Will the Historical Dialectics of the US Invasion/Occupation and Taliban Resistance lead to the Synthesis of Better Afghanistan? — The Inadvertent, even Absurd, Fortunes of Historical Tragedies

FALL OF AFGHANISTAN IS NOW | WHY AMERICA FAILED

https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/forever-war-benefiting-afghans-follow-the-money/

The Afghan War was tragic for Afghans in many ways. But less so than many wars. For one thing, there wasn't much to destroy in Afghanistan. It wasn't like Germany or Japan smashed in World War II. Also, whatever had been standing had already been reduced to rubble in the long wars in the 1980s(when Soviets were there) and in the ensuing 'civil wars' among the tribes and factions. Also, Taliban were hardly great builders. They kept the country at the medieval level. Taliban folks were content to be backward, which they conflated with faith and piety. Even though the US invasion was initially brutal with devastating air strikes, it wasn't long-lasting because there really wasn't much to bomb and the Taliban soon scattered to the four winds. With so many mountains and caves, most Taliban just fled and hid. Soon after the invasion, most of the war consisted of drone strikes and limited skirmishes. Though the drone attacks killed some innocents, the entire casualty was in the thousands. Many more Vietnamese died in a single US bombing strike under Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. So, this was hardly a genocidal kind of war, which could be said of certain chapters of the Vietnam War. Also, due to demographic dispersion and geographic barriers, the US occupation didn't unleash the bloodbath that the Iraq invasion did. In Iraq, US presence in the flat sand led to religious factions tearing each other part. There were no mountains to separate the Sunnis from the Shias. Also, whereas Afghanistan before and after US invasion had continuity in Pashtun representation, the Iraq invasion led to a sudden power shift from Sunni to Shia domination. This led to Sunni rebellion and Shia reprisals, a horrifying cycle of violence. Also, as certain Neo-Con or Zio-Con elements feared warm ties between Shia-ruled Iraq and Iran, they inflamed Sunni violence to make Arabs kill Arabs. Afghanistan, for the most part, avoided such internecine bloodbath under US occupation, at least on the scale of what took place in Iraq. If there had been no 9/11 and no US invasion, the Taliban might have remained as they were. Rigid, backward, insular, and isolated. There would have been hardly any opportunity for growth and development. This is where imperialism can do some good. Not because imperialists are good-hearted and well-meaning but because they shake things up. Would Japan or China have made progress into modernity if they weren't forced at gunpoint? Without Western Imperialist aggression, the ruling dynasties there would have suppressed any reform or change that could conceivably threaten their total grip on power. Indeed, they regarded stasis as synonymous with harmony with nature, history, spirituality, and the cosmic order of things. Only an outside force could act as catalyst for revolutionary and fundamental change, for good and ill. Though all societies evolve over time, the fact is East Asia didn't have sufficient internal spark/fuel to bring about fundamental change from within. This was also true of the Ottoman Empire that, upon falling behind the West in science and technology, simply couldn't muster sufficient energy for change. It took the traumatic defeat in World War I that forced a true transition to modernity.

Now, it'd be foolish to hope that the Taliban will ever be like the Kemalists of Turkey, or even like Gaddafi of Libya, Nasser of Egypt, or Hussein of Iraq, all of whom embarked on modern and mostly secular development, albeit in alignment with Muslim values. And we can't expect the new Taliban regime to resemble Islamic Iran that, for all its religiosity, fully adopted modern science and technology(and even most modern facets of living, minus the overt decadence). Though the worst case scenario is that the New Taliban, high on the hubristic fumes of 'victory' over the US, will revert to the old ways, it's more likely that it will be more pragmatic, worldly, shrewd, realistic, and a bit wiser. It is the dialectics of history. Old Taliban had the power but got nowhere. US invasion forced change and built much infrastructure but its influence, at once overbearing and underwhelming, didn't catch. But, some commentators are hoping that the dialectics of Taliban resistance and US reconstruction could lead to the synthesis of a New Taliban that is more savvy in politics and business. Of course, such changes are possible without foreign invasion. Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on profound changes in the Soviet Union. Maoist China made the transition to Deng-ist China, and communist Vietnam adopted market economics. But the Taliban were so anti-modern that it's unlikely they would have done much to develop the country on their own without foreign intervention on a massive scale. Though the US failed to turn Afghanistan into a compliant outpost, it did construct lots of roads, buildings, airports, and infrastructure. Yes, much of the money disappeared into the hands of corrupt politicians and 'contractors' whose only talent was for swindling Uncle Sam(and the US Military-Industrial-Complex itself is a massive racket defrauding the US tax payer). Still, in the ensuing twenty years, Afghanistan did end up with cities with many more buildings and amenities. And a new professional class did learn certain skills in governance and management(and these people are likely to keep at those jobs even under the Taliban — surely, the US can't bring all of them as refugees, and the New Taliban might actually value their skills). Prior to the US invasion, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was on friendly terms with only one major country: Pakistan. It had alienated Russia, China, Iran, and other surrounding -Stan nations. It was seen as a festering sore in the middle of Central Asia. Afghanistan didn't want anything to do with most other nations and vice versa; the feelings were mutual. And as long as it was ruled by the backward Taliban, it was hardly a threat to other countries that were far more developed and powerful. It could be ignored. Things changed with the US invasion. All of a sudden, it went from a backwoods(or back-mountain) country of ignorant nobodies to the base of US globo-imperial operations. Russia, China, and Iran feared that the US planned to use Afghanistan as part of an encircling campaign. Pakistan regarded US presence as Uncle Sam breathing down its neck. This made Afghanistan relevant and important to the neighboring countries, one deserving to be courted with special favors. BIDEN CLAIMS AFGHAN EVACUATION IS GOING SMOOTHLY, AS FOG OF WAR DESCENDS ON KABUL AIRPORT
They now had an interest in getting the US out and forging good relations with the New Taliban(if it were to come to power upon US departure). Also, the New Taliban was more likely to cut deals with Russia, China, Iran, and other nations precisely because it had gotten burned in the US invasion. Even though the New Taliban might feel a rush of hubris in the moment, the major lesson of the long occupation has been the value of humility. Though Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires, the fact is empires survived their misguided Afghan ventures. Alexandrian Empire collapsed due to other reasons. British Empire had setbacks in Afghanistan, but it was really brought down by World War I and II. Soviet Empire's collapse had little to do with Afghanistan and more with long bread lines. US empire survived setbacks in Vietnam and Iraq. So, the notion of Afghanistan as the graveyard of empires is a myth. But the fact is the invasions have turned the country into the graveyard for many Afghans. Though Afghan human losses weren't devastating under US occupation, the Taliban was pushed into subsistence in the periphery, and surely their patience was running thin(judging by the eagerness with which they acted to take control of the country upon sensing US withdrawal).

Prior to the US invasion, many in the Taliban were foolish enough to think Allah would save them. Now, they know better. They don't want to do anything to justify another US invasion(or massive aerial attack). And this means isolation isn't an option. They need constructive and mutually beneficial relations with Russia, China, and Iran as insurance against return of US imperialism. It's like the Khmer Rouge wised upon ONLY AFTER the Vietnamese invasion that forced the ultra-xenophobic and ultra-radical group to eat humble pie and adopt the pragmatic path of working with other nations to oust the Vietnamese from Cambodia. In this sense, one could argue that the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, though ill-advised and wasteful, may have inadvertently done much good for the country, that is IF the New Taliban learned the proper lessons from the dialectics of history and arrived at a more workable synthesis of diplomacy, commerce, and compromise. THE TALIBAN MEME WAR: TROLLING BIDEN & THE WEST

Element of Will and Fear-and-Respect in the Successes and Failures of Political Systems and Civilizations and What It says about the Afghan Situation — Lack of Will in South Vietnam — Imperialism's Suppression of Nationalism in Soviet and American Empires

The recent collapse of US-backed Afghan government hints at something about History. The Afghan military has lots of men and tons of the best equipment in the world supplied by the US. But after 20 yrs and 2 trillion dollars of so-called 'nation-building' by the US as the lone superpower, the Afghan Regime is crumbling like a house of cards, and there's hardly anyone around to support or defend them. US dominated with things, with material support, but not with themes, with spiritual meaning. There was talk of 'democracy', but if democracy is about majority rule, Afghan version wasn't going to be like the 'liberal West'.
Some compare the Afghan debacle with US retreat from Saigon, and indeed South Vietnam had more people and more material than North Vietnam. Even when US cut off aid to South Vietnam, it still had more than enough people and arms to fend off the North. They had lots of things but not a compelling enough theme to unite and inspire the people to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

Now, will, unity, discipline, and morale alone don't ensure victory. Germany and Japan in World War were united and hardy but still lost. In terms of iron will and determination, Germany met its match in the USSR. And Japan couldn't compete in things with the US that, furthermore, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, had all the determination, unity, and morale to destroy the 'Japs'.
Still, so much of history has been decided by the lack of will despite sufficient men and availability of resources. Somehow, the link between the elites and the masses was lost. Also, the masses no longer regarded themselves as one people united by common values and shared themes; they no longer worshiped the same gods and hated the same devils — consider there was a time when even most white Liberals worshiped God and looked upon homosexuality as a grave sin or clinical sickness.

Once a regime loses the respect for the people, the latter is less likely to follow orders from above. They are less likely to be good citizens and more likely to look out for their own interests without much sense of the public good. And once a people lose fear of the elites, they are less likely to comply with its dictates. The people of North Vietnam feared but also respected their government. It was this combination of fear and respect that made the NVA so formidable.
After all, respect alone doesn't cut it. Even if you respect a certain power, you may not choose to risk your life for the cause because it's natural for people to choose life/happiness over death/agony. Plenty of Russians saw the need to fight the Germans in the Great Patriotic War, but how many would have stuck out their necks if not for the fear of their own regime? It was patriotism against German invaders + fear of the Soviet regime that drove so many Russians to march into battle. So, respect alone isn't the magic formula. (Likewise, National Socialist Germany was so formidable because Germans both feared and respected the regime.) But then, fear alone isn't effective in the long run either. If you're operating only on fear, it's no different from bank tellers giving money to the bank robbers. It's purely motivated by fear, not loyalty or respect. Anyone can make anyone do something by holding a gun to his head. Real loyalty is when the person is willing to serve you even when you don't hold a gun to his head.
North Vietnamese feared their government but also respected its legitimacy earned from resistance against French Imperialism. This combination of fear and respect made for powerful loyalty. Also, communism, while stifling and stagnant in the long run, was a powerful tool of centralization, organization, and indoctrination in the short run. So, while the capitalist economy of South Vietnam would have far surpassed the communist economy of North Vietnam in the long run, the North had the 'spartan' advantage in the short term, the window of opportunity the North needed to prevail over the South.

The problem of the US in South Vietnam owed to its schizo nature. US did lots of terrifying things to strike fear into the enemy. Lots of bombings and terror campaigns. But the US also turned Saigon into Surf City and promoted laissez-faire-ism that made them more like tourists with guns than real soldiers. So, while the US military could be fearsome in combat, it seemed loose and lost in the urban setting. South Vietnamese soon came to navigate around Americans, who seemed to be all about dollars and cents, coca-cola and sex(and lots of drugs). Thus, the US struck fear only with bombs and bullets. They could be negotiated with. So, there was little need to fear the Americans unless one was suspected of being a Viet Cong in the rice paddies of Vietnam. As Americans came across as tourists with guns, they didn't get much respect either. Not much fear, not much respect. Hardly ingredients for loyalty.
As for the South Vietnamese regime, how could it win much respect when it relied on foreign occupation for defense of territory? ("We need to be occupied by foreigners to be protected from our own kind.") Also, American values had a destabilizing impact on South Vietnam. If American values are about freedom, then freedom in South Vietnam meant dissension and opposition to the US-backed regime. The opposition could come from not only communist elements but various other groups, idealists and opportunists alike. While a strong and stable regime could weather dissension, a weak regime could only be hobbled. Of course, US knew this and backed an authoritarian regime, but then, this seemed like a betrayal of American values. America preached freedom while propping up a 'dictatorial' system. (At the very least, the Romans who propped up Herod didn't pretend to be for freedom and liberty.) Because the system was authoritarian than totalitarian, there was just enough freedom for various groups to make trouble for the government while the government used just enough force to crack down and be labeled as tyrannical. Thus, it undermined both genuine popular participation and effective enforcement of authority.
Perhaps, in the long run, absent an existential threat(like communist-totalitarian North Vietnam), an authoritarian system of semi-freedom could work out, e.g. Taiwan evolved from authoritarianism to democracy(though it is still a political and ideological puppet of the US). But it was fatal for South Vietnam that was free enough for social chaos and repressive enough for condemnation by world opinion because of the threat of North Vietnam. This was also the problem in Latin America, though the US mostly succeeded in destroying Marxist-Leninist insurgencies there(except in Cuba and Nicaragua). US backed right-wing military regimes that allowed just enough freedom for insurgencies and used more than enough violence to alienate world opinion.

But then, the US couldn't support full totalitarianism because it would be too un-American. And US couldn't support nascent fascist regimes because they might be too independent-minded and insist upon national sovereignty, at odds with US hegemony. But then, US couldn't support a full democracy and civil society either as popular will may turn out to be Anti-American(and Anti-Jewish, not to mention Anti-Globo-Homo these days). Democracy in Chile led to the election of Salvador Allende. In Venezuela, it brought Hugo Chavez to power. So, the US usually struck deals with the kind of regime that rules Egypt today: A weak regime with just enough muscle(backed by US money and arms) to make the masses cower. Still, despite Egypt's dependence on US largesse, its government was domestically formed than installed by foreigners. The Afghan regime, in contrast, is totally the creation of the US that, by the way, didn't even bother to scour the country for the best people. Instead, they found the most pliable flunkies and third-raters willing to whore themselves out to foreigners for a price.

Nationalism is a problem for empires all over the world. Stalin was anxious about Mao's independent will. He fretted Chinese communism would ultimately challenge Soviet Communism(which did happen after Stalin's death). And Tito's independent streak led to bad blood between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Soviet Union wanted stable and forceful regimes in Warsaw Pact nations but not powerful ones(in the sense of national independence). A communist nation could abide another communist nation, but a communist empire had problems with the independent streak of other communist nations. Thus, despite their ideological affinities, there were cases of some communist regimes leaning closer to the Capitalist West as insurance against Soviet Power. Mao met with Nixon. Tito embarked on neutrality between East and West. And Ceausescu was courted by the West, especially as Romania didn't take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Ideal would be a powerful nation respecting the national sovereignty of weaker nations, and such examples are plentiful around the world. Not every powerful nation exerts muscle on weaker nations. But an empire is about a dominant power maintaining hegemony over weaker ones. Thus, the nationalism of weaker nations is seriously compromised, if tolerated at all. US spoke of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan, but it was really empire-building, a process of turning the country into a far-flung satrapy of the Zio-American Empire. It could work as long as the US empire was willing to exert its influence. But it could fail(and the Afghan regime is falling faster than we can write about it) once imperial authority is withdrawn. US didn't do any 'nation-building'. The Soviets did in the 1980s, which is why its clientele regime lasted three years even after the Soviet pullout(and may have lasted longer if not for Yeltsin's total cut off of aid, surely under US pressure).

Granted, Soviet nation-building didn't necessarily ensure survival. Even though Warsaw Pact nations were puppets of USSR, they were stable national entities with functional bureaucracies, disciplined militaries, and effective police force. But the regimes all crumbled the minute the Soviets decided to pull out. Oddly enough, the regime downfall was especially violent in Romania, relatively an independent communist nation, whereas the fall of regimes was mostly peaceful in those that had been occupied by Soviet troops. Yugoslavia, another relatively independent communist nation, also experienced extreme violence, one that actually lasted for some years. Perhaps communist nations under direct rule of the Soviet Union had zero legitimacy. The people overwhelmingly wanted something new and got it right away. In contrast, precisely because Yugoslavia and Romania had staked some claim of independence and national sovereignty from USSR, the powers-that-be were more self-assured of their survival.

Though Afghanistan is being compared with Vietnam and Soviet withdrawal, current events seem more evocative of the sudden downfall of communist regimes the minute Gorbachev declared withdrawal of Soviet Military. In a way, it was even more shocking and took the world by surprise. Whereas most predicted that the Taliban would soon regain power once the US left, most experts in the 80s thought communism would last several more decades, and many conservatives refused to believe that the Cold War was effectively over following Reagan and Gorbachev's summits.
Still, there is one key difference between the fall of communism and the fall of the Afghan regime. Even though communist as ideology was suddenly kaput, Eastern European nations continued to be ruled by many of the same people who'd been at the helm. Indeed, many former communists rebranded themselves as 'liberals', 'nationalists', or 'social democrats'. Many kept their bureaucratic posts. And some of the most powerful people of the new order were former apparatchiks. True of Russia as well. Putin was once KGB, and many people in his regime were once loyal members of the Soviet Union. In contrast, it seems everyone involved in the US-backed Afghan Regime are really out of power and scattered to the winds. Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe, but many communists rebranded themselves and held onto power and even amassed huge fortunes. No such luck for the Afghan cucks.

The problem for Eastern European nations turned out to be a case of 'out of the frying pain, into the fire'. They were relieved to be free of the Soviet Monster and expected to join the free democratic West. And who could blame them in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was decrepit economically and when communism was repressive and colorless? Also, even in the 1980s, Western Europe seemed free, reasonably patriotic, and mostly stable(especially with the tumultuous Sixties receding in the rear-view mirror). No one bleated about globo-homo. Even though the immigration problem began after WWII, Europe was still solidly European. No one back then would have thought London would turn into Londonistan or Londongo or that Germany would be ruled by someone like Angela Merkel who flung open the gates to refugee-migrant invaders. And the premier Western Power, the US, was still ruled by the 'greatest generation' types who were white and Christian. Back then, most US politicos and diplomats(other than vicious Jews) wouldn't have been appalled by someone like Viktor Orban or Polish Catholic nationalists. Though US empire had its own form of hegemony during the Cold War, the US was willing to acknowledge that different nations have different peoples, traditions, cultures, and values.
But things changed drastically when Jews took over as the new elites of the West. Also, the sacralization of the Shoah meant that Jews were to be regarded as wise men and gurus. They were the new holy men of the West, and white elites in both sides of the Atlantic listened with rapt attention at whatever the Holy Holocaust People had to say. Of course, Jewish Wisdom, for all their highfalutin talk, really amounted to, "Hmmmm, Is it good for the Jews?"

Today, the Jewish-controlled US empire cannot tolerate any powerful, independent, or genuinely patriotic leader in its satellite states. Someone like Charles DeGaulle would give the US deep state a heart attack. It has to be someone like Hollande or Macron. And look at the worthless leaders of UK, total cucks to Jews. Gone are the Christian-Democrats. All that is left are Globo-Homo-Cuckrats. If the US were still ruled by the kind of people dominant in government in the 70s and 80s, it's likely(though not for sure) that the US would have good relations with current Hungary and even Russia. But with Jews at the helm, it simply isn't possible. Jews are hostile to nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity in Russia, Poland, and Hungary for the same reason they are hostile to them in the US.

In the 80s, the newly liberated Eastern European nations were glad to be freed from the Soviet Empire and looked toward a future where they could have democracy and national sovereignty. But as Jews took over the US and gained control of Western elite minds, the whole situation turned into one big bait-and-switch. Globalism demands that Eastern European nations abandon their sovereignty, impugn their nationalism, welcome tons of Africans/Muslims, encourage sluttony among women, and plant the Jewish-Victory globo-homo flags all over, especially inside churches. We saw what Jews did to Russia by funding Pussy Riot to desecrate churches. If Taliban are purists who blow up Buddhist statues, Jews are puerilites who use anarcho-tyranny to desecrate icons and symbols sacred to white and Christian folks.

Anyway, back to the matter of will...

The Romans could still have prevented the downfall and the sack of Rome. They still had the men and the material. But they failed to. They lost the will. Russians in 1917 still could have prevented the Bolshevik takeover. Most Russians weren't that radical. But Romans had lost the heart to unite and fight.
Today, we see a similar lack of will among whites. It could be apathy, fear, confusion, disillusionment, hedonism, or whatever. But one thing for sure, so many whites are no longer willing to take action. Even white patriots in the South do NOTHING while their monuments are attacked and taken down. And white Europeans must know that endless immigration will lead to White Nakba and bring about the end of European civilization. But most of them have no will to fight for blood and land. Indeed, many welcome the destruction or replacement of their civilization as 'salvation'. And even though Jews are at the heart of the beast attacking the white race, few dare name the Jew.

Perhaps, one reason for the lack of will and general apathy/confusion is the veneer of political continuity. After all, most people in the US and Western Europe believe that they are living in the same democratic political system, the one they'd known for their entire lifetime. In the US, the democratic system is 250 yrs old. In Western Europe, it either goes back centuries or were established after WWII. And given how democracy served the US pretty well and also did wonders for post-war Europe, perhaps most whites in US and EU believe they must stick with the system.
But this is really an illusion. The Jewish takeover of the West profoundly altered the ideological and cultural landscape. The institutions may be the same, but the internals are fundamentally different. West has gone from liberal national democracy to mandatorian tribal supremacy. Western Europe and Canada can no longer be considered free or liberal. They are ruled by Jewish supremacist anarcho-tyranny. Free speech is dead in EU and Canada by Law, and it is effectively dead in the US because of deep state collusion between Jewish Big Tech, Jewish Media, Jewish Finance, Jewish control of courts & law firms, and Jewish State. And of course, Jews control academia and push stuff like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, and whatever other nonsense to neuter white identity and power.

Suppose the Catholic Church remained intact institutionally but the personnel changed from God-fearing Christians to Devil-worshiping Satanists who replaced holy icons with globo-homo symbols. From sacrament to excrement. Same church but entirely different doctrine and agenda. Of course, pope Francis is a servant of deviltry, a crypto-globo-homo psycho-freak who takes it up the arse from the Jews. Catholic Church is no longer what it is; it is now all about serving satanism.
Jewish Power maintained the shell of (liberal)democracy but altered the rules so profoundly that the West is no longer what it was. So, people need to wake up and stop believing they are living in the same democracy. It is really a 'demonocracy' controlled by Jewish supremacists. It's like Twitter isn't Twitter anymore. It appears to be the same social platform, but its Terms of Services changed so much that it can even ban the President of the US and shut down information because it doesn't comport with Jewish Supremacist 'schwience'.
It's like THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS or THE THING. In both movies, the outer features of the victims remain the same but they've been fundamentally altered at the core, at the soul-level. When idiot whites ceded power to the Jews(as the Holy Holocaust People), Jews used their shylockery to tear out the heart of the West in a ritual far more consequential than any Aztec sacrifice. And the original heart was replaced with another one, the cuck-heart. It was a stealth revolution, and unless whites wake up to this fact and Name the Jewish Supremacism, there can only be slow death for them.

TALIBAN NEGOTIATE PEACEFUL SURRENDER OF KABUL COMPLYING W/UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO MOSCOW IN JULY - Alexander Mercouris

Do Jews have a 'Psychistorical' Identification with Muslim Warriors as Modern Day Zealots? — Three Kinds of Power-Consciousness — Why Afghan War cannot be compared with Vietnam War — Futility of Liberalism when National Attempts at Liberty & Democracy are subverted by Jewish Globalist 'Liberal Intervention'

https://dailystormer.su/the-taliban-is-to-the-2020s-right-what-the-north-vietnamese-were-to-the-1960s-left/

I wonder if on some subconscious or 'psychistorical' level, Jews are happy to see the Taliban win. On the conscious level, of course many Jews are upset. After all, they are the New Pharaohs, the New Romans. Jews rule over the white race that manages the globalist empire dominated by the Tribe(and homos as proxies). So, naturally this side of Jewishness wants more power and control over the world. It will look upon the retreat as a setback... though I'm sure many Jews came to the realization that Afghanistan-as-base-for-regional-influence was overblown, indeed a liability than an asset, or a flat tire than a springboard. Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, and other -Stans managed pretty well to contain US power. Besides, US influence is more confusing to deal with in our day. In the past, it was well-understood that American Authority was mostly white and Christian. Today, US power is Jewish and globo-homo(and Jews have done everything to shame and hollow out white/Christian America), but Jews won't admit their power and outsized influence and instead maintain the charade that US, as an 'exceptional' nation, stands for the universal aspirations of all peoples. So, you have a Jewish-centric US foreign policy that claims to speak for the world. None of this makes any sense to those on the ground, especially in a profoundly Islamic country like Afghanistan. US ventures in Afghanistan are like time travel into another era. Afghanistan stands for recalcitrant medievalism or something even more backward — indeed, plenty of ancient civilizations were more sophisticated and advanced than much of Afghan society today — , whereas US stands for futurism that has gone very wrong — with all the money and might, what Americans value most are Jewish supremacism, homo vanity, tranny nuttery, black thuggery, and an ass tattoo; a world of gluttony and sluttony pretending to be a beacon of light unto the world; yeah, the lights of Las Vegas.

At any rate, even though Jews are the New Romans, their historical narrative had them as the underdogs, the guerrillas, the David(against Goliath), the Zealots, and etc. So, even as Jewish elites worked with and financed the great European and American empires, something in Jewishness also rooted for the rebels and the resistance(which may partly explain the Jewish pro-Confederacy stance). Jews regarded the Castroites and Viet Cong as the New Zealots resisting the US as the New Roman Empire. And even though Israel had overwhelming advantage in the Six Day War, the Jewish Narrative had the beleaguered Neo-Israelites fighting the New Pharaoh Nasser against all odds.
So, perhaps even modern secular 'liberal' Jews are, on some 'psychistorical' level, identifying with Muslim radicals and fundamentalists who resisted the US as the New Rome(even though Jews are the new overlords). Despite all the Jewish vs Muslim animus, the fact is the ragtag Muslim 'terrorists' and Jihadists are rather like the Jewish Zealots of the Ancient World. Jews, more than most people, resisted the Romans, and today, the biggest resisters against the New Rome are the Muslims. (The other mighty resisters against the Roman Empire were the Germanics. In a way, one could argue that Old Rome was destroyed by the double whammy of Jewish or Judeo-derived spiritual power and Germanic physical power. Christianity wiped away paganism, and Germanic barbarians sacked Rome. No wonder the biggest tensions flared up in Europe when Jewish Semites and Germanic Aryans came into co-existence in heightened acceleration of modernity. The two peoples most responsible for the demise of Old Rome and the rise of New Europe. Jews know about the power of the Aryans and went about using all their means — moral, ideological, sensual, demographic — to neuter Aryan power.)

Of course, it's good for Jewish Power that arch-Muslim nations tend to remain backward, therefore less of a threat to modern Israel. No wonder US Jews and Israel have been chummier with theocratic Saudis than with Arab modernizers like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Assad. For all the Neocon BS about how the West should spread secular 'liberal' values in the Middle East, Jews have generally supported the most extreme Muslim radicals against secular modernizers in the Middle East and North Africa. Jews prefer the Arabs to be Muslim and Weak than Modern and Strong. Jews especially hate Iran because it managed to be Modern, Muslim, and Strong. An Islamic order is harder to penetrate with subversive globalist anti-values, yet reactionary Islam holds it back from progress and advancement. When a nation goes Modern, it is far easier to subvert from the outside. Secular Turkey came under considerable influence of Globo-Homo. But could a nation choose modernity and make progress while upholding Muslim values to fend off Western globo-homo degeneracy? Erdogan's Islamic Turkey has been moving in this direction. And Iran is Islamic and advanced in nuclear technology. This is why Jews hate Iran and are now working to destroy Turkey.

NEOCONS RAMP UP REGIME CHANGE EFFORTS IN TURKEY

Paradoxically, the biggest enemy of liberalism around the world is Western 'liberal interventionism'(directed by Jews). Something like National Liberalism would be a good thing. Suppose post-communist Russia embarked on its own path of freedom and liberty to decide what is good for the country. Unfortunately, whenever a nation moves from authoritarianism to freedom, Jewish-US empire uses NGO's and free markets to penetrate and take over institutions(through bribery) and the media(for degenerate propaganda purposes). The kind of liberty that comes to be favored is treachery among the national elites(as they become addicted to bribes from the US empire) and degenerate hedonism among the masses, especially the youth(as the media under Jewish control spew out little but Afromania, Jungle Fever, Hollywood trash, and globo-homo sickness). So, instead of the hope of National Liberalism, the result is Global Tyranny. Against Global Tyranny, the only remedy is National Autocracy. The problem with 'Western Liberalism' is it won't tolerate any other kind of liberalism. Only its conception of 'democracy' is acceptable. If another nation chooses a unique path through its own democracy, it is condemned by the Jewish-run media as 'anti-democratic'. So, Jews decry Viktor Orban of Hungary as an 'autocrat' even as they use whore politicians and bureaucrats to persecute American patriots and violate the rights of someone like Nick Fuentes. And of course, Israel is hailed as a great democracy even though its policies are many times more ultra-right than that of Hungary or the rather cucky Poland.

The Taliban remains the overwhelming and obvious power, due to the massive support they have from the population.

No, most Afghanis are indifferent. They tolerate and accept the Taliban because it's the only viable power around... in the absence of Americans. Most people are like Zhivago(minus the poeticism) than Strelnikov. They just want to live than change the world or grab power. Same goes for most Afghanis.

This is an interesting account by someone who served in the war.

AFGHANISTAN - A RETROSPECTIVE (MYTH20C - EP220) - PART I
AFGHANISTAN - A RETROSPECTIVE (MYTH20C - EP220) - PART II

According to the lying Jew media and Jew Pentagon, Osama was killed a decade ago... since then, “the mission” (as it is falsely called) has clearly been related to explicitly liberal, leftist goals. The latest and current narrative is that the troops are defending women’s rights, and generally trying to turn the country into a degenerate cesspit of feminism and faggotry.

True, the deep state and media sometimes babble about "women's rights" and the like, but the actual government that the US supported has been pretty hardline Islamist, if only to win the hearts and minds of the people. And US knew it would be crazy to push something like globo-homo in a place like Afghanistan. Likewise, US doesn't insist on globohomo among the Saudis. Globo-homo is for the cucked, deracinated, apathetic, soulless, and/or confused political colonies of the Jewish-run US empire: EU of course but also large swaths of Latin America and parts of East Asia — unlike Muslims and Hindus with a powerful spiritual tradition, East Asians tend to be ideological(due to Confucian influence), and that means they are more attuned to social ideas than spiritual truths. Also, the two spiritual systems in the Far East, Buddhism and Taoism, are passive and hardly amount to effective resistance. But Hindus have a powerful sense of the sacred and profane, which is why McDonalds will not sell beef burgers in India. And Muslims have a powerful sense of holy and unholy... unlike the shallow Mormons whose piety is customary and lack spiritual depth. Look how easily Mormons folded to globo-homo for More Money. So, given the nature of Afghan society, the US didn't push much 'woke' stuff, which is reserved mostly for white cucks and yellow dogs, the two people most receptive to Jewish Power. The US did educate some Afghani girls, and the globo-media promoted this as "women's rights", but the Afghan regime was as Islamist as the one in Saudi Arabia.

As for bung-donging boys, it seems Afghan Muslims have a local custom of doing that all on their own. Indeed, the practice is so deeply entrenched among Afghanis that US troops were ordered NOT to interfere in the barbaric custom. It goes to show you don't need globo-homo to be into bung-donging. It's like all them straight black guy who bung-dong white 'bitches' in prison.

There are three kinds of power-obsession, and they apply to Afghanistan as well.

There are the power-mad who want power for themselves. "Muh power" is their motto. They got to feel the power in their hands. They want to boss around others. Jews and blacks are this way. They got to feeeeeeeel the power. No Afghan leader in recent memory has mustered the kind of zealous will to truly unite the country and mold it into something new. No Afghan Napoleon, not even an Afghan Ataturk. Afghanistan hasn't been just a graveyard of foreign empires but of domestic political ambition. It never seems to come together. In politics, Afghanis are self-defeating as well as defeating of foreigners. When Taliban was in power prior to 9/11 and when it takes power again, the common theme will be status quo based on mutual understanding among various clans than the at-long-last unity of the nation under a great khan or mogul.

There are the mad-for-power who want to be near the powerful. They want to feel its radiance like the planets the heat of the sun. They want to serve and be approved by the power. They want to work for the boss. Dogs are like this. Dogs revere humans as the master, the source of power. White cucks are like dogs of Jews. They got to heeeeeeeel to the power of Zion. Take Chris Wray of FBI. He has a powerful position, but he's not about leadership but following orders. He appreciates that he gets to rub shoulders with powerful people and do their bidding. As Jews are his masters, he goes after 'white supremacists' who are actually whites who dare to call out on Jewish supremacism. Afghani puppet regime is made up of mad-for-power cucks, the Chris Wrays of their world. They were awestruck by US power and contented as long as Boss Uncle Sam gave them money and the orders.

There are the power-eternal who are enthralled with power as an abstract principle, spiritual or scientific. They aren't egocentric about power. They don't need to feel the power or be boss. Nor do they feel giddy with joy only as toadies to power. Rather, they see power as a kind of destiny, and their wish is to be in tune with it. For the spiritualists, the ultimate power is God and the destiny of man is God's will. This is power beyond any man's ambition. Also, mankind, even the greatest prophets, can glimpse and divine only a sliver of this power. Still, the proper thing is to be in tune with the cosmic will of God or the gods.
But power-eternals also exist in the scientific community. Take the nut-job Michio Kaku who is utterly cuckoo about power. And yet, he doesn't seem power-mad. He himself doesn't have to be the boss or have lots of money or have an army of servants washing his feet. But he isn't mad-for-power in the toady way either. Apparently, no power in our world, no matter how rich or fearsome, measures up to his vision of the ultimate power, which is nothing less than man's destiny to 'become the gods' by means of science/technology. Kaku feels that man has within him the god-gene that can unlock many more secrets of the cosmos and that will eventually catapult mankind into levels of power unfathomable to us who are still in the primitive stage of development(by cosmic standards). Kaku knows that he will die long before the dream is realized, but that's okay because he feels pride in having played a role, however small, in mankind's path to god-hood. So, he too is a kind of power-eternalist. The one advantage of the Taliban is it has a kind of power-eternal view of things. Taliban folks don't measure time in terms of impatient Western progress. They believe the foreigners will eventually depart and be forgotten because only Allah is the arbiter of what is true and just... and Allah hates Infidels who will be destroyed in time.

Most political orders are about power-mad egotists and mad-for-power toadies. US is about pushy power-mad Jews and mad-for-power toady white cucks. Granted, Jews can play the toady-role if they must as they have a long experience of sucking up to kings and noblemen of Europe who valued Jewish financial services. Jews hated playing toady to filthy goyim(especially the Christian kind as there is nothing Jews loathe more than the New Faith, which they see as theft of their own) and strategized to eventually take over as the bosses who would push the filthy goyim around.
But then, Jews also have the power-eternalist element in their cultural DNA, the sense of Grand History and the Ultimate Destiny founded upon the Covenant between God and the Jews. This eternal element of Jewish psyche balances out the petty power-madness. This is the difference between someone like Andrew Cuomo and the Jews. Cuomo the Italian-American prick can't conceive of power beyond others licking his boots. He has the mentality of a cheap mafia hood. While powerful Jews are no less loathsome, they have a grander sense of power beyond 'muh power'. Even secular Jews who don't believe in God believe in some kind of Grand History where Jews are destined to play a key or The Key role.

There is nothing monstrous about the Taliban.

They did destroy the Buddha statues. They did prohibit music. They have a puritanical streak, which is no good. In a way, Islam and Puritanical Christianity have something in common with Leftism. They are radically purist and tend to see the world in Manichean terms of Good vs Evil. The pagans were more tolerant of how the world really is. Paganism was more realist. According to the Greeks, their gods were good and bad, just like humans. According to Christianity and Islam, there is only one God, and He is totally good and at war with totally evil Satan. So, this divides the world neatly into holy vs unholy. Even though modern leftism developed as a secular movement at war with religion, it inherited the radical purism. Good Progress vs Evil Reaction. Smite the Old to create the New. So, even though Muslims and 'woke' nuts have little in common in terms of agenda, they are much alike in their emotional psychology.

Compare this to articles in 1974 about capitalist South Vietnam fearing the impending destruction of the free market at the hands of Ho Chi Minh and his henchmen. It is precisely the same narrative – but the reverse.

Vietnam War and Afghan War are not even remotely comparable. For one thing, the US was stationed in only half of Vietnam. The Northern part was totally ruled by the Vietnamese. In contrast, US occupied all of Afghanistan. It was tougher to fight in the jungle than in the mountains. True, Afghan mountain ranges make for tough combat, especially in the old days of the British Empire, but with air superiority the US had effective control of the entire country. Also, if Soviet airplanes and helicopters were targeted by stinger missiles, the US aircraft were mostly untouched... except when Afghans got lucky with a few bazookas.
The Vietnam Conflict was a real war until the US left. It was bloody and horrific. In contrast, the so-called Afghan War effectively wound down in 2002, so much so that US shifted its war aims to Iraq(and other countries if possible). So, since 2002, it's been an Afghan Occupation than Afghan War. In 20 yrs, US lost 2,500 soldiers. That's about 125 per year, and most of the deaths happened in the first few yrs. So, calling this "America's longest war" is a joke.

Also, unlike the Viet Cong and NVA that were formidable foes to the last day of America's withdrawal in 1973, the Taliban just waited for the Americans to leave. US wasn't pushed out by too many casualties or unpopularity of the war at home. While plenty of people protested the Iraq War, no one protested the Afghan Invasion, and when have you seen an anti-war protest about Afghanistan? US finally decided to leave because either the Occupation was becoming pointless, the regime has military plans elsewhere(maybe against Iran or China), or because the Democrats are afraid of Trumpists stealing the anti-war thunder. After all, what was most incredible about Trump's campaign in 2016 was the Anti-Neocon-War-ism, notwithstanding his very neocon-ish saber rattling at Iran.

Now, what is startling is the rapid advances of the Taliban and the sheer haplessness of the Afghan government and its military. But then, maybe it's not so surprising since the US hardly installed a real government or built a real military. The bane of installing a real government is it might have its own ideas and agendas. US wanted a pliable puppet, but the problem is puppets are usually weak. Diem of South Vietnam turned out to be more independent, and the CIA took him out. The total puppet government that followed had NO legitimacy and support whatsoever(wherever Diem did have some respect and support).
But then, the current US is plagued by the same problem, that of legitimacy. Jews rule the US and recruit shabbos goy puppets, and this accounts as to why US politicians are so weak, so pathetic, so ridiculous, and without respect. George W. Bush was a neocon puppet. Jeb Bush was even more pathetic, if that's even believable. Mitt Romney is a total cuck. Paul Ryan, what a joke. Many libby-dibs supported Obama as The Difference, but he was just a House Negro of globo-homo Jews. Many conzos supported Trump as The Difference(and he was truly hated by the Establishment), but he folded to Deep State demands and took it up his arse from the Jews just the same.
Jews insist on goy puppet weaklings but also want US democracy to have legitimacy around the world. But how can a puppet-regime be legitimate? Look at Biden. No one voted FOR Biden, just like almost no one voted FOR Hillary. They just voted against Trump as the worse evil. And with Trump's presidency having turned into one big farce, who but the biggest Maga-tards can believe in the Donald again? At most, people might vote Trump AGAINST the Democrats. As Darren Beattie of Revolver News has said, the American Regime lost its legitimacy. Most conzos look upon Republican politicians as 'RINOS', and most libby-dibs look upon Democrat politicians as sell-outs.
But unlike Afghanistan, the US is without a Taliban-like majority who are waiting in the wings to take over when the time is ripe. Too many Americans, especially the libby-dibs, are 'Telebans' whose idea of reality comes from the Jewish-controlled Tube. No wonder what is most sacred to them is BLM and globo-homo and they would never unite with other whites against the real power of Jewish Supremacism. But then, where are white patriots in the South to defend Robert E. Lee monuments? Great majority of white conzos support jungle fever and 'gay marriage'. They are just another version of the 'Teleban', which means they are mind-controlled by Jewish globalists.

The supposedly diabolical mission of the Taliban is to restore the basic order of nature in the lands of their race.

Pagans were closer to the nature of things. Greek mythology is perhaps the greatest and most poetic mapping of the human psyche. Islam and especially Christianity condemn too much that is natural and instinctual as sinful or satanic. Paganism can slide into sensual overload, but puritanism can harden into repression. Ethno-race-ist Paganism + Patriarchy is the best combination. It allows for female beauty and expression but under control of social norms and morality.

There is nothing monstrous about the Taliban. They are not a CIA-backed group like ISIS, so they are not drowning people in cages or engaging in cannibalism.

The big hypocrisy. The very Western bleeding hearts all weepy-poo about the 'women and daughters' in Afghanistan were utterly silent about Obama/Hillary regime's support of ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria in yet more Wars for Israel. Assad's Syria has been a modern Arab state, but the Jewish-controlled West recruited Muslim nihilists to wreak havoc and enforce Sharia law all over. It goes to show that the Western commentariat fall into two groups: Idiots who really swallow the BS narrative about "muh women's rights" and the opportunists who decry Islamism when it undermines Imperial aims but support it when it aids and abets the goals of globalist-imperialism.

Jane Fonda went to Vietnam to support the North Vietnamese, despite the fact that they were as likely to gang-rape the bitch as they were to welcome her. The North Vietnamese did not fetishize negroes, nor were they going to legalize anal sex. Their primitive conception of communism amounted to “yankee go home.” Basically, the leftists who supported the North Vietnamese were pretty much just traitors and scoundrels, who claimed that the Viet Cong shared their values as an excuse to attack America.

Don't be silly. Why would they have raped a propaganda tool? Also, back in the 60s, even most Liberals regarded homosexuality as a sin or sickness. Hollywood regularly featured villains as homo or crypto-homo. Homos were either villains or objects of mockery. There was no globo-homo back then, at least not outwardly. The most liberal politician could have been ousted by revelations of buggery.
Also, back then, even most liberals believed in nationalism. So, they supported Cuban nationalism, Vietnamese nationalism, and etc. They figured non-white nations had just as much right to be independent as white nations. The big idea back then was post-imperialist universal nationalism. Today, there is neo-imperialist globalism that is about universal anti-nationalism. Globalism says ALL nations(except Israel) should reject the bond between race and land, welcome mass migration, celebrate 'diversity', and forsake sovereignty... and make way for the Triumvirate of Jews as Holy Holocausters, Blacks as Noble Negroes, and Homos as Magic Fairies.

In retrospect, the Leftists of the 60s were more right than wrong, at least on foreign policy. And the Right also came to realize this. Charles DeGaulle ended the Algerian War, and Nixon finally ended the Vietnam War.

Personally, what I can't stand about the Taliban is aesthetics. I don't mind the rags on Arabs. It sort of looks dashing on them camel jockeys in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. 'Raghead' look is okay. But the 'towel-head' look of the Afghans? They look like they got giant donuts on their heads. It just looks stupid. Also, rag-on-head makes good sense. It protects the head from the burning sun. But the heavier head gear among Afghans must increase temperature, and that's no good for the brains. No wonder Afghanis are so dumb with cooked brains.

Everywhere on earth, the US military flies the rainbow flag, which is the symbol of pederasty.

No, it's the Jewish Victory Flag. It means, "We Jews buttfuc*ed this country and own it as our bitch." Globo-homo among homos is about 'gays' boofing each other in the ass. Globo-homo among nations means "Jewish Power made us squeal like a pig." Trump's presidency was essentially Ned Beatty in THE DELIVERANCE going 'weeeeee, weeeeee' while Sheldon 'Nuke Iran' Adelson humped him hard. 'Weeeeeeeeee.'

Frankly, as we can see in the rearview mirror, the North Vietnamese were not exactly bluepilled. But the Taliban is redpilled hard.

Back in the 60s, even most Democrats were not 'blue-pilled'. It is why Richard Nixon won a landslide in 1972. Many Democrats were appalled by the counterculture elements in their midst. A lot of Liberal Commentators from that era would not come across as hardline conservatives by today's standards.

This isn't really a victory for the Taliban. One could argue that the Viet Cong and NVA won the war because, despite horrible casualties and failure to win any major battle against the US, they fought hard to the very end of US departure. In contrast, the Taliban just hunkered down and accepted the Occupation. They hardly did any fighting and are now coming out of the woodworks because US is leaving. It's rather like rats and rain taking over a house once the people moved out.
Of course, the Taliban is winning against government troops, but the US was never serious about creating a military. It's been said a trillion or two was spent on Afghanistan, but this is misleading. No, the money was spent on the Military Industrial Complex. Most of the money was spent on US firms and institutions. They pretended to do stuff in Afghanistan but spent most of the money on themselves(while local politicians got some crumbs in the form of bribes).

Notes on Susan Sontag's Infamous Statement: "White Race Is the Cancer of Human History"

Susan Sontag wrote:

“If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far…. The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”

Even though her views were extreme on this matter, she wrote this in genuine sympathy with the Third World. This was when the Vietnam War was raging and when the Non-West was seeking alternative paths to development. Also, even those on the Right may recognize a kernel of truth in Sontag's characterization of the Modern West. All this talk of 'growth and more growth' at the expense of all other considerations is a kind of cancer. After all, those on the Dissident Right are sick of 'muh growth' rhetoric of the globalists, libertarians, radical capitalists, and etc. GOP is only about GDP.

Sadly, where Sontag was wrong was that this cancer could spread from white nations to non-white ones as well.

it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads

If only it were true. Today, non-whites have joined in globalism and are taking part in the destruction of all autonomous societies. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, under Western influence, have ended up with barren wombs and high suicide rates. They now welcome mass immigration. And Filipinos and others scramble to Japan and will demographically take over, and what had once been a unique Japanese people and culture will be lost. Hindus are all over the world taking part in globalism, from African cities to San Francisco to New York. Indeed, at this point, even if every white person were to suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, the cancer of globalism will likely spread and spread.

In a way, white 'racism' was a check on the white cancer. As long as whites offended others with supremacist attitudes, non-whites pushed against white power and influence. But then globalism came along, and the white empire was willing to welcome, extol, and promote non-whites to the highest ranks. White 'anti-racism' emboldened non-whites to join in the white-made globalist world order. (Indeed, it's likely Gandhi and others would have joined with the British Empire if it hadn't been 'racist' toward their ilk.) White 'racism' and Western nationalism posed as both the enemy and model for non-white nations. Against white 'racism', they needed their own racial identity as a weapon. And non-whites realized that the national system is most ideal for organizing modern societies. So, the struggle for 'national liberation' was also an enterprise in national formation. Some peoples, like the Vietnamese and Thais, already had a genuine sense of ethnicity, culture, and territoriality. Others, like the Indonesians and those in Middle East and especially much of Africa, had to work at creating new national identities. Still, as long as whites were in 'racist' and nationalist mode, non-whites felt compelled to emphasize their own racial-national identities as bulwark against the 'cancerous' Western Power(and, to be sure, rival non-white powers). Thus, the white cancer was limited to the white world. And maybe the New Order would have turned out poly-national after World War II. With the end of European empires, whites would have their world, and non-whites would have their own.

But the post-war story wasn't dominated by Western Europe, a fading power, but by the US and USSR that competed for Universalist Hegemony. Both were empires that claimed to be committed to 'anti-racism'. USSR was about communist brotherhood of man, comrades all around the world. US claimed to represent liberal democratic values and individual liberty applicable to all. As such, if European Empires had sought to dominate and exploit non-white colonies, US and USSR reached out with a vision of Enlightened Imperialism whereby non-whites would be treated as equals of whites. In some ways, this sounded good on paper, but it was one sure way to spread the white cancer as the white cancer cells were now willing to merge with brown cells IF the brown cells agreed to join with the white cancer.

While Sontag meant 'cancer' as damnation, there is a repressed awe of Western Civilization in her characterization. After all, cancer is no simple disease like a minor headache or sprained ankle. It isn't just a case of the flu or toothache that a dentist can fix. Cancer is a GREAT disease, an awesome disease. Until relatively recent times, it could not be cured. It started small but spread all throughout and led to sure death.

Sontag wrote:

The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world.

Yet, the implication is that THOSE THINGS are part of the cancer. Indeed, what is the nature of cancer? It strives for total domination. It is obsessive, unrelenting, aggressive, expansive, maniacal, and totalizing. It must express itself to the fullest extent, and that means spreading all throughout the body EVEN IF it means death for the body. In one of her essays, Sontag associated sex with death. Sex(and orgasm), in its striving for the fullest sensuality and pleasure, takes the body to the furthest limit, beyond which lays death. It's no wonder Sontag had a special thing for Yukio Mishima who was also obsessed with sex and death. The boy who got his first orgasm staring at a picture of St. Sebastian shot full of arrows ultimately died in much the same way albeit with a blade. Cancer is like the Terminator. You can't bargain with it. It seeks total and ruthless domination, and nothing better stand in its way.
But that very mindset is at the heart of Mozart, Pascal, Shakespeare, Newton, Kant, Marx, Western Arts, Western Ideologies, and etc. Western Artists, more than those of other cultures, were most powerful in individuality, egoism, vanity, and even megalomania. Mozart did it his way, even truer of Beethoven and Wagner. Western scientists insisted on pushing further and further without end to get closer to the stars and atoms. Western explorers and discoverers searched further and further, even out into space. Western ideologies have sought to arrive at the ultimate truth, emancipate all of mankind or liberate every individual soul. Whether communism, capitalism, libertarianism, or feminism, they are about more liberation, more freedom, more justice, or the Permanent Revolution. So, even if one might find much that is good about them, they are essentially 'cancerous' in that they know of no limits. They must keep pushing further and further, even when it appears all possibilities have been exhausted.

However, the reason why the West became especially 'cancerous' was due to the stabilizing influence of Jewish Culture via Christianity. Western drive toward super-competitive excellence via individualism and universalism may have begun with the Greeks, but such extremes of ambition tend to burn themselves out. Thus, the West, like the Rest, went through cycles of rises and falls. Like the Tower of Babel, the pagan West rose high but fell to earth again. But then, Christianity came along and provided an emotional, moral, and spiritual gyroscope to Westernism. Christianity's powerful moralism emphasizing humility and devotion could be heavy and repressive, thereby suppressing individual expression and excellence, but it also had a stabilizing effect on the Western pagan drive for no-limit exploration, discovery, conquest, and experimentation(the biting into the Forbidden Fruits). It provided a humble heart to the egotism of pagan pride. Thus, a kind of balance was formed between the liberal will to explore and conservative desire to preserve.

Paradoxically, the Christian element that dampened the pagan spirit of individuality actually made the Western Light burn brighter in the long run. It's like an overly ambitious person may feel resentful about being told to get some rest, take it easy, spend time with family, and go on vacation. So obsessed with winning, he may want to work 24/7. And yet, that is a good way to burn out... as Alexander the Great did. But in being forced to balance his drive for excellence with some time set aside for peace of mind, his energy will actually last longer. It's like an athlete who plays too hard all the time won't last long in the ring or field. And Christianity, a religion originating from heretical Jews, provided a kind of balance to the highly aggressive Western pagan spirit for excellence. Many scholars see this Hebraic influence as having set back European advancement, and that is partly true. In the Muslim world, Islam did end up holding back progress. And Christianity in the Byzantium was too heavy and stifling of innovation and individuality. But in the Renaissance West, a balance was reached between hunger and humility. This way, instead of civilization as short bursts of sprints that soon peter out, the West set upon a long-term marathon of advancement with Christian humility serving as a stabilizing force to Pagan hunger. So, the West broke out of the cycles of rises and falls and embarked on a long journey of progress to more progress to more progress. (But in the post-Christian age, we are witnessing how the drive for more experimentation, more freedom, more power, and more wealth WITHOUT the stabilizing force of some great spiritual-moral counter-force is leading to the Great Fall. The Post-Christian West seems to intuit this danger on some level and grasps for new spiritual truths, but worship of the Super-Jew, Holy Homo, and Magic Negroes just doesn't cut it.)
It was that combination of Hellenistic drive and Hebraic spirit that made the West truly 'cancerous'. It led to endless rise and rise and more rise, and more expansion and more growth and etc. Though, as the story of Galileo tells us, the influence of religion often held back the power of reason, it also prevented the secular forces from growing too vain, arrogant, adventurous, impatient, and reckless. When religion mattered in the West, homo artists made the great works of the Renaissance. But in our time, homos just celebrate their degeneracy without shame, and such narcissism is promoted as the new spirit of the times. The moral rot from this in times to come will be incalculable. Generations raised with drag queen story hour. Churches festooned with sodomy-glorifying banners. Maybe, in some ways, this is a good thing in the long run. Maybe it is time for Western Civilization to fall to ruin and start again. Maybe the Hellenic-Hebraic cancer had a great long run, and now must end.

In a way, life itself is like a cancer. Like cancer, life seeks to grow and grow. Any organism is 'cancerous' in multiplying without limit to take over the whole world. But life could not be cancerous because organisms all balanced each other out. Countless plants and countless animals all canceled out one another. So, even if one organism wanted to take over everything, it couldn't as it was balanced by or depended on other organisms. The first truly cancerous organism arrived with mankind. (When rabbit population explodes and eats up the vegetation, rabbits begin to starve and nature restores the balance. When predators eat up most of the prey animals, they begin to starve and the natural balance is restored. But mankind, in creating agriculture and cattle-farming, could destroy/transform so much of nature yet still keep growing in numbers and power. They broke free of the natural balance, and then, the white race took it to the next step by means of uniting all the world under their hegemony.) When Sontag wrote her piece, she probably had no idea how destructive even primitive man was upon the Earth. Archaeologists now believe that the migration of prehistoric men led to the extinctions of most mammal species in all five continents. So, humans were cancerous before the arrival of the white race. But among the human races, the white race became the most cancerous of them all.
Again, by 'cancerous', it's as much a compliment as an epithet because cancer is a great awesome disease. While all human groups built empires and conquered and killed many — Huns, Aztecs, Mongols, Ottomans, etc — , it took the white race to finally conquer every piece of land on Earth, split the atom, and send men into space. While non-white races were also ruthless, aggressive, and cruel, their 'cancerousness' was limited. Mongols conquered so much but couldn't expand further and couldn't sustain their pace and then soon faded. Ottomans seemed to be on the verge of conquering and overtaking Christendom but reached their peak and then began the long decline. They remained locked in cycles of rises and falls experienced by most civilizations. (To be sure, the Muslim world, like the Christian world, experienced a long continuity due to the stabilizing power of the words of the Prophet. But Islam was bound to be more stifling of innovation and progress for one crucial reason. Whereas Christianity developed as a universal religion by dumping the narrow tribal laws of the Jews, Islam combined universalism with the local customs of Arabs & Judaic laws. Christianity dropped the particularity of culture and emphasized the universality of spirit whereas Islam attached Arab-Judaic customary particularism to a universalist creed. As such, there was too much cultural baggage in Islam for it to allow much in the way of creativity and innovation.)

When Sontag wrote her piece, the white world seemed distinct from the non-white world. Also, whites were clearly in control of the white world. Jews didn't control the US or Europe, though they were clearly influential. So, one could speak of the West vs the Rest. But over the yrs, whites cucked to Jews and even cucked to blacks. And whites now cuck to Diversity, or mass migration-invasion.
As such, it's no longer the case that whiteness is the cancer of humanity. It is no longer whiteness or white power or white ways that are threatening to control all the world. Rather, whiteness is now like a cuck-cancer bridge to Jewish cancer, black cancer, and homo cancer. Whites are now like the god Atlas. It is no longer the active god of the world but the supportive and servile god. White managerial shoulders now serve as the bridge of Jewish supremacist cancer that spreads wars, predatory capitalism, hegemonism, and genocides(especially against Arabs and Muslims). But under the control of Jews, white shoulders also serve as the bridge for non-white invasion of white lands. Billy Boy Clinton and Joe Biden welcome the browning of the West. Even Donald Trump who ran on border controls says he wants more legal immigration. Brexit led to shutting UK to other Europeans but welcomes more blacks and browns. On the bridge of white shoulders, the Jewish cancer spreads all over, and of course, Jews spread globo-homo cancer as their proxy disease all around the world. Jews figure homos in each nation will make the best collaborationist agents for Jews. And whiteness also serves as bridge for the spread of Afromaniacal cancer all over the world. Would there be blacks outside Africa if not for the white bridge? White folks used to spread white power around the world. Now whiteness as cuck-cancer spreads Jewish power, Negro might, and homo sickness around the world. What do Chinese boys worship most? Negroes in the NBA.
That is why, if whites cannot bring about white liberation from Jewish supremacism and black monstrosity, it would be better if the white race just vanished from Earth. In our times, whiteness is most dangerous not because of 'white supremacism' but because of white cuck-ism that helps to spread Jewish supremacism, black ghastliness, and homo degeneracy all around the world. Does the world really need to worship BLM and 'Muh Israel'? Does the world really need to be instructed by fruits and trannies whose main mode of being is tooty-toot-toot vanity?

Cancer isn't infectious, but it seems as though the white cancer came to submit, serve, and transmit the Jewish cancer, black cancer, and homo cancer as the hegemonic forces to every corner of the world. BLM protests even in Iceland? Huh? But then, with Hollywood as the new vatican, the new faiths are the Wonder Jew, Magic Negro, and Holy Homo.

The Crisis of Power and Moral Authority in the West? What is to be done when Whites got the Power but No Moral Authority while Blacks got the Moral Authority but No Power?

The two kinds of power. Power-as-means-of-force. Power as moral authority. Ideally, the existing Power has both. It controls the apparatus of violence, which is 'inherent' in any system. After all, there has to be the threat of force, coercion, or violence in case people, especially criminals and radicals, get out of hand. Ideal power would also possess moral authority, and most people would look upon the Power as just, valid, and legitimate.

If there is only power-as-means-of-force, the system can be maintained but only by brutal repression and/or bread-and-circus mass-bribery(which is costly and effective only for the duration of good times). The right-wing militarist regimes that ruled with 'death squads' in Central America had the power of means(especially with the backing of the US), but they lacked moral authority. Same could be said of the Shah of Iran. He had the ruthless means of keeping power by brutality and mass torture. He also had the backing of the US, and there was economic growth that pacified a sector of the population. But most Iranians saw him as illegitimate, and he got no respect.

In contrast, the Castroite Regime of Cuba had, at least for a time(and perhaps even now to some degree), the combination of the means of force and moral authority. It not only set up a ruthless system of control but came to power with the mandate of the people who welcomed the revolution as national liberation from a puppet tyrant backed by the CIA and the Mafia. During the Cold War, massive Soviet support made life in Cuba better than in most Latin American nations. There was less freedom, but many Cubans accepted it as the cost for independence from Yanqui Imperialismo.

Now, from the perspective of moral reasoning, what may be deemed morally justified in a particular time and place may not pass muster. We may say communism is a bad idea and a dead end, and History has indeed passed such judgement on the ideology. And we may look upon the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as ultimately tragic because it led to theocratic tyranny. Still, even if a bad(or even evil) system comes to power, it may be regarded as morally legitimate to the people of the time and place. This was certainly true among many Germans who, at least before things began to go south during World War II, regarded Adolf Hitler's regime as justified, indeed the savior of the German volk, nation, and honor. And plenty of Chinese, despite the horrors of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, have continued to regard the CCP as the legitimate authority in China. And for all his brutality and violence, Stalin had plenty of admirers in the USSR when he was alive(and even after his death).
Moral authority can derive from various sources or reasons. It could be that the new power is a marked improvement over the earlier one. For many Germans, things were much better in National Socialist Germany than in Weimar Germany. Many Russians feel that things got much better under Vladimir Putin than when Russia was ruled by Jewish globalist oligarchs and their stooge Boris Yeltsin. (The Putin legitimacy cannot be understood apart from the hellish 1990s.) But moral authority could also be the product of mass propaganda. Mao Zedong remained legitimate in China despite the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution because CCP controlled all media and education. Even if Mao made things worse, the young ones were only taught one thing, and everyone got the news from a single source. So, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. In a system, the majority of people can support a cult of immorality as having moral authority while condemning true morality as the work of the Devil. We have that in the US, where so many people, even 'conservatives', now support 'gay marriage' and worship globo-homo-mania while howling with rage at defenders of true marriage and sanity on sexual reality.

If some systems have the power-as-means-of-force but lack moral authority, some groups have the power of moral authority but lack the means of force. In time, the latter can struggle to gain hard power and triumph. In Iran, the revolutionaries gained moral authority among the people, and mass unrest eventually led to Shah's dethronement and the rise of the Ayatollahs in government. In Vietnam, the national-communists who waved the Ho Chi Minh banner were legitimate in the eyes of many whereas the regime in the South was regarded as a puppet of US imperialism. Granted, plenty of Vietnamese didn't want to be ruled by the communists and would have preferred national independence/liberation minus the Leninism-Stalinism. But the southern regime was so lacking in authority and legitimacy that it failed to muster real support, the kind that might have led to a successful defense of the south. Eventually, the Vietnamese in the north, with more legitimacy and discipline, prevailed over the southern regime that could only maintain power with backing of US imperialism and bribery through bread-and-circuses(or rice-and-blackmarket) made possible by foreign cash infusions.

Speaking of the problems of power-as-means-of-force and power as moral authority, we are witnessing something surreal in the West. Even now in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe, the power-as-means-of-force is still controlled mostly by whites. Look at most of the upper echelons in the military, government, law firms & courts, police departments, intelligence services, and the like, and most of the members are white(or Jewish). There are prominent non-whites, usually blacks, but they are mostly tokens presented to the public as the FACE of the power that is still mostly white in actual operation.
But the problem is, due to endless PC and anti-white propaganda, whites no longer have much in the way of moral authority. In some ways, they have something close to NEGATIVE moral authority; they might as well be the Devil Incarnate. When the Evil Race controls most of the power-as-means-of-force, the moral implication is they must give it up OR use their power ONLY to redeem their evil white selves or rectify the evil conditions resulting from 'white supremacy' or 'white privilege', i.e. whites must use power to negate white power. We saw in the recent riots the result of such thinking. White people-of-power had the material means to shut down the violence and restore order, but many of them thought that they, as Evil People, had no moral authority to use the power in such manner. (To be sure, the 'paralysis' was also cynical and calculated, a means for the Deep State to make Donald Trump look either too weak, impotent, and incapable to rule OR too tyrannical in calling on the military to restore order.) Initially, it seemed New York would be spared the worst of the rioting because Jews are just too powerful there, but the 'moral logic' spread there as well. Mayor Bill DeBlasio's shtick has been as an Apologetic and Atoning white man, i.e. since whites lack the power of moral authority, DeBlasio felt compelled to use his political authority in support of blacks and against whites(or anyone disregarded by blacks).

If whites got power-as-means-of-force but hardly any moral authority left, blacks don't have much in the way of power-as-means-of-force but have come to dominate power as moral authority. While there are plenty of blacks in government, military, and even in some police departments, most of the upper command structure is still dominated by whites(and of course, most elite blacks are in the pocket of Jewish oligarchs, as has been so obvious with the likes of Barack Obama and Susan Rice). During the Civil Rights Era, blacks gained moral authority over whites because of the Struggle-against-Oppression Narrative. But it was far from total moral authority or moral apotheosis; MLK was a controversial figure in the eyes of many, most Americans opposed race-mixing, and George Wallace found much popularity. But since then, the MLK cult has become the new religion. Nelson Mandela has been lionized as the second greatest man ever. Most American kids think the story of Harriet Tubman is 50% of US history. Hollywood gave us the Magic Negro in stuff like GREEN MILE. And as blacks are into ego-tripping self-worship, they've promoted nothing but themselves. Ironically, the rise of black nihilism also fed into black moral authority. After all, while one aspect of Americanism is the preening moralism — the City on the Hill vision — , the other is the cult of the winner and disdain for losers. People dream of coming to the US to win as Tony Montanas, not to be losers. So, even though most blacks in sports and pop culture have been demented, stupid, lecherous, immoral, or imbecile, the successes made blacks seem ultra-badass-cool in the American(and global) imagination. As Americanist winner-takes-all nihilism has infected the world, the black rapper and black athlete idolatry have made people the world over especially reverential about blackness. Indeed, the reason why the American Indians, though theoretically of even greater moral authority as the Ultimate Victims of American History, are neglected by Americans and the World is because they score low in the game of winner-takes-all nihilism that defines Americanism. In an Americanized world that prizes idolatry over humanism, nihilist points adds to moral authority. Blacks-as-thugs get more hugs.

We are now at the crossroads in history where whites still got most of the power-as-means-of-force but don't know what to do with it during times of crisis as they lack moral authority to act, especially against blacks who commit the most violence. And blacks got the most moral authority, but they are frustrated because they don't control the power-as-means-of-force. Why not? Blacks will say it's due to the history of 'racism', but it's due to black ineptitude, criminality, laziness, stupidity, and irresponsibility. After all, whether one has moral authority or not, the proper way to rise up the ladder of power-as-means-of-force is to master skills, finish school, gain credentials, and demonstrate ability & accountability. Many blacks utterly fail in this. So, even though whites are more than eager to hand over their illegitimate power to blacks who now hog moral authority, the process of power-transference is undermined by the fact that too many blacks remain unqualified to gain and hold any lever of power. The problem isn't White Discrimination but Black Incrimination. Black performance or behavior too often incriminates them as foolish, stupid, violent, inept, irresponsible, demented, and/or jive-ass.
At this juncture in history, many whites are more than willing to hand over power-as-means-of-force to non-whites, especially blacks. But the people they favor most, blacks, are least adept at working in the current system to gain the credentials to take the power from whites. Whites, as redemptive devil incarnate, are telling blacks, "Look we are worthless, and you blacks are holy. We don't deserve what we have, and it should all go to you. So, if you just finish school, act half-way decent and responsible, you can have my job and my status. You can marry my daughter and even do my wife. I will cuck before you and wash your feet and kiss your ass. Just finish college and earn the credentials, and everything I have is YOURS. Look how we made Obama the president simply because he smiled and said nice things." So, whites are willing to hand over all power to blacks as the true master race because blacks are deemed superior in body and soul. But every time whites try to hand over the silver platter, blacks knock it down and mess it all up. (Look what blacks have made of Zimbabwe and South Africa, but let's just pretend blacks are natural saints.)

This is all very confusing. It's further confused because whites claim to be in atonement mode but feel zero moral guilt about what they did to Palestinians and Arabs in their mindless support of Zionist supremacism. And blacks seem to be of two minds as well. On the one hand, blacks pretend to be allies with all the oppressed of the world against white supremacism and white privilege. At the same time, blacks seem most eager to take over the Power created by whites and act as the new imperialist masters of the world. After all, if blacks are truly appalled by supremacism, why don't they denounce blacks in the military? Aren't black military men participating in the US imperialist domination over other parts of the world? Aren't blacks taking part in the Zionist Wars that have killed so many Arabs and Muslims? Didn't Obama wreck entire nations? But blacks don't seem to be bothered by any of that AS LONG AS they perceive the US military as an empowerment vehicle for blacks. So, do blacks really want to resist and end the Power System created by whites or do they just want to take over as New Masters of it? Is supremacism okay with blacks as long as THEY get to dominate the power-as-means-of-force? Is black consciousness like that of Jews? We know from the Jewish Experience that Jewish criticism of Wasp Power wasn't to destroy the power itself but to take it over so that the US empire would be controlled by Jews. The very Jews who'd once denounced US militarism and imperialism in the 60s were later the biggest cheerleaders of US global power once their tribe was at the helm.

Indeed, how do Jews fit into the current crisis? Are Jews also white and lacking in moral authority? Or, as Holocaust Whites, are they exempt from the label of Whites-as-Devil-Incarnate? But what of New York Jews having employed heavy-handed white police to cut down on black crime? And what of Jews having urged white police across the US to take pointers from Israel in controlling the black criminal elements? As yet, Jews still have a lot of moral authority as the Shoah Narrative has been baked into the Western Consciousness, but when so much of Jewish Privilege seems like ultra-white-privilege to blacks and non-whites, how long can Jews sustain this? In the recent riots, Jews publicly sided with black rioters who've been granted moral authority to 'protest against racism', but they seem very nervous and uncomfortable because Jewish Urban Well-being owes so much to white policemen controlling the unruly blacks. Jews are mixing oil & water and getting violent reactions from the melting pot turned frying pan.

Again, moral authority isn't the same as true morality. That blacks got so much moral authority is absolutely scandalous. True, blacks were enslaved and faced discrimination through much of American History, but history is never static. It's ridiculous to regard blacks NOW on the basis of blacks THEN. It's like it'd be stupid to regard Chinese NOW on basis of how Chinese were 100 yrs ago. Back then, China was the Sick Man of Asia. Today, it is a rising or even risen power. Germanic Barbarians were once victims of Roman conquerors. Later, they were rulers over the Romans. And sometimes, history changes fast. Jews were on the ropes in Europe during World War II, but they are now rulers of the West. Also, black behavior owes more to evolution over 100,000 yrs than 200 yrs of slavery. Besides, black conditions in America were hardly all that oppressive by world/historical standards as most of human history has been about oppression, wars, empires, slavery, and etc. The real problem with blacks is they evolved to be the thug-hunter-warrior race. Blame evolution in Africa where black traits were selected for mastery in chucking spears at hippos and beating on bongo drums and shaking booty. That's why blacks succeed in sports and funky music while often failing with books and math.
So, black moral authority is really a joke(but then 'woke' is a joke, or joke that no one gets). It is more the product of Jewish propaganda, white gullibility, black megalomania, American nihilism, and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Jews pushed black holiness to bait whites with 'white guilt', thereby making them subservient to Jews(as 'fellow victim' allies of blacks). In the post-Christian world, white imagination hungered for a new god, and the Magic Negro filled the void(along with globo-homo, it seems). Blacks just can't get enough of themselves, and the American Obsession with sports and pop music turned blacks into demi-gods. So many Americans look to Jay-Z and Ice-Cube's twitter feed for 'moral instruction' and 'spiritual guidance'. This is why even a lowlife moron like George Floyd, who died more from bad drugs than a white knee, is now suddenly bigger than even Michael Jackson.
But then, moral authority can even be held by the Devil, as homos and trannies have so well illustrated. Most people are incapable of moral reasoning, and their sense of good-and-evil really derives from manipulation of idolatry, iconography, and mantras. Just chant 'black lives matter' a bunch of times while envisioning George Floyd as some angel, and that's Moral Authority in the Current Year. Donald Trump says St. George is looking down upon us from heaven. More likely, an angel has a knee on the ghastly Negro's neck and is about to cast his stupid black ass down to hell.

In the past, whites had both power-as-means-of-force and much moral authority. Look back 100 yrs ago to 1920, and it was a proud white nation. Look back 50 yrs to 1970, and it was still a nation where whites had material power and moral power, though slipping. But now, the US is a Jewish-controlled world. Jewish Power is real as both means-of-force and moral authority. Jews do control most of the top institutions and many top industries. Jews not only hog Deep State power but use Antifa as paramilitary goon force to terrorize white patriots. Antifa is their 'Luca Brasi'.
Jews also have moral power as the Shoah People. But because Jews are nervous about being perceived as powerful, their power-as-means-of-force is mostly hidden. If Jews said, "We rule America with material power backed by moral authority", things would be somewhat less confusing. But while Jews make a big deal of their moral authority, they try to hide their actual means of power. As a result, many people are confused as to who really rules America. Jews rule America, but Jews say "White Privilege Rules America"(which would suggest American Power is illegitimate). Jewish Power is the uppermost of White Privilege, but Jews position themselves as allies of Diversity against White Privilege.
Now, things might be clearer if white goyim spelled it all out and said, "No, Jewish-White Privilege rules America, and we white goyim are now just cuck-collaborators of Jews who hold the supreme power. We whites do as Jews tell us to, like waging Wars for Israel, hating on Russia & Iran, supporting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians, and arresting more blacks to make cities safer for Jews and homos." But as whites who say such would be condemned of 'Antisemitism' and hounded out of their positions, whites just go on with the charade that THEY rule America while Jews are saintly allies of blacks and Diversity oppressed by White Privilege. But such a grand narrative means that the Existing Power System in the US is utterly lacking in moral legitimacy and undeserving of moral authority. If indeed US is ruled by White Privilege, then it is ruled by Evil because White Privilege is, as we've all been told over and over, an ill-gotten product of history of white supremacy.
Current Power would seem legitimate if Jews said they got the power since they do have moral authority(as the noble and tragic Shoah People). But Jews are too nervous about being blamed for all the problems IF they were to openly admit their dominant position in the US. After all, admission of power has a way of eroding moral authority as most people tend to blame those in power for whatever goes wrong. (Wasps admitted they ruled America, and guess what happened? They got blamed for everything and lost legitimacy.) It's like the Castroite regime in Cuba and the Ayatollahs in Iran began with lots of moral authority but much of the respect has eroded away over the years. So, if Jews want to maintain their identity as Holy Holocaust People in pristine condition, it's not wise to admit that they now have the power and, as such, are responsible for all that go wrong in the US and the world. (Netanyahu's arrogant style of "I rule the goyim" has undermined the moral authority of Zion in the eyes of the world.)

Anyway, whites are cucks of Jews, but the Jewish Narrative says White Privilege(of the goy kind mostly) rules America. The notion of 'white privilege' implies that the power held by whites is illegitimate. Then, the ONLY way to make the power legitimate is by handing it over to those with moral authority. Jews got the moral authority but don't want to admit they got the power. How about to homos? Jewish Media and Academia imbued homos with great deal of moral and 'spiritual' capital, and so many Americans now eagerly vote for any 'gay' candidate on grounds that homos got moral authority. And for awhile, it seemed homos would spearhead gentrification and make big cities safe of the Negro Criminal Menace. Also, as Obama belonged to Jews and homos, he spent most of his presidency pushing the Section 8 line, or More Gentrification. But then, Obama had to prove his street cred with blacks and dabbled with BLM, not knowing it would blow up big time. And then Donald Trump happened, and Jews got desperate with various means to unseat him. They tried the Russia Collusion hoax, the Ukraine Impeachment, the Covid Crisis, and then black riots. Riling up black rage was deemed especially necessary as Jews began to fear that Trumpism might make blacks think twice about supporting the Democratic Party that seemed more about globo-homo and immigration than conditions for blacks. If Trump offered more jobs to blacks, the Democrats could at least offer them free loot in the form of riots. But the riots are also blowing up in Jewish faces as blacks tend to be rather unruly and strike out in every direction, especially in blue cities. While Jews could handle homos like well-trained dogs, unleashing black rage is like letting pit-bulls run loose. You never quite know whom they will maul next. Homos march in parades, blacks loot in riots. Homos raise property values for yuppies, blacks drive down values and drive out businesses. (Another reason why the Democrats may be pandering more to blacks is that immigration decreased under Trump. Perhaps, Democrats hoped that MORE IMMIGRATION would eventually make black votes less essential to the Party. After all, California would be comfortably Democratic even without the black vote as all those yellows and browns vote Democratic. But if immigration continues to ebb, Democrats will have to shore up black votes.)

Still, we all got the memo: (1) Blacks got supreme moral authority and have the right to rule but don't rule. (2) Whites got no moral authority and don't deserve to rule but rule with all their ill-gotten white privilege. Then, what is to be done? Hand over power to blacks? But how many blacks are well-schooled and ready for such task? The Current West says the unruly blacks should rule over whites who have no right to rule but rule anyway due to legacy of 'racism', the greatest evil of all time in the whole universe, but it has no means of bringing about the necessary transference of power because whites continue to be better-credentialed while blacks continue to fail.
Besides, the Jews who really do rule choose to remain in the shadows while blaming White Privilege, thus spreading the impression that the West is ruled illegitimately by whites who are utterly lacking in moral authority. White apologetics makes for poor authority of power. Then, it's no wonder that Jews and whites were, for a time, so happy with globo-homo as the face of US power. For Jews, homos were useful and loyal proxies of Jewish Supremacist Power, and for deracinated and cucked whites, homo power seemed white-friendly and imbued with moral authority(in a world where decadence was the New Normal in righteousness). But there was something so shallow and hollow about homos(and then trannies) as the stalwart face of moral authority in the West, especially as so many homos were affluent and working so chummily with the Deep State, Las Vegas, Hollywood, and Wall Street. In time, it just seemed like a deviant form of White Privilege. It's so much more compelling to run with a narrative that involves slavery, whipping, lynchings, police brutality, and 'innocent' black men being killed in the streets by 'racism'. But how long will it take for blacks to earn the credentials and gain the skills to receive the power that is being handed to them on a silver platter by cucky-wuck whites?