality. (Chinese were feng-shui superstitious about the world around them but didn't develop a sacred sense of the Chinese soul.) Ideally, they'd like to be the Strong Horse and have others revolve around the Chinese(as the Middle Kingdom). But if they can't be the Strong Horse, they'd rather follow whatever happens to be the Strong Horse, even if it isn't Chinese. Now, Chinese Culture, steeped in Confucian tradition, has a sense of goodness apart from power and wealth, but it's mostly about manners than about ethno-spiritual identity, which is what Jews have. Manners are not strong enough to hold an identity together. If anything, it tends to divide a people along class lines: Snobs and slobs. Chinese also have Taoism, but it's about man's ego yielding to the Way. It is an emasculating kind of spirituality. If the Jewish Covenant concentrates the power of the universe in Jewish Identity as the Chosen of God, the creator and ruler of all, Taoism tends to dissolve Chinese ego in vague musings about the 'harmony'. At any rate, in Confucian vs the Covenant, the Covenant wins.
Because Jews have both Strong Horse Strategy and Sacred Cow Mentality, even their service to the goy Strong Horse eventually serves Jewish Identity, which is sacred to Jews. Also, Jews are BORN with the Covenant. It is innate. In contrast, Confucian-based sense of the higher good isn't something one is born with but must attain through education and refinement. Thus, it doesn't apply to all Chinese but only to those with the good fortune of higher education and social elevation. Also, this East Asian emphasis on education-as-the-path-to-respectability means that the Chinese are easily molded by whomever is doing the educating. So, under the Old Order, they strove to be proper Confucians. Under Mao, they were fervent communists. And Chinese in the Current West become servile students of globo-homo, BLM nonsense, and Jew-worship, the new holy trinity of the West. Because their own identity isn't prized as a sacred cow(like Jewish identity is for Jews who are steeped in Covenant Mentality), Chinese are likely to go along with whatever happens to be the Strong Horse. Plenty of Chinese who see the West as the Strong Horse and Sacred Cow(or the 'shining city on the hill') will gladly work for the West against their ancestral nation. Indeed, consider all those Chinese women who use their Chinese wombs to produce Jewish babies for Jewish men. Chinese bodies not only work for Jews but function to produce new life for Jews than for Chinese.
So, whereas Jews in disadvantageous situations may submit their bodies to the goy Strong Horse but never surrender their souls, Chinese will submit their bodies and surrender their souls to the Strong Horse even if it is non-Chinese or anti-Chinese. Look at all the Chinese cucks sucking up to the West in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are like the worthless Dumb Polacks who'd gladly sell out Poland because they adulate the Jewish-run West as the Strong Horse. Though the first Chinese arrivals in the West might feel some loyalty to the Mother Country, their children are destined to become agents of Globo-Homo, Jewish Power, and Negro-worship because their parents raise them to follow, obey, and serve the Strong Horse, which currently happens to be owned by Jews. (The Chinese sense of loyalty to family works only in close-knit local communities. In the mobile modern world, people need a powerful sense of ethnic solidarity or national identity to maintain a lasting sense of loyalty. But as East Asians favor class over race, they are more likely to betray their own kind for personal gain. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant is about race/blood than about class. A Jew, rich or poor, is equally holy within the Covenant. A successful Jew doesn't despise a less fortunate Jew like a successful East Asian looks down on the less fortunate among his own kind. It's why Israel's suicide rate is far lower than that of East Asia where the less successful are made to feel worthless.) As long as Jews control the West, Chinese and Asians in general will serve as anti-white agents to gain approval from their Jewish Masters. Jews love to use 'diversity' against whites. When White Christians controlled the West long ago, many Chinese in the West converted to Christianity and emulated white power. But as whites now cuck to Jews, Chinese in the West also cuck to Jews. And if Jews tell Chinese to be anti-white, Chinese will be anti-white. This is useful to Jews as they then go to whites and say, "Look at all those anti-white Chinese", which makes whites bark back at the Chinese but never at the Jews who encourage anti-white attitude among the Chinese(and other non-white groups).
If Chinese were cleverer, they would have pushed both the Strong Horse and the Sacred Cow strategies on the West, much like what the Jews did, especially after World War II. Jews used lots of dollars but also placed Holocaust at the center of Western Conscience. As China came under Western Aggression, the Chinese could have balanced Money Power with Moral Narrative of China's degradation at the hands of the West. Thus, Chinese Suffering might have gained a degree of Sacred Cow status. But, Chinese chose to morally target the Japanese, especially concerning the Nanking Massacre. Even Chinese in the West made more fuss about evil Japanese than about Western Aggression. Iris Chang in the US wrote a book about Japanese killing bushels of Chinese. And Jung Chang, married to some Briton and authoress of MAO, seems most hateful toward Mainland China than anything else. As such, the Chinese failed to exploit the cult of Chinese-victimhood. Notice China hasn't made any big movie about its humiliation by Western Imperialists. China made a movie called CITY OF LIFE AND DEATH about Japanese atrocities in Nanking but did nothing to promote 'Western Guilt' in China's tragedy in the 20th century. And even the guilt-baiting of Japan didn't work as Japan could reliably look to the West to back it up against China. In contrast, Germans can't rely on the West to back it up against Jews because Jews control the West. When Chinese say to Japanese, "You Japs no good", the US will side with Japan against China. But when Jews say, "You Krauts suck", the Jewish-ruled US will also tell Germans, "Yeah, you Krauts suck, so pony up and pay more shekels to Jews, or else!"
Jews can use their Strong Horse to trample on the West, but they are protected by the Sacred Cow of Shoah Narrative and 'white guilt' about Jews. In contrast, when Chinese use their Strong Horse of newly minted Money Power, they have no similar recourse to suppress anti-Chinese criticism as there is zero Western guilt about the Chinese. Most people in the West know nothing of the Chinese Tragedy in the past 200 yrs, and they're more likely to think of Chinese as dog-eating & cat-boiling sadists who got whupped by 'Japs' who were then crushed by the Americans in the Good War. Because the US beat Japan that battered China, most Americans think Chinese owe everything to Americans. Americans overlook the part about how Europeans and Americans emboldened and built up Modern Japan and invited it into the Imperialist Club. And of course, Jews say nothing about how the Jewish Sassoon Dynasty sold the bulk of opium to the Chinese, but then the Chinese don't press this point either as they are so eager to work with Jews as the Strongest Horse. If anything, Jews now fund 'libertarian' thinkers who say China's opium problem was vastly exaggerated. They are like the paid shills who downplay the harm done to white working class by opioids peddled by the Jewish Sackler Family.
It goes to show that Financial Currency isn't enough. The Sacred Cow of Moral Currency is also crucial. There's been some talk of the Euro, the Yuan, or the combination of Yuan and other currencies challenging the supremacy of the Dollar, but the Dollar is still supreme and will be for the foreseeable future. So, even nations with troubled relations with the US must accumulate dollars to do business around the world. They need dollars to buy oil and other essential goods and materials. This is a case of Strong Horse power. Money Supremacy by the US. But, financial power is not a Sacred Cow. So, even as peoples around the world must take part in Dollar Domination, they can express resentment and denounce it as unfair and unjust.
In contrast, the currency of Moral Supremacism has Sacred Cow power. It comes with taboos attached. Jews, as the masters of the US, not only enjoy Dollar Supremacism over the world but, as masters of media and academia, also enjoy the supremacy of their own chosen Moral Currency, which revolves around Sacred Jews, Holy Homos, and Magic Negroes. One reason why Jews seek to fill the world with Holocaust Narratives, Globo-Homo 'pride' parades, and BLM agit-prop is to unify the world under a single Moral Currency of Tri-Supremacism of the Holy Three who matter most: Jews, blacks, and homos.
This way, most people's moral currencies(based on their own tragic narratives) don't go very far, just like most national currencies have limited use value. Local currencies must be exchanged into dollars to have global worth. Likewise, local folks must obtain Tri-Supremacist moral-shekels to curry favor with the US Empire that rules the world. For instance, Armenians won't get far by griping about victimhood under Turks and Azerbaijanis. They are better off putting on a 'gay pride' parade or putting up BLM signs. Or, building a Holocaust Memorial even though Armenians had nothing to do with the Shoah. The fact is Armenians don't matter much in the moral constellation configured by Jews. Indeed, it was no problem when Obama reneged on the pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in favor of maintaining good relations between the US and Turkey. If any people want to gain globo-'moral worth', they are better off spouting off about the Holocaust, wonders of homosexuality, and how BLM is so important(even though they had nothing to do with the African Slave Trade) because those three obsessions have the most value as moral currency in the West controlled by Jews. Global Morality is really about the Imperialism of Western Consciousness and White Guilt. So, if the West feels special sympathy or reverence for Jews, blacks, and homos, then the rest of the world must also strive to gain moral credence by earning 'woke' shekels minted on notions of Sacred Jews, Holy Homos, and Magic Negroes. Such shekels are to World Morality what the US Dollar is to World Currency. Not all is fair and equal in the Moral Exchange Rate. Why is Mandela treated like a saint-prophet while Arafat has been memory-holed even though their struggles were so similar? Why was apartheid so evil in South Africa, but it's okay when Jews do it to Palestinians in the West Bank? It's because Jews and blacks morally count for more than Arabs and Palestinians. Indeed, many Arabs in the Emirates are now cutting a deal with Israel because the world doesn't care about the plight of Arabs or Muslims.
Pakistani-American kid got admitted to an elite college by writing nothing but 'Black Lives Matter' a hundred times on the admissions essay.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teen-accepted-stanford-after-writing-blacklivesmatter-100-times-application-n742586 He didn't write "Muslim Lives Matter" or "Pakistani Lives Matter" even though he is of Muslim background and from a region in which US power has done so much damage — after all, while the US police kills a handful of black criminals every year, the US military kills many thousands of Arabs/Muslims for the sake of Zionist Supremacy. So, shouldn't the kid have pressed on the matter of "Muslim Lives Matter"? Alas, such wouldn't have gotten him very far because Muslim or Pakistani identity doesn't have much exchange value in the Moral Marketplace. But even if you're not black, saying "black lives matter" can earn you some 'moral' credit because blacks are part of the Tri-Supremacist Holy Three.
Likewise, white politicians get nowhere by extolling the tragic histories of the Irish, Polish, Italians, Latvians, or whatever. And one's sure to go morally bankrupt if he dares to spout morally-charged narratives about gentiles exploited by Jews or mass-killed by Jewish Bolsheviks. If white politicians want some 'woke' currency, the best bet is to gush about Jewish wonderfulness, 'Muh Israel', and, of course, the Holocaust as the worst thing that ever happened since the Big Bang.
White Supremacism is out, but White SAPremacism is in. Whites must be saps before Jews and their chosen allies, homos and blacks. And this SAPremacism serves as the template for the rest of the world. So, if you want to succeed as a Hindu or Chinese in the West, don't bother griping about Hindu tragedy or Chinese suffering. No one cares about Hindu or Chinese lives, which have little moral exchange value. You must trade the tragic narratives of your own folks with the Tri-Supremacist shekels of Jew-Negro-Homo or Jewgromo Worship. Whites must act as saps before Jews, blacks, and homos to climb the ladder, and the rest of the world has to emulate White Sappery. Look at those Asians in Canada waving the homo flag and speaking/gesticulating in black lingo & 'attitude' to gain moral currency. As they matter little as Asians, they invoke blackness and homo vanity. And if they want to rise up in elite institutions, they are obligated to pay respect to Jewish Tragedy and Homo wonderfulness because their own identities and narratives have little value in the Tri-Supremacist Moral Currency System. A Chinese goes nowhere saying, "I love China and am proud to be Chinese", but he or she might get somewhere by exclaiming, "I revere Jews", "I love blacks", and "I worship homos".
It's not Egalitarianism that energizes the Glob(the mob of globalism). In a way, Populism is far more egalitarian. Why? Because your average Populist is content with his or her station in life. Whether middle class, lower-middle class, or working class, he accepts life for what it is. Populists don't mind working as waitresses, factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers. They are not obsessed with being among the cream of the crop. Of course, they are not egalitarian in the communist sense as they don't want the state to dispossess rich people or herd the 'bourgeoisie' or class enemies into gulags. But they are egalitarian in outlook in that they don't believe you must be among the elites or have special privileges to have worth as a human being or an American. Populism says, whatever class you belong to, you're a Good American if you're patriotic. When it comes to being a good American, it's not about money or class. A country boy is equal to a Wall Street banker when it comes to being a Good American. HANK WILLIAMS JR- "A COUNTRY GOY CAN SURVIVE" In contrast, all those who clamor for 'equity', especially for blacks, should really be called Elite-tarians or 'Elitarians'. They are not arguing that regular black folks with 'lowly' jobs have value. Their worldview is premised on the prideful conceit that only elitist, rich, special, cool, famous/glamorous positions have value in life. It is utterly different from communism and true socialism. Communism was radical egalitarian in crediting the Worker as the backbone of society. So, if you labored in a factory, you were special. If you worked with your hands, you were noble. You actually did things and made useful stuff. Karl Marx's point was that the Workers create worth BUT the bourgeoisie take this surplus value from them. Communism was also about making the privileged folks do real work. Turn them into workers and farmers, people who create actual thing of value.
But, that is NOT what the current 'equity' craze is about. It's not about pressuring the elites to recognize the worth of workers. It's not about persuading children of the privileged classes to forsake their conceited status and work with their hands. Rather, it's about the dream that all people, especially magical Negroes, should reach the top and have 'cool', 'creative', 'colorful', 'meaningful', 'glamorous', or 'special' jobs. Supposedly, everyone has the 'right' and 'potential' to become a rich lawyer, successful doctor, high-tech engineer, famous artist/entertainer, respected bureaucrat, wealthy entrepreneur, financial analyst, innovator, or etc. Egalitarianism, radical or populist, prizes the masses engaged in 'honest' labor. That is not what all this talk of 'equity' is about. 'Elitarianism' is the illusion that, somehow, everyone has a 'right'(and innate ability, all too often thwarted) to succeed and have a 'cool' position in life. It doesn't say, "Those without college degrees have equal value as citizens and workers" but says "everyone should go to college and be guaranteed a fabulous career." But how many 'fabulous careers' are there to go around, especially when immigrants snatch up so many of them from Americans with deep roots in the nation? 'Elitarianism' is the ludicrous but appealing dream that the pyramid could be turned upside down, i.e. most people would make it to the top with a college degree. It is a total pipe dream.
Now, many people have enough sense not to fall for the hype. The real problem is, of course, blacks. Why? They under-perform at elite levels of most endeavors. This is why companies need stuff like 'Diversity Management' offices to hire more blacks. As not enough blacks are worthy material for brainy work, they are hired as symbols. It's like Michelle Obama held some 'diversity manager' position raking in a quarter million dollars a year. (The office disappeared with her when she took off to D.C.). Barack Obama was sold as an 'elitarian' model. You see, if you're a clean-cut black guy who goes to college and smiles at white folks, you can be successful too and become president and rake in tons of money. But how many people get to be president? How many people, even with affirmative action, get admitted to Ivy League Schools? It was a false dream to sell to blacks, most of whom remained as they are. The fact is, even if most young blacks try to follow in Obama's footsteps, they won't get very far because they aren't smart enough. Obama's no genius but smart enough. Also, even if all blacks were smart enough and applied themselves, there are only so many slots for 'cool' jobs. Even if everyone had Einstein's IQ, someone would still have to do 'lowly' labor because not everyone can work at high-end jobs, which are relatively fewer. Traditional socialism and National Socialism said everyone who works has value. Traditional socialism regarded such a person as an honest laborer, and National Socialism regarded him as part of the larger ethno-family. But such views have faded from the discourse. In the Current Year, there are the Cool People, the 'winners', and the 'losers'. Most people with regular jobs are 'losers', and only the 'winners' matter. The problem is not enough blacks are 'winners'.
Now, it's true that most people of any race or ethnic group don't reach very high. Whites and Asians are more successful than blacks(and browns), but most whites and Asians(yellows and Hindus mostly) aren't anything special. They are middle class folks, small businessmen, government workers, or working class. Some are poor. And yet, why isn't it a problem that MOST whites, yellows, and Hindus aren't all that special? Because enough of them are successful, and political psychology is generally 'identifist', or people identify with the successful among their own kind; thus, they feel psycho-empowered by the sense their own kind is well-represented among the successful. So, even if most white people aren't rich and most rich whites don't do anything for the white masses, white people as a whole still feel that their kind is generally successful because there are so many white doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and etc. Same with Asians. Most Asians aren't special, and most successful Asians do nothing to help less successful Asians. Still, most Asians feel psycho-empowered by the fact that their own kind have done well. It's like the psychology of sports. Even if you yourself don't play the game and get no financial reward(that only benefits owners, media moguls, and athletes), you feel psycho-empowered by the fact that 'your team' won.
The problem with black political psychology is that not enough blacks make it to elite domains of science, finance, law, medicine, technology, and other prestigious fields. This leads to resentment among blacks and frustration among non-black progs & Afro-maniacs. Indeed, black failure in most elite fields is made worse by the spectacular black success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression. In a nation obsessed with celebrity and sensationalism, blacks have become demigods to many Americans whose top heroes are athletes, rappers, and big-donged studs & bouncy-bootied skanks. That is why it seems ESPECIALLY unfair and unjust that blacks don't do so well in all areas. How can such a super-cool and badass folks not be great at EVERYTHING? I mean, MLK had a boombox godlike voice, so surely, he could have been da best at everything, right? Oprah is so wise, whimsical, and wonderful, so she'd be outstanding at everything, right? Obama's so 'cool' and 'slick', he must be the greatest prez of all time, right? And with Neil deGrasse Tyson, an illusion has been created that blacks are the greatest geniuses. Black Einstein. All you need to do is give them a chance, and they be badass in everything, sheeeeeeeiiiiit. (Yeah, and every Chinese kid has a Michael Jordan in him just dying to come out.)
Such a mindset has led to the Cool/Fool Complex among blacks and Afromaniacs. "How can a people so 'cool' be a 'fool'?" The real basis of the gripe is not about racial equality. I guarantee, if black IQ were higher and if blacks were way over-represented in elite institutions and industries, NO ONE would complain. Blacks certainly wouldn't, and Afromaniacs would believe all is well with the world: A in Cool = A in School.
Of course, there is also the 'white guilt' thing about past discrimination, so there is historical precedent for special sympathy for blacks. (But the fact that such sympathies aren't comparable for American Indians and browns, who were also conquered and oppressed by white imperialists, suggest that Afromania is the product of idolatry for blacks success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression than historical oppression.) No one complains there are too many blacks in sports, too many blacks in pop music, or too many blacks in whatever. Too Many Blacks is never a problem. If racial equality were truly what this is all about, people should be clamoring for more Diversity in Sports as expression of national multi-color identity. But, it seems Too Many Blacks is never a problem but Too Few Blacks is.
Another problem is the Negro is like a 'godpet' among whites. Many whites see jesus in the Negro. Why? Jesus was an eloquent nobody who got killed but turned out to be the Son of God. Negroes were brought to the New World as stupid savages only good for picking cotton and saying 'Yessuh Massuh'. But, as US was founded as a profoundly idealistic and Christian nation, blacks eventually came to be seen as pitiable folks of meekness who must be emancipated from bondage. Back then, naive whites were blind to the innate savage nature of blacks because the South had been pretty successful in taming the Negro into a slave/servant. (Whites were more aware of the danger from American Indian savagery because 'Injuns' ran wild and scalped pale-face. Indians, prior to being quelled, were fearsome warriors. In contrast, blacks set foot on in the New World as slaves, and so, many whites were never fully aware of the savage nature of blacks.) Black subservience was taken as a given as it had been drummed into them by white dominance. So, there was great sympathy for Southern Negroes among the naive Northern Abolitionists. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN imagined a noble-hearted suffering and dying Negro for the sins of white folks. And this eventually led to the Civil War.
UNCLE TOM'S CABIN laid the first foundation of the black-christ or blachrist myth. Just like Jesus died helplessly, so did Uncle Tom. But compassion and sorrow alone don't complete a myth. There had to be something extra. After all, plenty of noble-hearted souls died in history. Sainthood isn't enough to uphold a myth. What is necessary is godhood. And blacks achieved godhood with predominance in sports, pop music, and later sexuality, the stuff that Modern America is most obsessed about, and of course, sports, music, and sex are interrelated. Once blacks began to dominate all three, they weren't seen only as victims of history but victors in what matters most in the modern era that elevates celebrity to godhood. So, it turned out that Uncle Tom wasn't just some Scatman-Crothers-like-dude in THE SHINING but badass King Kong mofo who done whup the white man into white boyhood, create music that make white asses wiggle in pathetic imitation, have boombox voices that sends chills up white folks' spines, and have big dongs that turn white women to jungle fever & white boys into benchwarming dork-boys.
That's how blacks became the godpets of whites. On the one hand, there is a long progressive history of looking upon blacks with great sympathy like one would a homeless dog or cat. Blacks are figures worthy of condescension, people to patronize with good will. They be Noble Negroes with hearts of gold, and they deserve white compassion and help after slavery and being called 'dumb lazy ni**er'. This mentality is still alive, the view of blacks as pets of whites. Blacks-as-pets must be taken care of. 'Black Lives Matter' for some white folks is akin to 'Anti-Cruelty Society'. Save the stray dogs and cats. Or something like GORILLAS IN THE MIST. Save the poor gorillas from evil humanity. Or consider SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, where a clever black guy exploits this very aspect of White 'Liberals'. But as black got oratorical power, sports supremacy, rap stardom, and dong-bun dynamism, whites have come around to looking upon blacks as some kind of a god-race. And this completes the myth of the 'blachrist'. In Christianity, Jesus, the pitiable figure of sympathy, turned out to be the mighty Son of God. In blachristianity, Uncle Tom, the pitiable figure of compassion, turned out to be Mighty Joe Young and King Kong who be hollering up a storm, beating drums, punching out white boys in the ring, and rapping about 'my ding-a-ling'.
Where will this 'godpet' lunacy lead us? To a bad place, I imagine. It's the big myth of the Current Year, and it's just as powerful in Europe that looks upon blacks as both pitiable pets of impoverished Africa — "oh, look at all those poor blacks without enough food and clean water in the Dark Continent" — and awesome demigods of sports, rap, and sex who deserve to conquer Europe full of lame white people whose women need to be Afro-colonized and whose men deserve to be dorky cucky-wucks to blackness.
Blacks and Jews share one thing in common. They are figures of both pity and awe. That means, no matter what Jews and blacks do, they are seen sympathetically. Thus, their power/prowess goes un-criticized, and that means whatever they do is awesome. It's like colleges hardly do anything about black athletes who rob and rape. They are sports 'heroes' after all. And the West hardly does anything about tremendous amounts of Jewish abuse of power and privilege. As Jews are objects of pity(premised on Holocaustianity), their power can only be good, and if you disagree, you are an 'anti-Semite'. And since Jewish Power goes unchecked, it grows and is regarded as awesome. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - DR. MATTHEW RAFAEL JOHNSON (MYTH20C - EP148)
The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.
If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.
In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.
Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death). Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.
If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.
Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation. But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).
If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.
We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass. At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)
This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.
Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.
Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math. So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson. But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.
In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'. Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege. Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy. Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)
Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)
Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail. Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?
