How Negrolatry or Afromania among Silly Whites parallels the Transformation of Worship from Pagan Cults to Judaism to Christianity — The Problems of White Psychristianity — Nature vs Nurture in the God-Myth

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

The history of the transition from paganism to Old Testament to New Testament is instructive in an understanding of how whites came to bow down to Negrolatry.

Though there were many kinds of paganism, the pagan gods weren't generally high on the moral scale. Some were downright cruel and murderous, like the gods of the Aztecs. Human sacrifice was also practiced by certain paganists of Ancient Near East. Pagans feared and worshiped power for power's sake. Their spiritual vision was far from moral. It was all about might. The gods were like the forces of nature. Floods, earthquakes, volcanos, drought, pestilence, and etc. Good or bad, it didn't matter. It was fearsome and frightening. Nature could be on your side or against your side. All you could hope for was good fortune. Hopefully, nature will favor you, and you had to do whatever necessary to earn those favors. As gods controlled nature(or nature = gods), you had to pay them tribute. It could even be in the form of ritual human sacrifice if indeed it was deemed the only way to placate and appease the gods. Gods were powerful. They were the forces behind or within nature. It was presumptuous of man to expect, let alone demand, that gods be moral and caring about feeble and flawed mankind. Gods were gods, super-beings of great power. And they did as they pleased, and the most mankind could hope for was easing their wrath(or direct it at enemy tribes). Maybe then, the gods won't kick your butt too badly. Maybe the gods will spare your kind and take out their fury on some other hapless tribe. Paganism was spiritual nihilism. Might was right.

Then arose the Jewish religion(as well as other religions that sought to morally justify, as well as bind, the spiritual forces). It winnowed the spiritual realm into the universe of one God. Judaism went even beyond 'holocausting' all the other gods. Instead of Yahweh prevailing over all other gods, vanquishing them into extinction, it argued there was never any other god than the one and only God. So, all other gods never existed. They were false, figment of the imagination, whereas Yahweh was the one true God from(or before the) beginning. Jewish Spirituality was a revolution in thought. At once, it elevated the conception of God to levels unknown to mankind. The Jewish God wasn't just the one and only God but the all-powerful and all-knowing God. Among pagan gods, some were more powerful than others but no god was all-powerful and all-knowing. But the Jewish God was the one supreme being. Jews made their God into a singularity, more powerful than all the other conceptions of gods combined. And yet, Jews also hamstrung their God more than any other people did. By moralizing their God as not only all-powerful and all-knowing but good and wise, the end-result was God that was allergic to the nihilistic temptation of might-is-right.

So, even though the Jewish God was more powerful than any god imagined before, He couldn't even demand that Abraham kill the kid. Sure, as the one and only God, it was His right to demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. But, if He'd really made Abraham carry out the blood ritual, He would have revealed Himself as no different from the pagan gods. So, the Jewish God was at once the lone superpower of the spiritual realm and morally owned by the Jews. (In a way, Jews played a similiar mind trick on the Anglos. Jews flattered the Anglos as not only the mightiest people in the world but also the noblest. Thus, Anglos were goaded into believing their great power must be morally justified, especially in Jewish eyes. Their might had to be right. Of course, what constituted 'good' in Jewish eyes was on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?" As Anglos became ever so mindful of Jewish sensitivities, their godlike power came to cuck to Jewish agendas, whereupon Jews eventually took over as the new gods.")

Even though Jews moralized spirituality and conceived of the one and only God(who is not only all-powerful and all-knowing but all-wise and all-just), God of the Old Testament retained some of the darker characteristics of the cruel pagan gods. The ever-fluctuating Jewish concept of God ranged from wise, caring, and compassionate TO cruel, ruthless, and murderous. Jewish God seemed to be kind of schizoid. Too often, His wrath seemed unbalanced and disproportionate to the crime of the wrongdoers. Or, his violence seemed arbitrary as far as the human mind could fathom.

Also, there was a seemingly insurmountable contradiction within the Jewish moral conception of God. On the one hand, Jews praised Him as the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and entirely just Deity. On the other hand, they wanted Him to favor the Jews uber alles. One interpretation of the Covenant was that Jews would be favored by God if and only if they sincerely aspired to be BETTER than other peoples. In other words, Jews would strive to be wiser, fairer, and more moral than other peoples, thereby deserving the special blessing of God. This was the kindlier take on the Covenant. But, there was another interpretation that implied God would/should favor the Jews uber alles simply because Jews got Jewish blood. At best, this was rank tribalism, and at worst a kind of supremacist nihilism.

At any rate, it was frustrating for Jews that despite the manner of their deeds, good or bad, they remained weak relative to other tribes. Was God holding back his full blessing because Jews weren't good enough? Or did God intend Jews to remain politically and militarily weak because their true destiny was to formulate a new kind of power that conquers souls with words than lands with swords? By developing their spirituality, Jews would master the art of survival despite their military setbacks. Thus, while other peoples that concentrated on physical conquest would rise to greatness with victory but fade into oblivion with defeat, Jewishness would outlast all of them because its essence was soul-bound to God regardless of victory or defeat in battle. It helped that the Jewish God couldn't be represented in idol form, which would have led to at least the symbolic desecration of His Being by the enemy's sword and hammer. It's harder to destroy a mystery than a representation. (On the other hand, mystery remains dark and anxiety-inducing.) Still, it was tough-going for Jews to be surrounded by empires far more powerful than their tribe. Even if Jews licked their wounded pride with self-assurance that they alone possessed the formula for survival and longevity, even a mere century seemed like forever to the people living in anxiety and turmoil.

When Jews prayed for the Messiah under Roman Occupation, they envisioned him to be a super-warrior-prophet who would vanquish the Romans(and all other enemies of Jews, as well as collaborator-Jews) and restore Jewish independence(and maybe even bring about Jewish hegemony). But, other Jews conceived of different possibilities, and one of these led to the birth of Christianity. In a way, the Warrior-Messiah template was fulfilled by Muhammad some 600 yrs later, but he was an Arab who, in his own way, universalized Hebraism(and its link with Hellenism via Christianity).

There has long been the Utopian dream of starting anew. A new beginning without the stain and imperfections. A kind of New Eden. Even God is tempted in this direction, as when He sent the flood to drown out the wicked so that humanity could begin again with the virtuous Noah and his family... but things went badly once again.
Some of the most radical firebrands in the modern era wanted a new beginning, a kind of Year Zero experiment. Reform and even moderate revolution weren't good enough because they tolerated too many of the Old Imperfections. Instead of eradicating all old evils and starting anew, reform took a gradualist approach upon a corrupted order and succumbed to reactionary pressures and opportunistic tendencies. Instead of cutting off the hand of the Devil, reformists shook it and contracted the disease of accommodation in the name of craven pragmatism.

Communism swore to stamp out the old and oppressive in one clean sweep and replace it with the new and just. It led to Stalinist collectivization, Maoist Cultural Revolution, and most frighteningly the Year Zero experiment in Cambodia. At the root of communist theory was the idea that one could not compromise with the Old Way. Social-Democrats were denounced for having succumbed to 'moderate' bourgeois temptations. Leninism and Maoism waged war not only on the evils of the Old but on the Old itself as an evil that must be eradicated in its entirety to make way for the New. (Granted, Classic Marxism wasn't so much an attack on the Old as on the New. It believed capitalism was doing an awesome job of eradicating the old way and making way for the new, except that its contradictions and imbalances couldn't possibly be the basis for a stable social order as too few would end up with too much at the expense of everyone else.)
The shining New Order needed not be grasped for in the dark. It was not something that would gradually come into view through trial and error, steps forwards and backwards. No, this New had already been envisioned in the mind of Karl Marx. Like Zeus's head birthed the full-grown Athena in her full glory, Marx had seen the Future, how it would happen and what it would be about. For this prophecy to be fulfilled, the Old(or the Bad New)simply had to make way for the New or the Good New(that would be premised on justice prophecy than on just profits). It wouldn't be yet another chapter in the customary historical process of the old constantly ceding to the new(which becomes the new old ceding to the new new and so on) but the end of the Old for good and beginning of the New forever. It would be the End of History and the Beginning of the Future.

But seeds of such thought were there in Christianity itself(though its Utopian vision was directed toward Heaven). It imagined God born anew. For Christians, the birth of Jesus was like spiritual Year Zero. Anno Domini. In a way, it was the human equivalent of what God had attempted with the Flood but in spiritual reverse. Mankind had proved to be a disappointment, and the Flood was meant to wipe out everyone but the good man Noah and his family so that humanity would have a new flowering without the weeds.
Likewise, God turned out to be a big disappointment for many Jews though, whereas it seemed only right for almighty God to air His grievances about man, it was unthinkable for man to do likewise about God. Why were the Jews so weak? Did God fail to live up to His end of the bargain? Or was the fault with the Jews? Besides, if Jews worship an all-wise and all-knowing God, why was the Torah so full of contradictions? Why are there so many suggestions of God's imperfections even though He is supposed to be perfect? Why does God have so many contrasting 'personalities'? How come the various great prophets disagree with one another as to the nature of God and His design for the Jews and mankind?

Of course, Jews couldn't admit that the fault was with God. They couldn't say it but they nevertheless felt it. There was something wrong with God, and there was too much contradictory and bewildering baggage in the Torah. If God failed to fix the world with the Flood and the new beginning with the good man(Noah), perhaps the answer was a new beginning with the good God. A Year Zero for spirituality. But how could Jews reject the Old God when He was the one and only God, the all-perfect and all-wise Being? That would have been blasphemous. The renegade Jews who comprised the Early Christians had an idea. How about the Son of God? Even though the Narrative is that He suffers and dies for the sins of man, the crypto-narrative could be He does penance for the sins of His Father. Such can't be said because God is supposed to be perfect. But if indeed the Old God is perfect, why a need for the Son of God as the equal of God and the founder of a new religion? Why a need for the face of God(in human form) who heretofore didn't have a face to show to mankind? Ultimately, Abram was spared from having to sacrifice his son, but according to Christianity, God had to sacrifice His Son to bring about the New Faith, the ultimate one, and the Redemption. But only of man or of God Himself as well? Upon closer examination, the Jesus Narrative is about penance of both man and God.

Via creation of the Jesus Myth, spiritual Year Zero could conceive of God without the old baggage. Unlike the Old Prophets who consulted the Jewish Tradition and History to grasp God's meanings & intentions and build upon earlier wisdom(or delusions), the new prophecy of early Christians would be written on a blank slate. The newly birthed (Son of)God could be all about love, peace, and forgiveness, conceived of only the highest virtues and in a manner far more consistent than the Old Testament narrative. He would signify the end of the Old Covenant that bound volatile God to the troublesome history of the Jews. The New Covenant wouldn't be bound to any history or custom. It would be based on Faith and purity of heart and open to all mankind. Jews were so fearful of their God. God was good and just but also ruthless and terrifying. God was a helping hand but also a clenched fist. The Messiah of Christianity had bleeding hands. Christ, having felt the fleshly pain and suffering of mankind, would understand. He would be of a bleeding heart(though not the sappy kind of the 'liberals'). Furthermore, there would be not one but two Year Zero narratives around Jesus. His birth in Bethlehem heralding a new promise and the Resurrection where He would defeat death and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This way, mankind could hope for a more humane and loving God. Jews believed God existed before the world, long before the First Man, who only came into existence through the will of God. God created the world and always exerted a patriarchal and masterful authority over humanity. So, it wasn't the role of mankind or the Jews to mold God's nature. God molded them, and mankind could only hope to understand God a little better.
But with Christianity, mankind could nurse Christ-as-baby in their arms. Mankind could have a parental role over Christ as starchild. Mankind could mold Jesus in His formative years. Jesus, though God by nature, was Man by nurture. (Moses spent his formative years as an Egyptian but as a man turned full-Jew and destroyed many an Egyptian. In contrast, though Jesus would come to realize He is God than mere man, He would forever feel indebted to the good people who loved, nurtured, and taught Him.) Mankind, in imagining its role in the maturation and education of Jesus, could assure themselves that the Son of God as the new face of God would be fundamentally different from the Old God of the Torah who was unpredictable like the weather. Jesus would be more like the weatherman looking out for mankind.

Now, what can this teach us about the development of Negrolatry in the West? First, we must acknowledge that even modern secular white folks still think and feel in terms of Idolatry and 'psychristianity'. Even if no longer religious, a part of them is into idol-worship of all things thrilling & titillating(especially as modern culture is mostly about sports and youthful enthusiasm, with most people growing older not with pride of wisdom but resignation to irrelevance), while another part cannot shake off the guilt-complexes and redemption narratives inherited from Christianity that governed Europe for over a millennium. Also, Northern European Protestant types have long been craving for Idolatry or at least iconography that had been purged from their culture in rejection of semi-pagan Catholicism. At least German Protestants compensated for their lack of spiritual color with the power of music. Anglo-Protestants were especially vulnerable to the temptations of Negrolatry because of the dryly literary insistence of their culture.

From the white perspective, there are parallels between the developmental stages of Negrolatry AND the evolution of paganism into Jewish Religion and then the transformation of Judaism into Christianity, the universal faith, one that especially came to conquer/convert the white heathens of Europe. (From the black perspective, it could be they are aiming at something resembling Islam, a secular faith for whites where blacks-as-gods thrive less on kindly virtue than on fearsome power. If Black Muslims of the Nation of Islam seek racial separation[at least in theory], much of so-called Critical Race Theory or CRT is about whites worshiping and obeying blacks because blacks are good simply for being black.)

Like Ancient Religions and Cults, the crudest and most elemental forms of Negrolatry have to do with paganist fear-and-trembling before raw power, the might-is-right thing. This is Negrolatry #1. Before the emergence of higher moral/spiritual concepts and codes, mankind worshiped gods simply for their awesome power. Never mind right or wrong. Just bow down before the terrifying might that can smite your butt. No wonder so many tribes, in both Old World and New World, made human sacrifices to the gods. (Today, so many whites are willing to sacrifice so many whites and other non-blacks to appease the black gods. White victims are presented as sacrificial offerings to black thugs, criminals, leeches, and crooks via reduced sentencing or 'affirmative action'. Of course, stuff like BLM ends up killing more blacks due to reduced police presence, but the holy god of black egotism matters more than the mere flesh of black bodies riddled with bullets. This has to be seen as a kind of neo-human-sacrifice - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/exclusive-lawsuit-filed-wake-forest-university-coach-killed-man-one-punch/ )

In a similar vein, Negrolatry in its most primitive form is about white awe of the bigass megaton Negro. Even in the old days when blacks were slaves in the South, whites noticed that 'dem ni**ers' could carry heavy loads and holler up a storm while picking cotton. It's like Ancient Folks held powerful animals in awe and even worshiped them: Hippos among Egyptians, bulls among Persians, and etc. Negro was beastly, and even though high spirituality is at the opposite spectrum of beastliness, spirituality initially grew out of worship of beastly power. Even as gods and God evolved into higher spiritual/moral conceptions, they could never lose the element of great power if they were to hold sway over mankind; indeed, the Jesus Narrative couldn't have become a religion without the Resurrection Myth as His Death would have signified ineffectiveness than the triumph of goodness. History of both man and god(s) is about power turning good than good gaining power. Power is always the first consideration. Most people admire bad power over good weakness, though they wish for the good-and-powerful. Admiration is reserved first for power, and then comes the wish for power to be just.

It's like the crude gods preceded the more complex gods in Greek mythology. It's like refined fuel originates from crude oil. And so much of pop music, despite their complexity and sophistication, draw their core energy from wailing/hollering blues and the like.
So, even though civilized white man considered black slaves to be of a beastly lesser race, that very beastliness also impressed the white man for its raw prowess. So, on some subconscious level, white man felt about the Negro like a primitive tribe about a volcano. It's like modern man, for all his collective power and dominion over nature, still feels a certain awe when pondering a bear, lion, rhino, elephant, or killer whale. Or a hurricane or earthquake. And kids feel awe about dinosaurs, especially the T-Rex.

But just like Jews moralized spirituality from a might-is-right cult to a right-is-might faith, there was another side to white man's formulation of Negrolatry. This was the foundation of Negrolatry #2. White do-gooders wanted to regard black soulfulness as akin to spiritual grace. Blacks in the South were like Jews in bondage in Egypt. They needed a Moses to lead them to the Promised Land. This Moses figure could be black(like Frederick Douglas and later MLK) or white(John Brown or Abraham Lincoln). The beastly was idealized as priestly. According to Negrolatry #2, blacks loved to sing-and-dance not because they are a bunch of savage jive-ass bunners but because their hearts are bursting with passion for freedom, equality, and dignity.
White folks, especially of Abolitionist bent, projected their own dreams and hopes onto the Negro. These Northern folks had little first hand knowledge of the jivers and their ghastly racial nature. But they knew a lot about the Bible and projected Biblical narratives upon the Negro. Of course, the South also consulted the Bible to justify slavery. They said Ham saw his father Noah naked, and God punished him by turning him into a Negro condemned to slavery under other races.
Jews, yet to develop a universalist mentality that came with 'emancipation' of their own(in Europe), were okay with the Southern explanation as to why blacks should pick cotton for whites(and Jews). It was because Ham saw Noah naked. But the fanatical Christian Abolitionists in the North weren't satisfied with Old Testament explanations alone. They were into sanctimony and holier-than-thou-ness. And what better way to feel piety and self-righteousness than by denouncing slavery, especially of the Noble Negro? UNCLE TOM'S CABIN even has a Noble Negro as christ-like figure dying for the sins of white folks. Of course, sympathy for the Negro had an element of condescension as well. Many Northern whites thought it was bad enough to be Negro with dark skin, nappy hair, and fat lips. Why make it worse for such an unfortunate people by using them as slaves as well? Also, many whites in the North thought blacks would always remain childlike dependents and sidekicks of the white race. They had no idea they were lighting a powder keg full of gunpowder.

But UNCLE TOM'S CABIN notwithstanding, whites weren't ready to confer unto the Negro the role of Christ in the American Narrative between the Civil War Period to the Civil Rights Era. Rather, the road from slavery to freedom was deemed akin to the Exodus story, albeit one led by white saviors or White Moses, especially in the figure of Abe Lincoln. Whites, especially the do-goody types in the North, wanted to believe that Negroes had noble souls and would be grateful and use their freedom wisely. Many whites in the South thought otherwise for reasons of firsthand knowledge and/or prejudice. While many were bigoted against blacks for racial reasons, they also instinctively sensed that Negroes could abuse their newfound freedom by terrorizing white folks in a reversion to oogity jungle nature.

This phase of Negrolatry lasted roughly from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement. The latter made a difference in that MLK took on the mantle of Black Moses who would fulfill the unfinished project of the White Moses Abraham Lincoln. But, his death turned him from a dead moses to resurrected christ. Negro Narrative went from a struggle for freedom to stairway to heaven.

But then, there is a reason why whites so desperately cling to the Cult of the Black Christ or Blackrist. It somewhat akin to why some Jews deviated from the Old Religion to formulate a new one that became Christianity. God of the Jews seemed at once unstable and tempestuous AND indifferent and uncaring. He could suddenly send floods, pestilence, and disasters out of the blue. Or He could be silent and distant just when the Jews need Him most. The Jews who would become the Early Christians wanted a more consistent and principled God. Also, they wanted to feel His nearness and what better way than by imagining Him as the Son of God who lived among mankind, died, and was resurrected to be one with the Father, God Himself. It was more soothing to believe in the Christian God. While the God of Judaism was a high concept God, the Torah's spiritual vision spanned the development of gods from might-is-right to right-is-might, which is why God in the early part of the Old Testament resembles the deities of the frightful pagans. He even makes a pagan-like demand on Abraham to make a blood-sacrifice of his son, only to 'change' His mind at the last minute. Thus, God presented Himself to Abraham as a moral God. Even so, God in later parts of the Old Testament never quite shed the vestiges of terrifying pagan gods. One can never be certain with the Jewish God, as Job found out the hard way. Then, it's no wonder that certain Jews dreamed of the Year Zero God, the one who could be conceived almost from scratch with only the good qualities minus the torrid and terrifying aspects in the Torah.

There is a parallel between the renegade alt-Jews(who became the early Christians) and today's whites who dream of a Better-Blackness. They've been enthralled with black prowess and associated it with the Noble Negro Narrative... but blacks by and large haven't conformed to the Narrative, remaining ignoble or 'nignoble'. While black problems have been a tenaciously cursed element of American History, blacks were more or less kept in 'their place' until the 1960s. The South had Jim Crow laws. And the North had its own subtler means of keeping whites over here and blacks over there. There were all sorts of discrimination against blacks in the North and the West. Jews in Hollywood had their own ways of keeping the lid on blacks.
Because of white social pressures and political muscle, blacks had no choice but to at least pretend to be a 'credit to their race'. Of course, plenty of blacks were louts and thugs. Norman Podhoretz's essay on the Negro Problem shows that, even before the Civil Rights Movement and the riotous 60s, black thugs had been harassing, beating, and robbing non-blacks, Jews included. Still, white society, both liberal and conservative, had been overwhelmingly on the side of preserving white spaces denied to blacks and dealing with blacks as second-class citizens or a can-of-worms to be kicked into the future. With such odds stacked against them, blacks couldn't go totally crazy, and whites in their safe white spaces could cling to the dream of the Noble Negro doing his best and in need of white sympathy and support. The Civil War Narrative held that blacks were freed and were on the gradual path to equality and justice. It would take time but blacks would eventually reach the Promised Land. But the Civil Rights Narrative spun a counter-argument. The Emancipation had been betrayed and the Negro had yet to break free. White Moses Abe Lincoln failed, and black Moses MLK would finally finish the job and make it to the mountaintop and lead his people to milk-and-honey.

Given the actual nature of the Negro, race-ist white skeptics had reasons not to fall for the Dream. But America is nothing if not naive and idealistic in some stupid(and inspired) way. Also, most skeptics were too genteel and inhibited to spell out in graphic and grisly details as to why the Negro Experiment wouldn't work. For some reason, White America chose to forget all about Jack Johnson and propped up the cult of Joe Louis, the nice BROWN(than black) Bomber. Apparently, Louis was such a nice guy, and it was only by accident that he knocked out all those white guys who just bumped into him. It was like the 'bum of the month' was really a 'bump of the month'. He didn't want to do it, but those clumsy uncoordinated white guys were haplessly walking into his fists and falling down.
As the raw truth remained unsaid even by the race-ists, white dreamers got the upper hand with the Narrative. The Dream would be MLK would finish the job and at last America would fulfill its mission. Of course, many chose to believe the mission was derailed by the assassination of MLK, but in fact, race problems got out of control while he was alive. Massive riots broke out in 1965, three years before MLK's death and by 1968, many blacks weren't even heeding King's advice and getting more rowdy-radical.

Because of the moral-spiritual investment of so many white folks(especially the wiberals) in the Noble Negro Narrative, they were willing to make excuses for mounting black rage and violence. After all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And hadn't whites also rioted in the past? So, maybe it was black people's turn to rebel and turn over the apple cart. But the difference was that, while white folks made even more progress upon gaining freedom(via means violent or peaceful), black folks got even worse with more freedom. It was as if blacks-and-freedom was like drinking-and-driving. Freedom inspired white people to shoot for the stars. Freedom drove black people to dive for the mud.

In time, even do-good wiberals joined the White Flight. Jews joined the Jew Flew. (And Asians joined Chu-Too, and Mexicans did Brown-Not-Stick-Around.) It was getting ever harder to maintain the Noble Negro Narrative. White Flight was the result of Black Blight. Too much crime, too much craziness, too much ghastliness. And for those in the know, Abraham Lincoln actually had little sentimentality about blacks. His idea of playing White Moses was to lead blacks OUT of America. And MLK, for his all hammy but inspiring oratory, was a lout, punk, thug, and beast. Had he lived, he would have become just another Jesse Jackson... or worse a kind of Al Sharpton. Indeed, most Civil Rights Era blacks became crooks, thieves, and/or charlatans. It was his death that led to the myth of the Blackrist.

Now, if whites had sense and shook off the Noble Negro Narrative for good and saw the Real Negro at last, there would have been no more of this nonsense. But mental habits die hard, especially when the Jewish-controlled Media and Academia have been doing everything to elevate MLK into god-status and instill whites from cradle with Negrolatry. For most white young ones, the four most sacred people are MLK, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, and Obama. White parents have been made anxious about their kids becoming 'racist' at the age of three. According to Jewish Media, white kids have a natural inclination to turn 'racist'. It's almost as if the 'original sin' of 'racism' is hard-wired into the white DNA. Therefore, white parents must train their kids to be 'anti-racist' from the earliest age possible, and that means feeding them Negrolatry from the cradle.
So, most white kids come to awareness believing that any pro-white consciousness is evil while any pro-black consciousness is sacred. Stuff like Diversity-Inclusion-Equity training is not about instilling and/or reinforcing the same virtues of diligence, honesty, integrity, courage, and responsibility on ALL people regardless of race but about conflating goodness with certain identities. Being black, Jewish, or homo/tranny makes one automatically good, and the less fortunate groups without magic identities can only attain a measure of goodness by being especially partial to Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies. In other words, it's a total perversion of morality. Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies are good even if they act bad because their identities are 'good'. In contrast, even whites who are most diligent, honest, conscientious, and courageous are morally suspect because their identity is associated with all sorts of evils and failings throughout (selective)history. Instead of promoting 'diversity, inclusion, and equity'(or DIE) among whites(but then notice how this never calls for Jewish Guilt and Atonement for the mistreatment of Palestinians who are certainly NOT INCLUDED in the American Debate), society would do much better to promote accountability, appreciation, honesty, and humility among blacks. What US needs is not DIE but AAHH.

So, despite all the troublesome facts about blacks, whites cannot shake their 'psychristian' complexes about them. And yet, it's hard going to keep up with the pretense of the Noble Negro in a world where blacks act so ignoble. White people want to believe that black fevers of the soul, passion, and even rage are essentially driven by righteous hunger(or lust) for justice and goodness. It's like the Jews in the Old Testament are far from perfect but more blessed than other races because they got God on their side. Also, even though the Old Testament God is sometimes terrifying and unpredictable, He is the source of all that is good, as well as ultimately the great redeemer. And yet, the rise of Christianity suggest that enough Jews could no longer accept the anxiety-inducing uncertainties of the Old Narrative. Given the dire events of history, certain Jews agonized and strove for a new explanation, the Year Zero option where they could conceive of God from near-scratch.

We see something similar in the Third Phase of Negrolatry, that of the Blackrist. This is Negrolatry #3. Is it any wonder that so many whites have adopted black babies? Just like God was conceived anew through the narrative of Jesus as Baby God, molded and nurtured in part by man(and woman), white folks dream of the black starchild by way of white nurture. Negroes may be noble and all, but they are too fearsome and unstable, often scaring white folks half-to-death. So, how about if they adopt a black child and mold him to be the Noble Negro more in harmony with white fantasies? Just like the rise of Christianity tamed God into a more loving figure with a closer ear to man's problems, the cult of Blackrist seeks to 'fix' the problem of the broken Noble Negro Narrative. If blacks left to their own devices cannot live up to the Dream, whites must somehow intervene and replace the Old Negro with the New Negro.
Some do it by adoption, but it's also done by ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Thus, the white woman carries the Noble Negro seed, much like Mary carried Jesus in her womb. Unlike a Negress who, though 'naturally noble', is too wild and funky for motherhood, the white woman would birth and nurture the mulatto kid to conform to the White Dream of the Noble Negro. No wonder so many whites greeted Obama as akin to black jesus. He was birthed by a white mother and raised by whites.
Another way is by Mass Immigration of Africans. Europeans have Noble Negro cult of their own. They believe America failed the blacks who turned out criminal and violent ONLY because of white tyranny and oppression traumatized the Negro soul. In contrast, Europe would welcome black Africans and treat them nice and show the world how naturally noble the blacks are. It's a variation on the Year-Zero-Negro, or Year Zegro. Europeans feel that American blacks became problematic solely due to mistreatment. It's like believing a tiger in captivity is dangerous because of abuses suffered at the hands of its owner and convincing oneself that a tiger would make the most wonderful pet if treated nice from infanthood. While it's true that a well-trained tiger raised from cub-hood can be friendly with humans, it can never be a proper pet because its very nature is wild & predatory and, furthermore, it is many times stronger than man.

Of course, there is one big difference between the transformation of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the transformation of Noble Negro Narrative from Troublesome Black Moses to Transcendent Black Christ. Whereas God isn't real whether one believes the Jewish version or the Christian version, blacks are all-too-real. There are tens of millions of them in the US, millions of them now in Europe, a billion of them in Africa, and there will be billions more in decades to come. Even though idea of God is a powerful concept, maybe the most powerful ever, it is still a matter to be pondered and debated. God doesn't exist in the real world. So, whether one is 'right' or 'wrong' about God, it is really a matter of theory.

In contrast, being wrong about Negroes is dangerous(and maybe fatal for Western Civilization) because countless blacks exist in reality and in ever increasing numbers, and they are by far the most aggressive, destructive, and dangerous race. Turning Negrolatry #1 into Negrolatry #2 was a big mistake. Whites noticed the raw power of blacks in muscle & music and conflated them with morality. Jack Johnson was about might-is-right, or 'we blacks be badass cuz we whup you white boys'. Upon noticing this fact, whites should have done everything to bring about permanent racial separation. But whites went with the cult of Joe Louis: the Nice Negro who uses his power as a credit to his race; he beats whites but is almost apologetic about it and, above all, wants to be liked by whites and be an American Hero in service of patriotism. But that Narrative fell apart in the 60s when blacks gained full confidence to riot and loot and scare whitey half-to-death.
But instead of waking up from the nightmare-mistaken-as-dream, whites ended up reaching for Negrolatry #3, whereby they came to fantasize about reinventing the Negro in their mind's eye. So, how did the Obama thing turn out? How are all these black kids created either by ACOWW and/or adoption turning out? Colin Kaepernick anyone? Is he the blackrist?

Can whites ever wake up? Perhaps not because of the 'viscerality' of black advantages. Jared Taylor detailed how blacks are better at certain things(like basketball) while Asians have their own niche advantages(like math and science). So, why can't people accept that blacks are better with balls and worse with ballpens? After all, most white people don't expect Asians to be good at basketball because they are better in math. White people aren't upset with Asian underperformance in America's most popular sports, and that's okay. So, why are whites upset with blacks not exceling in everything? Why not just say Asians are better at math and blacks are better at running/jumping? if whites can accept Asian inferiority in basketball, why not accept black inferiority in calculus or physics?

It is because math/science isn't visceral or exciting. In school, all the attention is on athletes, not on mathletes(even though the latter generally do better in life). So, the fact that Asians are good in math doesn't generate much excitement or convulsion about them. They are just seen as nerds.
In contrast, sports is visceral, and black dominance leads to white hero-worship of blacks as demigods or titans. Thus overwhelmed by excitement, whites have come to wish the best of their hero-race of blacks. (Likewise, white obsession with Jews has less to do with Jewish wizardry in math and science than their humor, forceful personalities, and prophetic reach that seem 'sexy'. Ayn Rand was no looker but her powerful big-think won over lots of acolytes.) This goes to show that Rationalism was bound to fail.

The perverse thing about the Cult of George Floyd is it managed to fuse Negrolatry 1, 2, 3 into a single package. He was beastly, a career thug, criminal, and druggy. He even had a stint in pornography. His fearsome beastly prowess made him like one of the crude pagan gods of dark nature. Negrolatry #1. But the Noble Negro Narrative spun his biography into something like a one-man exodus story. You see, he wasn't simply a lifetime criminal wandering across America to rob and cause more havoc. No, he was on a spiritual journey of self-discovery, in search of his milk-and-honey in a land mired in 'systemic racism'. A lone black moses in the tradition of the fugitive slaves on the run for freedom and dignity. Negrolatry #2. (Never mind Floyd was a free man and used his freedom badly. On the one hand, the Negrolators say it was a great evil to deny blacks equal rights and freedom in the past. On the other hand, Negrolators seem to imply that blacks + freedom is a bad mix because historical traumatization culturally or epigenetically drove blacks to be angrier and more dangerous; therefore, we can't expect blacks to use their freedom as sensibly as whites and non-blacks.) But then, Floyd died one day. How and why? He imbibed too much fentanyl, but the Jewish-controlled media and their minion-disciples, in a perverse variation of the feat pulled off by renegade Jews(who turned Jesus' tragedy into triumph), created the magic-myth of how Saint George Floyd was murdered by a 'white supremacist' centurion but overcame defeat and death by rising to heaven and gaining his place in the firmament. Thus, Floyd became blackrist. Negrolatry #3. We sure do live in crazy times.

COMING UP | THE GREAT DEBATE: E. MICHAEL JONES VS. JARED TAYLOR - Guide to Kulchur

The Key Advantage that Jewishness Has over Christianity — Jewish Body-plus-Spirit versus Christian Spirit-minus-Body — Hick Pride of Jews vs Hick Shame of Whites — Need for White Covenant and The Book

When Blessings Become Curses

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/04/27/review-of-david-skirbinas-the-jesus-hoax-how-st-pauls-cabal-fooled-the-world-for-two-thousand-years/

Does it make sense to discuss Jewish matters 2000 yrs ago in relation to Jewish realities today? Sure, there is a connective thread and common themes that have continued through the ages. Still, 2000 yrs ago Jews were under Imperialist Occupation and were in a state of resistance(or collaboration). Today, Jews are the New Romans(or New Pharaohs) though still clinging to the shtetl-shtick, as if they just got off the boat as helpless refugees in search of sanctuary.

One thing for sure, there are only two ways Christianity can deal with Jewishness. 'Pristianity' or 'Hypochristianity'. 'Pristianity' or Pristine Christianity would be sincere in its utter devotion to Christian teachings. Of course, this would mean white people would lose nationalism, identity, and unity BUT they would at least be good Christians living in accordance to the Creed. As such, 'pristinians' could judge and condemn the Jews as a people who continue to reject Christ and the true faith. 'Pristianity' would inherently be anti-Jewish. Indeed, true Christianity must be so. After all, if there's nothing wrong with Judaism or the Jews, there would be no need or justification for Christianity, which began as a heresy. Christianity justified itself on grounds that Judaism had gone wrong or served its purpose, whereby it must make way for the emergence of the new Faith, akin to the spiritual evolution from man as hairless ape to star-child. If Christianity admits there's nothing wrong with Jews or Judaism, it has undermined its own rationale for existence. Christianity began as Critical Spiritual Theory against Judaism. Jews hunted down early Christians, and these renegades, mostly Jews, railed against the obstinacy of the Old Faith. So, 'Pristianity' could resurrect the proudly anti-Jewish element of Christianity. Also, in its universality, it could condemn Jewish tribalism, nationalism, particularism, and supremacism. And as a pacifistic religion, it could harshly judge the aggressive and destructive policies of the warlike World Jewry. 'Pristianity' would rob whites of their own particularism but would also attack Jewish particularism. So, even if whites lose their identity, they could pressure Jews to do likewise. Both whites and Jews would lose out in terms of unique-identity-power. Pristine-Christians would no longer lend support to Zionists.
Jeremy Corbyn practiced a secular version of 'pristianity', and notice how Jews were triggered, alarmed, and threatened. Jewish Way has been 'leftism' for the White World, but white 'leftists' must support Zionism, aka Jewish ultra-rightism. Contra such demands, Corbyn condemned Jewish tribalism(at least against Palestinians) as he'd done with British nationalism. The way of 'Pristianity' in relation to Jews is comes down to "We die, but you also die." Whites lose identity but also attack Jewish identity and no longer support Zionism.

The other way Christians can combat Jewish Power is through 'Hypochristianity' or hypocritical-Christianity, and of course, that was how things used to be. Ever since Early Christianity, a resistance faith against empire, merged with Roman Power, it became a hypocritical racket. It preached peace and forgiveness while blessing the Roman legions marching off to war. It resorted to extreme violence to destroy other cults and religions. Christianity preached virtuous poverty, but its churches were erected with donations from the rich. Its armies conquered and plundered other parts of the world, but the violence was shrouded with sanctimony and token 'good works'. Hypocrisy is ignoble but intrinsic to the human condition, and Christians were hardly the only hypocrites around. And, for a long spell Hypochristianity worked like a charm. Europeans were motivated by ambition and greed but veiled them with piety, much like today's globalist scum imperialists invade and destroy other parts of the world but go on and on about 'muh democracy', 'human rights', and 'western values'. Hypochristians didn't act very Christian, but the Faith was an effective moral cover for their aggressions and material avarice. Thus, Hypochristians could rob Jews(just as Jews exploited goyim) but justify their deeds with prayers to Christ.

With control of academia and media, Jews pretty much blew Hypochristianity out of the water. Jewish-dominated Narrative detailed the many ways by which the so-called Christian Civilization betrayed its own creed. Jewish Power rubbed the white Christian nose in all the evils committed by the West. Therefore, it's difficult for white Hypochristianity to make a comeback as too many whites are now 'guilt-ridden' about their hypocrisy-riddled history. Given this fact, one would think the only way left for white Christians is 'Pristianity', i.e. the abandonment of white power/interests and total commitment toward universal peace and justice. And yet, that hasn't been the result. The current Christianity is a weird and perverse blend of 'Pristianity' and 'Hypochristianity', the common denominator of which is "Is it good for Jews?" So, white Christians are now pristine-Christians when it comes to their own historical sins, at least in regard to Jews and blacks, and feel they must atone and seek redemption, especially by rejecting any vestige of white identity, white pride, white unity, and white power. As GOOD CHRISTIANS, they must embrace nonwhites as fellow brethren and sistren. But then, oddly enough, this seeming 'pristianity'(or 'semi-pristianity') doesn't go very far. Why not? Because it is premised more on idolatry than ideology. 'Semi-pristianity' isn't about white folks making equal peace and love with ALL of humanity. Such notion would be ideological, universally applicable by way of moral and spiritual logic. Rather, 'semi-pristianity' is locked in the idolatrous reverence especially for Jews, Negroes, and even homos, which is why homo-flags have sprung up in so many churches. So, never mind what the Christian World may have done to South American natives, Arabs & Muslims, and the Asiatics. What really matters is what white folks owe to Jews and blacks. And homos. So, there is virtually zero American Christian concern over the fate of Christian Arabs whose lives were utterly destroyed by Wars for Israel.

While churches blabber on and on about BLM, there is no compassion for the various victims of black crime and thuggery. Idolatry deems that blacks are always holy victims no matter what they do. (Also, the church of 'white guilt' overlooks one of the most important aspects of the Faith. For Jesus, victimhood per se wasn't nearer to holiness. After all, anyone can be victimized. A good person can be oppressed, a bad person can be oppressed. A bully can be bullied. A greedy man can be cheated and victimized by a greedy man. So, mere victimhood doesn't make one good, let alone saintly. Goodness is a matter of the heart. Whether one is a free man or a slave, one can have a wicked heart. If Jesus really believed that victimhood = virtue, His message would have been wholly different. After all, why not just say all the peoples under Roman Imperial Domination are good-and-holy since they are victims of Roman Power? But even as Jews lived under Roman heel, Jesus didn't believe they were automatically good or justified. For them to be good, they had to change their hearts on an individual basis. But in our materialist age, historical morality is often a matter of who-did-what-to-whom than what-is-in-your-heart. So, blacks can have the dumbest ideas, spew the filthiest nonsense, and wallow in hatred, but that's okay because their historical victimhood in America makes them somehow 'saintly'.) Thus, 'semi-pristianity' is also a form of 'semi-hypochristianity'. The difference is that, whereas the original 'hypochristianity' was cleverly constructed to serve white power and interests, the new 'hypochristianity', or 'semi-hypochristianity', is geared to serve Jewish Power. Among some whites, the reasons are sincere. They are either dumb or naive enough to fall for the Jewish BS. Among other whites, it's a matter of fear and/or craven opportunism. They fear Jewish Power(especially if they got skeletons in their closets) and/or are shameless scavengers hankering for crumbs falling from the Jewish table.

Perhaps, there is a third way, one that might be called Critical-Christianity or Christo-Realism, that can effectively combat Jewish Power. This form of Christianity would be very honest about what Christianity is really about. It's there in the New Testament, especially in the four Gospels. However, it would also be honest about the way of the world and how Christianity can serve as guide and inspiration but an iron rulebook. Unlike the age-old Hypochristianity that acted one way while pretending to do another, Christo-Realism would be upfront about the need to reject Christian purism. Thus, it could not be charged of hypocrisy. (Christianity is especially vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy because of what Jesus preached: Love, Forgiveness, Poverty, Peace, and leaving vengeance up to the Lord.)
Also, Christo-Realism would be in tune with science & rationalism and admit that there is no factual basis for the myths underlying Christianity, or any religion for that matter. (Come to think of it, the Enlightenment Principles of Equality of Man is also a fiction. The European thinkers who came up with that idea only knew European folks and projected European attributes onto the rest of humanity as a universal ideal and potential. Alas, races are different in ability, personality, and temperament. Enlightenment would have done better as a rationalism of limited idealism than universalist dogma.) But it would also acknowledge the essentially mythic nature of human psychology; indeed, ridding the modern world of religion has only led to new idols and cults for people to worship. If people MUST worship, God(and Jesus) is surely better than George Floyd, Jewish wealth, pop star's vanity, or a homo's anus. Also, it would seriously consider why the story of Jesus has had such power over humanity from a psychological vantage point.
The problem of Christo-Realism is it might seem too cerebral to those desiring totality of faith and too principled for those desiring convenience above all else. The true-faithers, even if hardly consistent with the creed in their daily lives, want to believe 'Jesus is King' and that's that, and there's nothing to think about and no room for doubt. For such people, thinking leads to anxiety, and while they can tolerate anxiety about lesser matters, they hanker for some fundamental truth that cannot be questioned. If their minds work as sails, their faith serves as the anchor.

As for the 'conveniencers', the main utility of christianity is to serve as addendum to their pet agendas or causes. It's a way of adding a bit of sanctimonious spice or razzle-dazzle to whatever they're really dazed-and-crazed about at the moment: Globo-Homo, mass-immigration, drug legalization, or some latest fad. These people don't want to be reminded of what Christianity is really about at its core as revealed in the New Testament. They might be called 'creative christians' or 'creatians', i.e. christianity is a matter of their 'creative' need at the moment. They might also be called 'cretin-christians'.
Not that the more fundamentalist types are much better, especially the so-called Christian Zionists who come in two flavors. One wants Jews to return to the Holy Land because they believe Jesus will return and kill most of them. The other is so enamored of Jews as the Chosen Tribe and smart/rich people that its members cuck to Jews as the superior race. They exhibit the side of conservatism that is submissive to authority and power. Of course, there is another factor, and it has to do with the Shoah. By hailing Jews to high heaven and convincing themselves that Jews and Christians are natural pals and allies, they seek to deny that Christianity had anything to do with the Third Reich and its crimes. But then, this special guilt about dead Jews is yet another manifestation of conservatism's excessive concern for those deemed superior in wealth and power. The Holocaust would barely show up on the cultural radar if Jews were mostly poor and low IQ.

One way of understanding Judaism and Christianity is by comparing them to chess and checkers. Judaism is more like chess, Christianity is more like checkers. The latter religion is more Manichean in its morality. It's about good vs evil. God is good and wants us to be good. And this goodness is independent of any tribalism, nationality, or cultural affiliation. It's a matter of the heart. Indeed, the appeal of Jesus Christ is He represents the heart of God. Prior to Christianity, the Old Testament told stories where God was featured as the mind(thinker and dreamer), the hands(creator and builder), the stomach(ambition, dominance), the feet(traveler and stomper), the nose(the critic sniffing for the good vs the bad), the mouth(big talker), and etc. But the heart-element was smaller compared to others. God could show compassion toward Jews at times, but mostly He was hard to please, even for Jews. But then, Jesus came along as served as the warm-beating heart of God. Christianity said God is full of love and therefore offers salvation to all of mankind. But as He sacrificed His Son(or part of Himself) for humanity, mankind must accept Jesus as savior and teacher. This powerful moral element of Christianity makes it a religion about good vs evil. It's about God's profound love for humanity and humanity's need to accept this love and be saved from evils and their temptations. Thus, above all, Christianity is about God is good, and this goodness is equally accessible to all of mankind that would accept Jesus. Yes, even to ghastly Negroes.

Jewishness is appalled by the Jesus Story not only for its blasphemy, the stuff about Jesus being the Son of God. If anything, Jews are more appalled by Christianity than by Christ. They hated Jesus as the living embodiment of blasphemy. To Jews, it seemed there was a simple solution to such a Man and His ideas. Have Him killed. But what followed was even worse to the Jewish Mind. The Christian mythology said Jesus died for all of humanity, aka goyim as well as for Jews. Imagine that, Jewish body sacrificed to save the dubious souls of filthy goyim. Jews could countenance the sacrifice of limitless goy lives for the good of Jews. The Moses story has tons of dead goyim in Egypt and in Canaan for the sake of Jewish interests. Jews are worth dying ONLY WHEN they offend the Covenant between God and the Tribe, and it is the Jew who must kill the bad Jew. Ideally, goyim should not kill a Jew, even a bad one, except under extraordinary circumstances, as when Jews needed Roman permission and power to deal with Jesus.
In worldly affairs of Jews and/versus goyim, it's the goy bodies(filled with weak, demonic, or dubious souls) that must be sacrificed for the good of Jews. And as every Jew was part of the Covenant, a poor Jew in rags was regarded as higher in Jewish eyes than the richest and mightiest goyim. It's like the caste-centric noblemen regarded a poor nobleman as higher than a rich merchant(or peasant if such thing even existed). So, the idea that Jesus, born a Jew with a Jewish body, would have His body and blood sacrificed to save the souls of filthy goyim was downright sickening to Jews. When Jesus was alive, they hated Him for what He said and did. After He died, they hated even more the Myth around Him that a Jewish Messiah arrived not to help the Jews but to sacrifice His sacred Jewish body for the sake of the souls of goyim. Jews could tolerate, indeed demand, the destruction of a Jewish body that blasphemed against the Covenant, and so, the killing of Jesus was fine by them. But just when they thought the business was finished and over, a bunch of renegade Jews argued that Jesus didn't just die but sacrificed His Jewish body for the souls of goyim whom He dearly loved. No wonder Jews over the ages have hated the Jesus Myth. Whatever Jews can accept, one thing they can't is the notion that Jews should surrender their lives for goyim. So, Madeleine Albright and fellow Jews can say without regret or reflection that it was 'worth it' to sacrifice 500,000 Arab children to create the New World Order. But no Jew would ever say it's worth sacrificing 500, 50, or even 5, let alone 500,000, Jewish kids for some grand project favored by goyim. It seems one of the main reasons why Jews opposed the Vietnam War was because of the Draft. It meant Jewish bodies would be sent into the jungles and be sacrificed for the US empire that was then still controlled by Anglo-Christian elites. Of course, Jews framed their anti-war stance in terms of saving the lives of Vietnamese and white working class & poor blacks who made the bulk of the fighting force. But what they really hated was the idea that Jewish kids would be sent to battle and possibly die for the interests of others. It's likely Milton Friedman and others like him called for an all-voluntary force because they knew that most Jews would NOT volunteer for the military. Most Jews would attend good schools and get white collar jobs. An all-voluntary force would be made up almost entirely of goyim. And as lower-class whites would be more likely to join, the upper-class whites, whose own children won't serve in the military, would be less likely to oppose what would become Wars for Israel after the end of the Cold War. The very Jews who were so weepy-poo about dead Vietnamese and American soldiers returning in body bags in the 1960s and early 70s are now utterly indifferent to the countless dead Arab/Muslims and oblivious to all the American soldiers who either died, were horribly maimed, or committed suicide from trauma. How is it that Jews who cared so much about goyim in the Vietnam Era feel almost nothing for goyim in the Wars-for-Israel or Zionic Era? In a way, nothing really changed. While there were some genuine Jewish leftists in the 60s, many were always Jewish-first and whatever-ideology-second. They opposed the Vietnam War because they didn't want Jewish bodies to be sacrificed for empire, but they don't oppose Wars for Israel because it's goy lives that are being sacrificed. If the Draft were still on today and a good number of young Jewish men had to see combat, Jewish Power would think twice about more of these wars. The likes of Max Boot, Ben Shapiro, Thomas Friedman, Jake Tapper, and Victoria Nuland know that it's about goyim dying for Jewish interests while Jewish bodies remain safe.

Ideally, Christianity is meant to be a religion without a body, though it doesn't go as far as Buddhism. It's about the spirit. Christianity sees the world as fallen and the flesh as sinful. Therefore, the only true salvation is through the spirit. It is one's spirit, not the body, that is saved, and it enters Heaven to be with God. A diabolical and perhaps satirical twist on this can be found in Jonathan Glazer's UNDER THE SKIN where higher beings(space aliens) lure men and suck their bloods, leaving only the skin behind. One might say Christianity is about the spiritual juicing of mankind. People are admonished to reject their sinful bodies and cleanse/prepare their souls for salvation. Thus, the body is left behind and the soul is 'juiced' to enter the realm of the Divine. In UNDER THE SKIN, the higher beings lure men only to suck out their inner essence as cosmic cuisine.
While Judaism also sees mankind as sinful and the world as fallen, there is the hope for Jews under the Covenant. And Jews are defined not only by their souls but their bodies. Thus, Judaism is about both the spirit and the body. If Christianity preaches upon the faithful to reject their bodies and distill their spirits for the hereafter, Judaism teaches its members to preserve their bodies for future generations. Just as living Jews have a long line of ancestors, they should ideally have long line of descendants. A link of bodies. This is why Jewish men are bigger pudkins than Christian men. Because of the practice of conversion, a Christian doesn't need to have kids to produce more Christians. Non-Christians can be converted to the Faith. In contrast, in order for there to be more Jews, they must be birthed by Jewish parents. Therefore, sex matters far more to Jews whose consciousness is about spirit + body as opposed to the Christian formula which is about the salvation of the spirit from the body. Without Jewish bodies, there is no Judaism, no Jewishness. In contrast, even if all Christians were to die in body, the faith can survive as long as the New Testament exists to spread the ideas to convert non-Christians. According to Christianity, sex and marriage are necessary evils. The Christian ideal is to forgo such and fixate on the spirit, which is the basis for why Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry and have kids. In contrast, the duty of Jews is to produce more Jews as Judaism isn't about the spirit vs the body but the spirit within the Jewish body. If the Abrahamic Covenant was about circumcision, the (Ron)Jeremic covenant is to suck one's own pud. (Some Jews go so far as to believe that only Jews have souls, or at least higher souls, whereas goyim have beastly souls or no souls at all. But then, Jews believe their God is the only true God and all other gods are bogus. In secular-modern terms, the Jewish Mind is the only true mind and the Jewish Body is the only true body, and all goyim must bow down before the Jewish khans.) Because Judaism is about body + spirit, it is better grounded. Sure, it suffers vis-a-vis Christianity in that the latter, being a conversion-religion, has infinitely more members. On the other hand, because Christians are made up of diverse peoples, they can never come together on much of anything. Diverse Christians may believe themselves to be united in spirit, but it just so happens to be that the body trumps the spirit. Take communism. Even though Russia and China were 'spiritually' united by Marxism, they split apart along racial-ethnic-national lines. Same with the tensions between China and Vietnam. And between Russia and Tito's Yugoslavia. In contrast, because the body is so crucial to being Jewish, even secular Jews and religious Jews tend to see more eye-to-eye on the basis of shared blood.

It is no wonder that Jews have such power over Christians(and post-Christians). Jews feel the power of both the Jewish spirit and Jewish body. And the Jewish spirit feels stronger with the empowerment of the Jewish body. It's like hair and power went together in Samson. In contrast, the Christian ideally rises higher with the negation of the body. It's not about the union of the spirit and body but the transcendence of the spirit from the body. And this body can mean the sins associated with individual pride/vanity, personal ambition, kinship, tribalism, and nationalism. Ideally at least, all such must be rejected by Christians. Of course, Christian history is rife with counter-examples, those of Christians being familial, racial, territorial, and/or nationalist, as well as narcissistic, vain, and hedonistic. However, given the core tenets of Christianity, those could be critiqued as betrayal of Christianity's spiritual ideal. In contrast, one cannot fault a Jew for being body-centered in terms of individuality, family, tribality, and/or nationality because the Jewish Covenant is about the indivisible union of the Jewish body with the Jewish spirit. Jews don't need the bodily sacrifice of Jesus Christ to have bodily pride and worth. The Covenant blessed the Jewish pud and what comes out of it. In contrast, because Christianity abhors the sinful body, Christians must rely on the divine body of Christ. Why do Catholics eat Jesus crackers? Because their own bodies have no intrinsic value, they rely on the succor provided by the flesh and blood of Jesus in the form of wafers and wine. They must partake of the body of God because their own bodies are mere vessels of their spirits that really matter. In contrast, a Jew has pride in his body because of the Covenant that goes back to Abraham's penis.

It's no wonder then that whites in elite colleges are so easily manipulated by Jews. Unlike Jews whose souls are one with their bodies, Christian and Post-Christian whites strive for the separation and purification of their souls/spirits from their own sinful bodies, made all the more 'sinful' by association with 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. (Post-Christian whites have inherited the Christian mindset despite their secular outlooks.) But it's simply unnatural for people to reject the body. Whether it's E = MC2 or S(spirit) = B(body)C2, energy/spirit wants to be grounded in matter/body. Jews don't have this problem as the Covenant unites body and soul. Both the Jewish body and soul are holy. In contrast, the body is sinful and only the spirit can be good in Christianity. Christians must outsource their longing for the body to Jesus whose body is the true body for all Christians. Only Jesus's body is pure because it is divine, and it was sacrificed for the salvation of mankind. So, man must partake of Jesus's flesh and blood via wafers and wine in communion rituals. In secular terms, it means whites must be pure in their abstract-universal principles at the expense of tribal interests(tarnished with sinful 'racism').
Ideally speaking, Christians should make peace with their rejection of the body, BUT human nature being what it is, Christians nevertheless hanker for the body. As their own bodies must be rejected, they satisfy their body-hunger two ways. They seek out new bodies for conversion to Christ. Even though the converted bodies must also reject the Body in favor of the Spirit, there is the excitement of the 'hunt' for new bodies. Conversion turns into a kind of spiritual hunting trip, a head count. Christian true-believers seek out new converts. In contrast, neo-christians(those who use the religion as tool for secular agendas) and post-christians satiate their body-craving by fixating on bodies of the Other that has been sanctified by the Jews who control the gods. Jews say Jewish bodies are sacred, black bodies are sacred, and homo bodies are sacred; and to a lesser extent but still far more so than white bodies, the nonwhite immigrant-diverse-bodies have some sanctity. So, the body-deprived whites seek body-meaning and body-significance by attaching themselves to the Bodies of Others.
In the past, as good Christians, their body-craving was relieved via Communion rituals involving the flesh and blood of Jesus. Today, as neo-christians and post-christians, their sense of sanctity depends on Jews who control the media and academia. So, Jews get to say what is godly and what is demonic. White bodies and souls are demonic, whereas Jews, blacks, and homos are divine in body and soul. This emphasis on the body(as wedded to the soul) as opposed to the primacy of the independent soul is a sign of how much Western culture has gone from Christian to Judaic. Christianity sought to separate the spirit from the body whereas Judaism says the Jewish body and soul are inseparable and indivisible. Christianity is like the Jedi Order. Even after the body is gone, the soul lives on as when Ben Kenobi outlived his body and advised Luke Skywalker. To Jews, the Shoah is especially horrific because they hold their bodies sacred. A Christian believes that, even if destroyed in body, he can be triumphant in spirit. Jew thinks his soul is gone along with the spirit when killed by lowly goyim. Of course, Jews suffer from a certain complex about the body. Jews value their bodies far more than Christian whites do, but the 'Aryans' are more proud of their looks than Jews are. Indeed, Jewish men like Woody Allen, Philip Roth, and Harvey Weinstein have been lusting after 'Aryan' bodies. So, it's as if... Christo-Aryans, despite their anti-body beliefs, have bodies worthy of pride, whereas Judeo-Semites, despite their pro-body convictions, feel a lot of negativity about their bodies(except in puddishness, as with Ron Jeremy who could suck his own thing.) In a way, blacks have moved from being Christo-Blacks to Judeo-Blacks. If, under white Protestant influence, they sought to separate the body from the soul, over time the black soul and black body re-merged because the black soul is inseparable from the jungle jive of the black body. Also, their physical success in sports and music have made blacks far more proud and conscious of their bodies as the definitive markers of blackness. Besides, while the 'body' can mean face-and-body, blacks tend to be more literally body-centric because their faces and hair are deemed less attractive. Black girls feel, "I's make pretty white bitch ugly with my fist."

Anyway, the Jewish Way is more like chess because the Jewish Worldview isn't as simple as the Christian Worldview, which is more like checkers, black pieces vs red pieces. Christianity sees the world in terms of Good vs Evil, and this goodness is a matter of the spirit. Thus, it doesn't favor any individual(except Jesus and to a lesser extent the Apostles), dynasty, tribe, or nation. It's a matter of the heart, and ANYONE ANYWHERE ANYTIME can be part of this goodness. And this goodness must be about his or her individual adherence to what is spiritually good and pure. In checkers, all pieces are equal in value, and the game is simply of matter of red pieces vs black pieces. There is no hierarchy among the pieces, and the objective is merely to win with no thought of the special value of any particular piece. Christianity is like that. There is no individual or family or tribe or nation that has special value. The objective is for the Good to triumph over Evil. This makes Christianity far more Manichean than Judaism but for the fact that its message of love, forgiveness, and compassion softens the hostile judgmentalism so intrinsic to Christianity.
Chess is different. Not all pieces are equal in value, and the ultimate objective is to protect the king(as you try to trap the opponent's king). So, even though chess is also about two opposing sides, it's not as simple as checkers in its objective and strategy. In checkers, all pieces have equal value and play according to the same rules to beat the other side. In chess, some pieces are lower in value while some others are higher in value, and the king is most important. And yet, the king hardly plays the game. Other pieces are more 'powerful' in terms of movement and attack, and yet they are expendable, even the queen, whereas the king must be protected to the very end. (And even when the game is over, the king on the loser side isn't killed but only 'checkmated'. So, both kings make it out alive no matter which side wins. It's like Neocon Kings remain on the board even when Liberal Zionist Kings win. In chess, white king uses his white pieces against the black king, and the black king uses his black pieces against the white king, but regardless of what happens, both kings remain on the board when the game is over. This is why Jews fare differently than other groups in the 'left' vs 'right' conflict. While goy 'left' really hates and wants to demolish the goy 'right' and vice versa, the Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' are like kings on the chessboard who, when the dust settles, will make it out alive as fellow kings.)
Ideally speaking, Christianity seeks to convert all of humanity and deems each and every Christian to be equal in value, and their mission is to fight Evil, which could be just as much among their own families, tribes, and families as elsewhere. The Jewish Way stands in contrast with a profoundly different worldview. Jewish Power is the King on the chessboard that must be protected at all times whereas the other pieces are projected to attack the other side. Those pieces, even the valuable queen, are expendable, sometimes in spectacular gambits. What matters in the end is that the King is protected and safe. In the Jewish Mind, the Jews are the King, never ever expendable. All other pieces are expendable. Jews are to be protected, goyim are to be projected. It's like neocons strategize Wars for Israel that are fought by goyim who do the killing and the dying. In checkers, all pieces are both equally valuable and equally expendable. In chess, the King is totally precious whereas all other pieces are expendable. While the queen is many times more valuable than a pawn, it too is sacrificed when necessary. (This is why Anglos are dumb to ally with Jews. No matter how much Jews appreciate Anglo power as partner, it can be, at best, the queen and never a fellow-king. However close the alliance, Anglos regard Jews as indispensable whereas Jews regard Anglos as dispensable. In the UK, Anglos go out on a limb to defend Jewishness and Israel whereas Jews, both 'left' and 'right', do everything to undermine Anglo identity and pride. Anglos can only feel the pride of servility to the King Jew.) The highest objective in Christianity is the triumph of the good(of the spirit) against evil, whereas the highest objective in Judaism is Jewish dominion over goyim. Even though Christian history has been compromised and hypocritical, true-blue Christians are supposed to choose spirit over body and join with the Good against what is deemed Evil. In contrast, Jewishness prioritizes the unique and special role of Jews in the world. They must be ABOVE the filthy goyim. Jews, in body and soul, are the Chosen of God(and/or History or Evolution)and, as the superior race, must have mastery and supremacy over the lesser races and groups. Thus, the Jewish concept of the highest good isn't some abstract notion of Good at war with Evil but the specific conviction that there is no higher good in the world than the elevated status. And to procure the highest good of Jewish supremacism, the Tribe is allowed, indeed compelled, to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to protect the King(the Jews) while projecting the goyim as the tools and weapons of Jews. Indeed, in the Old Testament, there are moments when the Jewish God seems to make a pact with Satan, just like the 'good' brother in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS calls on the 'bad' brother, the gangster, to carry out the dirty work to protect the 'good' brother's good name. (Interestingly enough, Jerry Orbach who played the gangster-brother had a similar role in PRINCE OF THE CITY. While the young Christian cop wants to be soul-cleansed of his guilt, the seasoned Jewish cop is above all about protecting his own skin. A Christian, to save the soul, will betray his partners-in-crime. A Jew, to protect the body, will not betray his tribal partners.)

This is why quasi-satanism among Jews isn't really satanism, the stupid kind where people really worship the Devil or Satan as the highest being. Rather, Jews regard Satan as the necessary fixer, bouncer, gangster, and etc. who does the dirty but necessary work. Thus, even as Jews regard the satanic as dark and troubling, they see it is useful and valuable. Of course, Christians have done plenty of satanic things and have made quasi-satanic pacts of their own, but this reflects far worse on them because the highest good according to Christianity is the purity of the spirit at war with Evil. There can be no compromise with Evil in Ideal Christianity. Therefore, Christianity comes off far more hypocritical and tarnished in its failings. In contrast, as the highest good according to Jews is the Covenant that places Jews higher than all other races, whatever they do is deemed at least halfway justified IF it serves to protect Jewish body-and-soul as the King. It's like how the Corleones use the buffers. Some are more valued than others but they are all expendable. What really matters is The Family. Losing Luca Brasi or Rocco was unfortunate but part of doing business. But losing Sonny was deeply tragic. And it was the near-loss of his father that led Michael back into The Family. And even though Michael had several people killed, what he can't get over is the fact that he killed his brother Fredo; of course, Fredo was part of a plot that nearly had Michael killed. Even though Michael has a general sense of good and bad, his concept of the highest good is The Family. What's good for The Family is the highest good, something that cannot be understood by Kay, who is especially unforgivable in Michael's eyes because she killed his son(because in her post/neo-Christian mentality, the 2,000 yr Sicilian Thing had to end; not only Fredo, his own brother, but Kay, his own wife, was plotting against The Family, and Kay was the only one who was really successful).
Jews feel the same way. For all their pretense of 'liberalism' and 'cosmopolitanism', their highest and deepest sense of good is the protection of the Jewish body-and-soul as the King of the world-as-chessboard. It's not that Jews don't see real value in liberalism, cosmopolitanism, and a host of other -isms they are associated with, but they don't see any of them as the highest good. As the preservation of Jewish body-and-soul and Jewish Power is deemed the highest good, whatever -ism or agenda must be made to suit Jewish Interests. This is what white-cucks don't understand. They think, "We played the role of Queen and acted as the most powerful and effective enforcer of the Jewish King's will. Therefore, Jews surely value us the most." Yes, Jews value whites the most but not as a fellow-king but as an instrument. Paradoxically, precisely because Jews value whites as the best tool, they are most hostile to any sign of white pride and independence. Even though the Queen is the most powerful piece in the game of chess, it is not the most important piece. Its role is to serve the King. Jews see whites this way. They value white powerfulness as utility but they abhor white power as agency. Jews berate whites about 'white supremacism' because they want to maintain control over whites as the supreme tool of Jewish Power.
This is why everything Jews do must be taken with a grain of salt. Take globo-homo. Do Jews really worship the homo anus? No. Rather, it's that they value globo-homo as a useful tool to penetrate, subvert, and weaken goy societies. So, when Jews celebrate globo-homo, it's different from the goy celebration of it. In effect, Jews celebrate their power over goyim, whereas goyim unwittingly celebrate their servility under Jews. To Jews, globo-homo is merely one more of their tools of power. To childlike Christians, globo-homo might as well be the highest good, higher than god and jesus who, in the neo/post-christian mind, exist only to serve the latest fads and fashions televangelized by the Jewish-run media and entertainment complex. Because they live inside the Jewish Technicolor Dream, they haven't awakened to the truth of how so much they see and hear are figments of the Jewish Power Game and how they are little more than pawns. Jews are not only pawnbrokers but pawn-makers. Of course, Jews cleverly labeled the state of goy hypnosis under the Jewish Spell as being 'woke'. In effect, 'woke' goyim think they are 'awake' but it's only within the Jewish dream.

In the Christian concept of God, there can be no compromise with Satan. There is Good, there is Evil, and the church must be on the side of the Good. If it failed at that, it must atone and seek redemption. In the Jewish concept of God, what really matters is the Covenant between God and the Jews. As that is most important, a pact with Satan or satanic forces is deemed justifiable and/or necessary IF it serves the higher good of the Covenant. Anything to protect the King because as Mel Brooks said in THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1, "It's good to be the King."

It is no wonder white goyim are more childlike in both their goodness and evil. When they want to be good, they really get goody-goody. When they want to be evil, they really give themselves to the Devil. For white goyim, goodness is the purity of the spirit(or ideology), and evil is the total surrender to the flesh, desire, and beastliness. In contrast, the highest concept of good in Jewishness isn't some abstract-universal principle, spiritual or ideological, but the fusion of the Jewish spirit and body with God, Destiny, or History. As white goyim believe the ultimate good is higher than white folks(or any folks), they feel compelled to choose the good over their own kind IF the triumph of goodness demands the demise of white folks. When confronted with having to choose between (1) triumph of goodness and demise of white folks AND (2) the fall of goodness and preservation of the white race, they feel compelled to go with (1). Jews need not worry about this problem because their highest concept of goodness is the union of Jewish bodies and souls as the rulers of destiny under the protection of God or by the trajectory of History. Because Jewish bodies are holy and glow with the spirit(which is never entirely separate from the body in the Christian Way), Jews need not choose between spirit(good) and body(bad). For Jews, the highest concept of the good cannot exclude the preservation and triumph of the Jewish Tribe.
But because that potential does exist in Christianity in which the highest good is separate from the body(of the individual, family, tribe, nation, etc), Jews figured out a way to exploit it by persuading whites that the ultimate good(at least for white goyim) can be achieved ONLY BY the way of white demise via 'white guilt', miscegenation(especially with blacks), Diversity, Afromania, and cuckery to Jews who feel extreme possessive-hostility toward the white race. (Possessive-hostility is more problematic than repulsive-hostility. When Japan forbade foreigners, they were hostile to foreigners encroaching on their land. Their hostility was about wanting to be left alone. They neither wanted to be controlled by foreigners or control the foreigners. It was the sort of hostility where Japanese would have their own world, and non-Japanese would have their own. In contrast, Jews practice a possessive-hostility whereby they feel extreme levels of fear, paranoia, resentment, contempt, and hatred for goyim BUT seek to possess and control them as human canines-and-cattle for Jews. Whereas Japanese hostility was about "Leave us alone", Jewish hostility is about "We won't leave you alone.")
Because the way Jews think and how they see the world and themselves, they are never into being totally good or totally evil in the abstract moral sense 'spiritually' severed from the material world. Just like Karl Marx thought Ideas only mattered in relation to Material Reality, Jews believe matters of the soul make sense only in relation to the matters of the body. So, if Christian spirit seeks to rise above the body — indeed, Christianity was about distilling and separating the spirituality inherent in Judaism from its tribal body — , the Jewish spirit seeks the most perfect union with the Jewish body. If Chinese came to regard their domain as the Middle Kingdom, Jews regard their Tribe as the Middle People. No matter where Jews are, they are the center of the universe due to the Covenant. In this sense, the Jewish Way is far more powerful than the Chinese Way. The latter is territorial-bound(meaning Chinese-ness means little or nothing outside China), whereas Jewishness is front-and-center for Jews no matter where they are because what-they-are always trumps where-they-are. Take Henry Kissinger. He was willing to shake hands with everyone and cut any deal. A mere satanic nihilist or gangster-thug? He could act in such manner, but all said and done, his ultimate goal was in service of Jewish Power. So, if a goy satanist serves the Devil, the Jewish satanist makes the Devil serve the Covenant. In the Faustian pact, the goy surrenders his soul to the Devil for momentary triumph. In the Talmudic pact, the Jew shakes hands with the Devil to secure Jewish power for the long haul.

Paradoxically, white Christians, Post-Christians, and Neo-Christians, whose mental habits and outlooks are far more moralistic than that of Jews, are morally enthralled with Jews whose way is far more opportunistic and strategic, shamelessly shaking hands with both angels and demons, both ultimately in service of Tribal Power. Why would this be? Wouldn't the morally purist feel judgmental toward the morally pragmatic or compromised? It's like the judge looks down on the gangster. But the drawback of being a purist is being prone to feel more sensitive about one's own shortcomings and failings(regarded as betrayals). A gangster is shameless in his criminality, whereas a judge charged of accepting bribes becomes a figure of disgrace. In THE GODFATHER PART 2, Kay is judgmental toward Michael, and she can get away with it because she herself is without guilt. She plays no part in the family enterprise, and her hands are clean. Even the aborting/killing of her own son was to end the sinister 2,000 yr Sicilian Thing. So, she doesn't feel bad about judging Michael, and he has no moral defenses against her. The purist has the advantage as long as he/she has clean hands. If indeed the history of Christianity had been pristine in its spirituality and morality, Christians could easily judge and condemn Jews. But imagine if Kay herself had taken part in the family business and got blood on her hands as well, like Lady Macbeth. Then, her purism would seem worse in reeking of hypocrisy. One thing for sure, Christian History has been a bloody, corrupt, and monstrous affair(like all other histories), but it's much easier to bait Christian Guilt because Christianity is far more moralistic and purist than either Judaism and Islam. Judaism always maintained, "Do whatever is good for Jews", and Islam always maintained, "Kick lots of butt to spread Islam." In contrast, the religion of 'Turn the Other Cheeks' piled up dead bodies like any other. Because of this discrepancy between Christian purism and Western gangsterism, the Christian mind is likely to feel more self-loathing precisely because it's more self-righteous. This is quite evident among the post-Christian 'woke' whites who are so utterly self-righteous and self-loathing at the same time.
Other than the fact that Judaism is as morally shameless(at least vis-a-vis goyim) as Christianity is shameful(of its failings), the Jewish control of media and key institutions has allowed Jews to concoct a new cult around Shoah, aka Holocaustianity, that would have us believe that the entire history of Jews and white goyim has been one of innocent and wise Jews having been set upon by white Christians burning with utterly irrational fantasies about Jews, and this eventually led to the mass-crucifixion of Jews in the Holocaust as new christs. Initially, the victorious Allied powers readily accepted the New Narrative as it seemed mainly anti-German. As Germany had been seen as the main threat to the European Order dominated by UK, France, and Russia, it seemed like a good idea to use the Shoah to guilt-bait the Germans and keep them weak militarily forever. But these victor-goyim didn't know what the Jews really had in store for them. Initially, the Germans would be blamed but then the blame would spread like a forest fire and accuse ALL Europeans of either collaboration, cowardice, or apathy. In time, all the West came to share in the guilt, and they felt compelled to showcase their philosemitic bona-fides in ever more delirious ways to prove that, at they very least, they were better than the Germans. In time, France and UK went from pride of having defeated evil Nazi Germany to the shame of not having done enough to prevent Hitler and contain Germany.

It's far easier for a chess player to master checkers than a checkers player to master chess. It's no wonder the Jewish chess-mind easily understands and toys with the white goy mind, whereas the white checkers-mind doesn't seem able to grasp the essence of the Jewish Mind. In a nutshell, body-and-soul folks will win over body-vs-soul people. Jews seek "body + soul = covenant", whereas Christians seek "soul - body = salvation". Jewish Way is more in tune with nature and culture, whereas the Christian way is ultimately negating of life and worldly power. For those who say, "But Christian World once produced lots of babies and grew in power," it was due to Hypochristianity that took some moral/spiritual guidance from the Faith but hardly heeded it in worldly affairs.
The Christian mind thinks in binaries of Good vs Evil, and of course 'good' and 'evil' are defined and determined not by the ranks of the Faithful(as most of them are either dumb or anemic) but by the controllers of the institutions that decide on the Narratives, Icons, and Idols. So, the content can change even as the mindset remains intact. Christians used to believe homosexuality was devilish and evil. Today, most Mainline types believe homosexuality is divine whereas 'homophobia' is evil. Jews figure, "Why alter the Christian mental structure when WE Jews control the contents?" It's like, given the dog's mentality, it can be made to hunt the rabbit or hug it. Dog 'thinks' in terms of 'affection' or 'attack'. It is the master who decides whether a dog should be nice to something or bite it to death. For most of Christian history, anti-Jewish Christian elites dominated the content of Christianity. They told their flock, "Jews killed Jesus, Jews must convert." So, the Christian community was united against Jewish power. Today, Jews control the content of Western Thought, of which Christianity is a part(and no longer the dominant one but one that follows the media and academia controlled by Jews). Thus, Christian mindset has been turned against itself. The purist witch-hunting mentality still exists among Christians, neo-christians, and post-christians, but it's been turned against 'anti-semites', 'homophobes', 'xenophobes', and the like. Jews can get away with stuff like this because the white mentality, shaped for so long by Christianity, sees the world in terms of binaries, or like a game of checkers.
In contrast, the Jewish chess-like mentality thinks along the lines of 'triangulation', which was Henry Kissinger's favorite way of manipulating world affairs and events. Of course, goy elites were well-aware of the 'triangulation' strategy and used it themselves, but it went against the Christian ethos of straight Good vs Evil. Also, as the goy elites were kings and noblemen rooted in warrior code, there was the matter of honor, a straight face-to-face battle against the enemy. Though foot-soldiers bore the brunt as cannon fodder in wars, the fact is many officers died in World War I. They didn't just send men into battle but led the charge. Thus, many upper-class folks also lost their sons in the war. It was about honor, a notion that is laughable to Jews. In the game of checkers, all pieces are equal and take part in the fight. In chess, some pieces are more expendable. Pawns are the most expendable and moved first on the board. The more powerful pieces remain behind and are mobilized later. And the King rarely joins the battle and is mostly protected. Unlike English officers who believed it was their duty to die with their men(or go down with the ship), Jews think, "Let the idiot goyim fight and die as pawns, knights, bishops, rooks, and even the queen. We Jews are the king and protect ourselves and persuade idiot goyim to fight for us." It's been said Israel has one of the best militaries in the world, but notice how Jews rarely employ it in battle and instead urge US to expend its goy military to fight the 'enemies' of Israel. Jews are the masters of 'leading from behind', and goy idiots are all enthused about 'following at the front'. Ideally, Christianity wants to turn everyone into a good Christian. Everyone is to be of One Mind and, as an equal among equals with the blessings of Jesus, he is to join forces with fellow Christians to convert the whole world. It's sort of like INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, and who knows, perhaps Jews see the BODYSNATCHERS as an allegory of Christians trying to rob Jews of what makes them unique, eccentric, and different. Christianity is about creating a world of spiritual equality where all have been converted to Christ. Thus, no person or no group is higher than any other. In contrast, Jewishness is about the hierarchy of spirituality where the Jewish soul(and body) is the highest whereas goyim either have lesser souls or no souls at all. No wonder Stanley Kubrick was interested in military affairs with its ranks and hierarchy. At the bottom are the expendable soldiers, like the ones in FULL METAL JACKET. Higher up, there are the officers, and at the top are the generals. But even higher than the generals are the strategists, like the devious figure in PATHS OF GLORY who plays everyone like pieces on a chessboard. He is rather like Henry Kissinger who could seem like an ally, friend, or confidante to anyone who would listen to him but who, in his innermost core, was a Jewish Supremacist. In the end, Nixon was far more expendable than him. Most of so-called 'woke' idiots are just pawns. Bob Dylan and many Jewish leftists in the early 60s sang anti-war songs and warned regular Americans that they were just 'a pawn in the game'. Back then, many Jews felt an affinity with the USSR(where Jewish Bolsheviks had come to some prominence) and regarded the US military & deep state to be dominated by right-wing 'antisemitic' reactionary types. But today, Jews control the deep state, and the last thing they want goyim to think is that they are mere pawns in the mind-game and power-game played by Jews. Jews want goy pawns to remain stupid pawns.

It's been said Jews are parasitic, but white goyim have also been parasitic in their own way. Goy noblemen weren't forced to recruit Jews to serve as 'money-changers'. They outsourced the 'dirty work' to others because they preferred to hunt and attend dance parties. Jews exploited this, but the goy elites used the Jews to exploit their own subjects.
But goyim are vampiric in another way. The denial of one's own body in Christianity made Christians hungry for The Body. But body-centrism was associated with sinful paganism, especially with Greeks and Romans with their nude figures(and activities). Pagans proudly flashed their private parts, even if flaccid in most sculptures. In contrast, images of Jesus were associated with the torment of the body. Jesus didn't take pride in the body but rose above its fall. And unlike with pagan gods, Jesus images didn't feature His pud or buns. Despite the Scriptures recalling how the Romans stripped Him naked, the paintings show the private parts covered.
The Christian hankering for the body led them back to paganism via the Renaissance, but because Christianity had a troubled relation to paganism as mythos and practices, the neo-paganist expression was justified by emphasizing the figures in the Bible. Thus, the Jewish Body was 'paganized' and revered as objects of quasi-idol-worship. Or, more precisely, the 'Aryan' body was labeled as Jewish. Take the statue by Michelangelo of David. It's clearly an 'Aryan' figure(much like Charlton Heston's Moses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) but the features are ascribed to a Jewish figure who probably looked more like Adam Sandler or Bob Dylan. Renaissance artists brought back the idolization of Aryan features but 'redeemed' as reverent depictions of Semites in the Holy Scriptures.
Unable to take pride in their own bodies, the Christians outsourced the pride of body to a combination of Semitism and Aryanism. Old Testament made for better subject material for heroic representation because it was about kings and warriors as well as about prophets and wise-men. Moses was like a general who led an army of Hebrews. Samson was a tough guy. David was a warrior-king. There was some fight in the Old Testament, the power of muscle. In contrast, the New Testament is ultimately about the destruction of Jesus's body at the hands of Jews and Romans. It's tragic but not heroic.
As a result, Christians became vampiric toward Jews in a way. In the Old Testament, the body still mattered as a force of power, justice, and good. Ideally, Christianity was about 'turn the other cheek' and rejection of flesh in search of spiritual truth. But human nature within Christians made them crave the body just the same. It's like the Apathetics in ZARDOZ are vampiric toward Zed's virile body. And today, whites are vampiric toward Jews and blacks. Whites, deprived of pride of tribal/racial identity, leech off on Jewish nationalism for vitality. (But then, it's mutual vampirism as Jews exploit the white thirst for Jewish nationalism and turn it into unconditional support for Israel and praise for Jews. A kind of symbio-vampirism.) Whites, denied of triumph in sports by black dominance, get their kicks by cheering for black athletes and identify with bad-boy rappers. (Again, it's mutually vampiric as whites leech off black victories while blacks leech off white money.)

Well, what is to be done about all this? Who knows as to where to begin? But we can make a few observations and pose a few questions that may lead us in the right path.

For example, consider the pride of the Hick Jew and compare it with the shame of the Hick Goy. One reason for the White Demise is putting class/status above identity-individuality. So, when small town 'hick' whites get some higher education and spend time in the big city, they soon turn against their small town background and folks, dismissing them as small-minded, bigoted, and ignorant. Now, given that there's much to learn in college and to experience in the big city, this is understandable. Still, if white folks had a powerful sense of identity and individuality, they would retain a pride of self, memory, and community. But as they don't, they are eager to abandon all vestiges of their hick-ness and be accepted into respectable community. This is why so many Southern elites became such worthless cuck maggots. They got some fancy education at an Ivy League college and spent time in affluent and 'sophisticated' cities and feel they are above Southern small-town hicks who are still into the Confederate flag and folk culture. This is what National Socialism understood. Even as modernity was inevitable and unstoppable in the 20th century, a people mustn't forget their volkish roots. Modern educated folks gravitate to cities of glass and steel, but they mustn't forget their origins in blood and soil, the volkish thing. Jews spit on such notions, but they are hypocrites because they have long understood and appreciated the power of volkish culture among themselves. Indeed, what did the Bible do but anchor Jews in volkish culture of their ancestors? And what is THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF about but Jewish sense of volk? Jews in the Pale of Settlement emigrated to the US and became affluent urban folks, BUT the musical reminds Jews, "This is our roots, don't be ashamed of it, and never forget where you came from." Pauline Kael said it's one of the most powerful movies ever made despite trying to downplay its Jewishism and pretending the message is essentially 'American', but who was she kidding? If it has any power, it derives from the unmistakably volkish expression of Jewishness.

And given her family business of chicken-farming, she probably identified on some level with its rural setting. But the Jew isn't only grounded in the soil(and he better not be as he lives in exile in goy lands) but connected to the Heaven. The fiddler who follows the Jewish milkman around is like a conduit to God. The archetype resurfaces in Coen Brothers' A SERIOUS MAN with the antennae on the roof. An antennae that picks up neo-divine signals beamed all across America. Its power is both threatening and empowering to Jews. Threatening because Jewish households will also become addicted to TV with its generic deracinating fare, and yet empowering because Jews control the media and get to pick the idols, images, and narratives of Good vs Evil. Indeed, mass media have been mostly deracinating for whites but often 'racinating' for Jews as news and entertainment usually demean any expression of white identity as 'white supremacism' while consecrating any expression of Jewishness as holy, wise, wonderful, ennobling, and/or endearing.

https://www.haaretz.com/life/television/.premium-why-topol-is-winning-the-israel-prize-1.5349601

https://forward.com/culture/145862/pauline-kael-left-jewish-imprint-on-criticism/

Because of the volkish hick pride among Jews, they are stronger than white goyim who so easily succumb to anxiety of status-deficiency. It's so often the case that a small town white goy totally abandons his roots and background after getting his college degree and living in some globo-homo town. His main desire is to be accepted and approved by the 'better kind of people'. No hick pride among goyim. THE GREAT GATSBY offers a glimpse of the goy mentality. There is nothing there in Gatsby except the dream of belonging, being accepted, being loved. Everything he does is on the basis of how Daisy and her better-kind-of-people will think of him.
In contrast, consider figures such as Ayn Rand, Pauline Kael, Bob Dylan, the Coen Brothers, and etc. Now, these folks aren't exactly hicks in the literal sense. They were of middle class or upper-middle class background and were pretty learned(or at least well-educated by the standards of the time). But relatively speaking, they were 'hick' Jews compared to those already well-established in the financial/cultural capitals of the world. And yet, Dylan had all the pride in the world. He didn't look up to NY-ers as his superior. He thought HE knew best and toyed with them. Kael's chicken-farming background didn't make her feel inferior to New York elites with far more illustrious backgrounds. She wrote her heart out and never for approval. And Ayn Rand, though from Russia, thought she knew America better than Americans did and began to berate them on what's what. Coens, like Dylan, came from some town in Minneapolis but never felt any inferiority toward those in NY, LA, or any bigger city. Deep down inside, they got some of that volkish 'hick' pride.
Even though everyone is mindful of class, status, and such things to an extent, some have a sense of worth and pride that is independent of social rank. Whites need to regain this hick-ish sense of volkish pride. This pride is a combination of both individuality and identity. Jews are both more individualist and more identitarian than whites. Unlike whites who tend to see the world in binaric terms of 'individuality' vs 'identity', Jews think in terms of 'individual' and 'identity', just like Jews fuse body and soul together in the Covenant. Some whites think that because Jews are big on identity, they must be weak on individuality. But this isn't so. Figures like Bob Dylan and Philip Roth showed one could be big on identity and individuality. (Even when Jews say they are proud Americans, they really mean, "We Jews are proud of having taken over America and using it for our tribal ends." It isn't so much a pride of belonging to America as of America belonging to the Tribe.) The problem with National Socialism was it sacrificed individuality on the altar of identity. Thus, all those Germans, robbed of their individuality, became mindless minions of Hitler who led them to war. Had they retained their individuality within an order dedicated to identity, they would have told Hitler to bugger off when the Fuhrer got too itchy for war and aggression.

Consider the Eastern European Jews in relation to the Anglo-Germanic Jews who'd arrived in the US earlier and were well-established in their own right. One would think the later-arriving Eastern European Jews would have been obsequious to the richer and better established Anglo-German Jews, but the hickish Eastern European Jews were full of chutzpah and, if anything, often ridiculed the fancy-pants Jews for their aspirational pretensions. They retained hick pride. Compare that to German-Americans who totally cucked and abandoned all their Germanness to be accepted into Anglo-America. Even though UK had no good reason to enter WWI and US even less so, the Anglo World declared war on Germany in World War I. And what did German-Americans do? Most of them cucked like maggots and sucked up to Anglos. Had they retained their hick-volkish pride, they would have done everything to prevent the insane war between Anglos and Germans. They would have done everything to bring the Anglo world and Germanic world closer together as equal partners. But they chose to be subordinate to the Anglos. It goes to show that Germans, when push comes to shove, care more about status and class than blood and soil. The good thing about National Socialism was it understood the worth of blood and soil, but its suppression of individuality meant lack of criticism of Der Fuhrer who in time turned the movement into a personality cult. Eastern European Jews didn't suck up to Anglo-German Jews, but German-Americans sucked up to Anglo-Americans(who in time sucked up to Jewish-Americans). Now, one might defend status-and-class in terms of meritocracy. After all, the more talented rise higher in society, and if one prioritizes class/status over tribe/race, it translates into ability > identity. And favoring ability over identity means less corruption as rewards are based on skill and achievement. So far so good. But what if the most capable group not only wins via meritocracy but uses identity as a focal point to expand their power? While Jews certainly gained much via real ability and achievement, they also use their great wealth to pull all manner of dirty tricks and profit from corruption. But in the minds of whites, the mental picture of 'Jewish Ability = Jewish Power' has led to an idolization of Jews to the point where they cannot be criticized for anything. So, in the end, Anglo rejection of identity didn't lead to abandonment of identity in favor of ability among all groups but to the protection of corruption and abuse of Jewish Power. Also, racial differences are bound to lead to the breakdown of meritocracy in a diverse society. On meritocratic grounds, blacks cannot compete well with Jews, whites, and Asians in the more cerebral fields. So, blacks resort to identity politics to get their 'share of the pie', and since non-blacks are either too 'nice' or too afraid to point out that blacks lag behind due to innate inferiorities in brain power, elaborate excuses are cooked up to excuse black failure. This is useful to Jews in promoting 'white guilt', which Jews manipulate to make whites support Jewish tyranny in the Middle East.

Now, I'm not saying being an ignorant-hick-bumpkin is a good idea. No need for white folks to be like the backwoods backdoor homos in DELIVERANCE. Still, the sight of status-anxious white people sucking up to whatever is deemed 'socially acceptable' or 'culturally trendy' is sickening. It's the same with the Japanese and other East Asians who, upon separation from their roorts and/or cultures, only show eagerness to gain the acceptance of the Prevailing Power and Narrative. It goes to show that most goyim have weak identities. (Perhaps Hindus are different in that Hinduism is an ethno-religion like Judaism though it's about Karma-and-Dharma than about the Covenant.) Jews have hick pride because even a Jew from the relative 'backwoods'(Minnesota than L.A., Russia or Poland than UK or US, etc.) has the pride of heritage and identity. Even if he or she is less learned, less well-read, less sophisticated, and less-whatever, he or she feels equal to the fancy Jew because his/her identity as a Jew is equal to any Jew. In GREAT EXPECTATIONS, Pip is so eager to be a gentleman and accepted by good society. He feels inferior as a lad from a poor family and later superior as a gentleman with high expectations. His sense of worth is based on prestige of class and station. Contrast the hick-shame of Pip with the hick-pride of Harpo.

Even though Jews were also eager to rise up class ranks, their core sense of worth was based on something else. Even the milkman in THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF is a proud Jew. This goes to show that the class-centric analysis of Karl Marx didn't really apply to Jews. Whether rich or poor, Jewish Consciousness was always Tribe-first, Class-second. Thus, Jewish hickery has a hardy pole to wrap itself around. In contrast, because whites have a weaker core identity, their hickery is just attitude and habits, easily abandoned once whites get some fancy learning and sophistication. Consider how weak all the white national identities turned out to be in the US. What happened to the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Swedes, and etc? They are now just generic 'white'. If certain white identities continue to retain a certain distinction, it's more about food or behavior than heritage. Italians, for instance, are associated with the mafia. Poles with 'dumb polack jokes'. Germans with bratwurst and beer. Swedes with toothless do-goodiness. (Besides, does class have any real value other than wealth and privilege nowadays? There was a time when the upper classes held prestige because of their engagement with important ideas, high art, and serious culture. They were well-read in philosophy, appreciative of great works of literature-music-arts, and had a wider & deeper understanding of culture from its ancient roots to modern times. But what is the Big Idea among the educated elites in our time? There are 50 genders, Bruce Jenner with penis-and-balls is a 'woman', George Floyd is St. George, homo fecal-penetration is like the rainbow, diversity-inclusion-equity is holy mantra, a newly arrived Negro from Africa is an Irishman or Swede, Russia is evil because it builds churches than celebrates homos & trannies, purple hair & tattoos are 'cool', and BLACK PANTHER is the greatest movie ever made. How can anyone take this seriously? How can anyone feel culturally or intellectually inferior to such lunacy?)

So, what is to be done? One promising idea is something like the Bar Mitzvah for white goyim. The bogus-logus man E. Michael Jones simply doesn't understand the meaning of A SERIOUS MAN by the Coen Brothers. Coens are not nihilists, and their portrayal of the Jewish community in Minnesota is affectionate and endearing, not damning and contemptuous, as Jones argues.

DECAMERON | E. MICHAEL JONES: A SERIOUS MAN

The Jewish folks in the movie are distinct from goyim in certain ways, but they are also very much like other Americans. They keep up with the Joneses, and their kids are also into youth culture and even counterculture. And yet, despite all that, what sets the Jews apart from others? It's the Covenant passed down via rituals such as Bar Mitzvah. So, while the Asian student and his father are into passing exams and careerism(aka status) and the white father and his kid are into guns and hunting(like lumpen variation of noblemen or adventurers), the Jewish father and his son are into the continuity of the fusion of identity, culture, and heritage. The First Emotion of whites is the action, the fight, the hunt, the adventure, the conquest. Without action, whites sink like a shark, and become pale, anemic, and conformist. It's about the pride of initiating the son toward the first kill(or toward high school sports). The First Emotion of Asians is prestige, acceptance, and status. Everything else is secondary. It's about 'my son became a doctor.' While some Jews relish adventure and plenty of Jews prize prestige & status, their First Emotion is centered around the Covenant, and even many Jews who, in their youth, gave up identity and heritage, eventually return to them. When wayward whites finally return to Jesus, their white identity grows ever weaker. But when wayward Jews return to the Covenant, their identity gains in power.
Deracination is something faced by all peoples in the modern world. Consider the character Enid in GHOST WORLD. Her father is a deracinated Jew who eats bagels with grape jelly. He's a weak beta male with no will or control over her daughter who is lost and confused and seeks meaning from various forms of pop culture and sub-cultures. Some Jews do fall by the wayside and never find their way back. But for Jews who do choose to find a way back, there is a sense of heritage and home. In contrast, while Christianity offers a community, it doesn't provide a sense of home and heritage as it's a Faith for all peopled for all places. One has to know one's own history and heritage to be Jewish. In contrast, an Irishman doesn't have to know or feel anything Irish to be a good Christian. Catholics may point to the Communion and such rituals as a form of acculturation for their children, but what does a Catholic gain in terms of identity and heritage via religious rituals? Nothing, Zilch, Nada. After all, whereas Bar Mitzvah is only for people of Jewish ethnicity(and Hindu rituals are for those born Hindu), Catholic rituals aren't unique to any tribe, nationality, or race. They are performed for and practiced by anyone who is a Catholic, and it could be an Irishman, Italian, Nigerian, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, or etc.

So, it is about time white folks bid farewell to Christianity(unless they can formulate a clever and useful kind of Christo-Realism). White folks must understand that the so-called New Covenant of Christianity isn't a Covenant at all. It is a contract and applies only to individuals. It doesn't apply to a people, ethnicity, or race. All Jews are part of the Covenant because of their ancestry, culture, and understanding of their duties & destiny. In contrast, even if one' is born of Christian parents, one isn't part of the Christian 'covenant' until one, as an individual, seeks out God, is baptized, and goes through such-and-such rituals. The contract doesn't pass from parents to children by blood as Christianity is about the spirit, not the body. Jewish Covenant is passed down and inherited. The Christian contract must be 'renewed' by every newborn individual. Also, as this contract is available to anyone who would accept Christ, it has no value in strengthening one's own people against others. After all, if your side is for Christ and the other side is also for Christ, which side does Christ favor? Christianity was never about choosing sides. Jesus appealed to individuals. Each individual must seek salvation, and success or failure depends on his individual effort. So, the Christian message is a heart-to-heart thing between God/Jesus and man-as-individual. So, if there's people A and people B, Jesus would never choose people A over people B or vice versa. Even if there were more Christians among people A than among people B, Jesus wouldn't favor people A against people B. Rather, he would favor the individuals among people A and people B who've signed His contract.
In contrast, the Jewish Covenant is about God favoring Jews as a people. It's also about Jews having to favor fellow Jews over goyim. According to the Covenant, God favors deeply flawed Jews over very nice goyim. And Jews feel obligated to favor not-so-good Jews over very good goyim. Notice how Jews even got Jonathan Pollard sprung from jail. They stick together. Indeed, the practice of pardoning prisoners in the US has turned into rich Jews using money to make whore politicians release Jewish crooks. Jews are so tribal-protective of Jewish bodies that they pulled all the stops to save Leo Frank even though he raped and murdered a child. In the Jewish Mind, the life of a Jewish murderer has more value than the life of a good goy, just like humans treat a bad human better than a good animal. Jews also did everything to prevent the executions of Leopold and Loeb. In a way, what Jews find intolerable is not so much the death of a Jew as the death of a Jew by goy hands. After all, Leopold and Loeb killed a Jewish child, and they would have been stoned to death by fellow Jews in earlier times. But Jews didn't want to see Jews killed by goyim. That's why Jews were livid with rage over the deaths of the Rosenbergs. Sure, the Rosenbergs were spies for the USSR, but how dare the filthy lowly goyim snuff out Jewish lives? If Jews must die, let it be Jews who do the killing. It's like blacks don't mind blacks killing blacks but get deeply offended when whites kill blacks. They react like aristocrats to the death of a nobleman at the hands of a peasant.

Christianity offers no higher vision than salvation of the individual. Consider BEST INTENTIONS, the film based on Ingmar Bergman's script. Bergman hated his father, a cruel and hypocritical Lutheran minister. Bergman identified Christianity with the failure of his father as individual. He didn't think of Christianity as a link between his father and all his ancestors. His father's spiritual failure made Bergman hostile to Christianity. In contrast, because Judaism is about a history and a people, a Jewish son is far less likely to be condemnatory and dismissive of the whole culture on the basis of his father's failure as a Jew. Jewishness is about history than biography. So, if a Jewish father was a bad Rabbi, that was his personal failing and doesn't reflect on the deep and rich history of Rabbis and the Jewish tradition. In contrast, salvation in Christianity depends entirely on an individual's virtue and piety before God and Jesus. Thus, his failure is total, and salvation is denied. Though Bergman's father remained a man of God all his life, he was a wretched failure in his son's eyes because of the cruelty, sadism, and overall hypocrisy. Had Bergman been Jewish and grown up under a nasty Rabbi, he could have hated his father but still honored the tradition of Rabbis. But as Christianity is about the salvation of individual or individuated souls, Bergman came to see his father's failure as abject and absolute, badly reflecting on the entire faith.

Because Christianity is about individual contracts, it can never bring the race together. It can even set people of the same race against one another through sectarian differences: Catholics vs Protestants, Protestant sect vs Protestant sect. Also, in these secular times, Christianity only applies to white Christians than to the white race(unlike in the past when Christianity was almost synonymous with white identity, power, and prestige). In contrast, because Jewishness is as ethnic as spiritual, even secular Jews are welcomed into the Tribe. But, no matter how white you are, white Christians won't welcome you unless you follow Christ(who doesn't favor any race or group).

This is why white folks need to embark on a prophetic search to seek a covenant for the white race. A unique covenant like what the Jews have. Those who speak of the Old Covenant(Jews) and the New Covenant(Christians) are missing the point. Jewish Covenant is a real covenant, and it is about the Jewish People and God. The so-called Christian Covenant is really just a series of individual contracts with God. This contract doesn't apply to the entire race, not even to the entire family. Jesus picks winners on an individual basis regardless of race, creed, or color. So, Judaism vs Christianity is really one between collective covenant vs individual contract. And the former is bound to be much more powerful and resilient. What whites folks need is to seek out the Ultimate Power(Biblical or otherwise) and receive the covenant(or make it up in an inspired manner). This covenant would be between only the Ultimate Power and the white race. (If other races want their own covenant, let them find it in their own fashion with the Ultimate Power. One Ultimate Power but many covenants. Why not? There is only one sun but each piece of land has a unique relation to it based on the angle of light.) And each white ethnicity could have a sub-covenant within the larger white covenant. Just like there were Twelve Tribes of Israel, each white ethnicity could count as a tribe within the Larger Tribe of European-ness.

Once this is established and secured, then comes the methodology of acculturating young whites into the Race. In other words, it isn't enough to be born white; one must 'become' white with the true understanding of what it means to be white. It's like it isn't enough to be born Jewish or Hindu; children must undergo the stages of understanding and appreciating their identities and its traditions and obligations. And whites can come up with something even better than Bar Mitzvah, which is a one-time thing where the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man.
Instead of a single ritual, the white covenant could encompass three rites of passage. When the child is 10, when he is 14, and when he is 18. Three ritualistic reminders of what he is and where he came from. And instead of just celebrating the birthday for the child, celebrate conception day as well. Then, you have two days a year to remind him of his origins. Sex should also be ritualized as a form of becoming. A white person comes to full spiritual-and-physical whiteness when he or she performs reproductive sex with another white person in wedlock. Of course, it is also time to come up with a new institution binding man and woman together. Jews killed the concept of marriage by associating it with homo fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. If white folks or goyim have any inspiration and imagination, they should let the homos and trannies have the soiled and befouled institution of marriage and come up with a new concept that only applies to unions in accordance and harmony with nature and morality among white folks. An institution in tune with nature & morality and meant only for the white race.

Another key to white survival and revival needs to be a book or The Book. The Bible is a great book and part of world literature and all that, but no matter how one slices and dices it, it is the story of the Jews. So, even though all peoples should read it and learn from it, it's rather ridiculous for Europeans to refer to the Bible as if it's their history. The way so many Christian folks talk, you'd think they are the descendants of Abraham, Moses, David, and etc. They are not. European folks have roots in paganism. So, the White Book has yet to be written. But imagine such a book existing and imagine every true white family owning one and using it as source of reference and guide. Imagine white kids being raised and acculturated through such a book. This book wouldn't merely be an anthology of great Western literature and ideas as such are dime-a-dozen and easy to find. Anthologies are useful but hardly works of inspiration. Jews created the Bible by adopting influences from other culture and re-imagining their narratives. The Bible is much more than compendium of whatever Jews found worthy. It is the product of a creative project. Muhammad took elements of Judaism, Christianity, and elements of Arab culture and reimagined them in the creation of the Koran. Bob Dylan took various themes and threads of American musical culture, high literature, and Jewish sensibility when he created BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME. One can easily assemble yet another anthology of great works of Western literature and philosophy, but it would be just one more of the same old same old. But what if someone or a group of men(and women) can come together and interweave various the European threads together into an flowing narrative? Show how the 'twelve tribes' of whites differ and yet share a common destiny, from Odysseus to Arthur to the unsung Common Man. If such a work could be created and utilized as spiritual-cultural-moral-historical-mythic reference and guide in every true-blue white home, things could really change.
But what do white people have these days? Some still cling to the Bible, but it's really Jewish history and Jewish imagination. Even the New Testament is the work of Jewish vision and genius. Everyone should read it and appreciate it, but white people need to think twice before accepting it as their history or guide. The Torah or Old Testament is Jewish history. As for the New Testament, it's Jewish vision and furthermore meant for all mankind. Therefore, whites have no special claim to Christianity despite the rich historical ties between the Faith and Europe. But that owes to the accident of history than the will of Jesus and the Apostles.
So, as long as white folks cling to the Bible, they are enslaved or at the very least subordinate to the imagination of another people. It also makes them vampiric as their reliance on Jewish Imagination suggests they are incapable of comparable imagination. But if an Arab like Muhammad could do it, why can't whites?
People like Andrew Torba and Nick Fuentes seek unity between white identity and Christianity, but those can at best be mixtures, not compounds. At the core, they repel one another because Christianity has no favorites in terms of race or tribe whereas white identity is rooted in evolution, biology, and history.
As for people like Ryan Dawson and Adam Green, they attack Jewishness and Zionism for the tribalism and nationalism, but if such are wrong for Jews, the implication is it's morally wrong for all other groups as well. But all cultures are largely the product of myths and lore. They aren't rational. So, an attack on the irrationality of Judaism or Jewishness is tantamount to an attack on all cultures which are equally irrational at their roots. Furthermore, the moral failure of Zionism owes to hubris, imperialism, and contempt than its tribal content. Zionists could have chosen the nationalist model and could have sought to live peacefully with their neighbors. But they embarked on the hegemonic path like the Nazis.

Not that neo-pagans are much better. Too many of them have a childish take on paganism. They think it's about fun with witchcraft or dancing around campfires butt-naked. Or, they are fans of pagan gods revived as superhero comic characters. And some have gone neo-nazi. Now, one remarkable thing about Adolf Hitler was he had mega-chutzpah, the kind to match that of any Jew. And the National Socialists must be credited with an attempt to re-imagine the Western Vision for the modern world. But all said and done, they failed not only in war but in the field of imagination.
Then, the proper thing is to do it the right way with fresh imagination. But neo-nazi types have no ideas or visions of their own and just repeat the tired and/or discredited views of the Nazis. If one must take inspiration from Hitler, the lesson is "Do your own thing." Hitler did his own thing. He did it his way. So, if there is something to take from him, the new white identitarians must learn to do their own thing and imagine their own future than copying the homework from the Nazis that, in the end, despite some notable successes, got a big fat F in the History Book.

WHY ISRAEL IS THE JEWISH ISIS - Syrian Girl