Two Kinds of People in Current Political Culture: The Easy and the Hard — Jewish Power prefers the Easies because They are Easy to Mold and hates the Hards because They resist Jewish Supremacist Indoctrination and 'Idolatration' — 'Gay' Agenda emerges from the closet as Vanity-Supremacism of Sexual Deviancy as object of worship by 'Neocracy'

If Pope Francis doesn't want to judge, why not join a disco than a church? Religion exists to judge, and Christianity is a judgmental religion. If he doesn't want to judge, he should find a new 'faith' or some hobby. But then, Francis really does love to judge. He loves to judge and condemn traditionalists for refusing to bow down to the latest fashions of degeneracy.

'Gay' Rights Campaign Obtains the Imprimatur of 'Pope' Francis and his 'Magic Circle' - https://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page11/page11.html

1. It has gone from so-called ‘gay rights’ to Gay Rites, a 'neocracy' of globohomo-mania as new object of reverence, rapture, and worship. It’s been noted by many that the West is becoming irreligious. True, in the sense that traditional faith is waning. But no, in that there's a neo-theocracy or 'neocracy' of satanism with Sodomania and Tranny-scendence as the highest value, along with Magic Negro Cult and Holy Jew Worship. Idolatry is the new religion, and its adherents foam at the mouth in their faddish fanaticism.
For the longest time, the 'gay' agenda was sold as a secular and 'rational' movement in favor of individual rights, i.e. some individuals are homo, and they have rights as individuals to practice homo-fecal-penetration and be what nature made them to be. Then, the 'gay' agenda became the official policy of statism: Government and politicians must either observe, celebrate, and praise homosexuality OR keep their mouths shut if they lack the requisite enthusiasm. But, they must NOT oppose the agenda as it would displease the Jews who control both political parties, big media, and the deep state. Finally, we now see globo-homo nuttery being pushed into houses of worship. It is no longer secular but 'neocratic'. For some reason, churches and temples fling their gates wide open to the worship of satanism. And Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah, and we must all praise the fact that Israel annually(and anally)has one of the biggest 'gay' parades in the world.

2. Jews were the main force behind globo-homo. Anyone who denies this fact is either ignorant or mendacious. It’s been a way for Jews to enforce and reinforce minority-elite-supremacism. As homos are minorities all over the world, any society that puts homos on a pedestal puts minority before majority. Such developments complement Jewish minority-supremacist power. People who bow down before minority-homos are also more likely to be accustomed to bow down before minority-Jews. Also, as homos are alienated from their own societies, they make ideal collaborators of Jewish Globalist Power. Jewish Power coddles and bribes them, and they do the bidding of the Empire of Judea.

Sign says ALL ARE WELCOME but of course decent people who refuse to celebrate Homo-Fecal-Penetration and Tranny-Penis-Cutting are NOT welcome in this neo-satanist church gone rotten.

3. Jews hated Christianity for historical reasons(of 'antisemitism' and having passed the Jewish God to the goyim) and for being a key bastion of conservative values. The church was, at one time, the main force against globo-homo and other forms of decadence, depravity, and degeneracy, often pushed by Jews. Jews figured there are two ways to deal with this problem. Bring down the church and discredit it with salacious scandals, mocking caricatures, and secular arguments. Or change it from the inside. Turn the church into a dispenser of globo-homo, and then there would be no effective force against the ‘gay’ agenda, especially as secular ‘conservatives’ only cater to power and money and will suck up to anyone on top — notice that once rich Jews told GOP to stop opposing globo-homo, ALL Republicans followed suit. Also, a christianity that’s gone globo-homo is spiritually dead. No sane religion celebrates sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting in its houses of worship. The fact that so many people in the West will approve of christianity ONLY IF it embraces the 'gay' agenda is proof that they put sodomy and tranny-vanity over God and Jesus. They don't expect homos and trannies to repent and atone before God and Jesus(and Allah and Muhammad). Instead, they expect Divinity to bow down to the fad-fanaticism of the day. In other words, divinity now exists to flatter the vanity of sexual deviants.

4. Any institution is more about personnel than principles. There is nothing in teachings of Christianity that would celebrate sinners and sodomy. Jesus opened His heart to everyone, even murderers and rapists, but on condition that they sought repentance and redemption. So, all this globo-homo stuff has nothing to do with church doctrine or principles. But, that doesn’t matter as any institution is really controlled by the people inside. If satanists take over the church, it will become satanist. If capitalists take over a communist government, it will practice capitalism. If communists take over a capitalist industry, they will run it along communist lines. If the Supreme Court is taken over by radicals or Jewish supremacists, it will do away with free speech, gun rights, freedom of assembly, and etc. EVEN IF those are guaranteed in the Constitution. People of Power decide, not core principles. So, if catholic church is taken over by globo-homo types, it is effectively 'sodomitic'. It doesn’t matter what church doctrine has said since time immemorial. This is why ‘muh constitution’ types are misguided, indeed clueless. They really believe laws and policies are governed by principles. No, it's the Power that decides. Jews took over US institutions and used their power to shut down BDS, suppress free speech, and promote tribal supremacism of Zion. Such policies don't flow from the Constitution, but Jews enforced them because they got the power. They even passed ‘gay marriage’ through the Supreme Court. Where is that in the Constitution? People of Power or POP can just pull stuff out of the thin air. It’s like Stalin had the power to make a pact with Hitler even though it went against communist principles. In this sense, fascism has a better understanding of how things really work. Power itself is the ‘principle’ of history.

Welcome to Anno Sodomini

5. If the masses were at odds with the elites, then the People of Power or POP would have far more difficulty doing as they please. In other words, even if all the institutions were pro-homo, they would have a hard time pushing ‘gay marriage’ as too many people would be outraged. So, popular will matters. But then, popular will, especially in the age of mass media and public education, is molded by POP or people of power. They decide on the Narratives that young ones grow up with. They churn out pop culture, movies, and TV shows that affect how people feel about topics & issues and, furthermore, decide what kinds of images and idols will colonize their minds. And Jews have control of mass culture and pushed ‘gay’-as-angel iconography to the masses. As most people are sheeple, they fell for it like children fall for Santa. So, Jews got elite power and control mass passion, or 'massion'. It’s like, on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, Mao had both institutional/military power and mass-youth power because young ones were whipped into mania by Maoist propaganda. And Jews got that kind of control. They rule from the top, and they also mold the hearts and minds of the masses. And what have conzos been doing about this all these years? They offered us nothing but “Muh Israel” and “Gay Marriage is now a conservative value.”

Jewish Satanism and Homo Vanity demands that the Christian God and Jesus cater to the narcissism of sexual deviancy.

6. There are two kinds of people. The Easies and the Hards. The Easies are push-overs. Easily molded by public education, advertising, fads & fashion, state propaganda, and political correctness. Most ‘liberals’ today are Easies. They are so easy to influence, so receptive to the latest manias. They are so trusting of elite institutions, so status-conscious, and so into proggy conceits that they fall for anything packaged as ‘new’, 'radical', 'hip', 'cool', and/or pro-'social justice'. So, if the Power says a man can be a ‘she’ or even a ‘they’, the Easies just go along with it without thought. They sure are Easy. As even higher-IQ ‘liberals’ fall for this, Easiness is less a matter of IQ than a matter of self and conviction. Easies have weak individual sense, racial consciousness, and/or awareness of culture/roots. They’ve been uprooted but hardly inculcated with the importance of individuality and critical thinking. A rootless person with strong individuality and critical mindset wouldn’t be so Easy. He may not be conservative, but he won’t fall for every fad and fashion either, especially for approval. But today’s ‘liberals’ have not only been uprooted but denied individuality and criticality. That means they’ve been made Easy to any fad/fashion; however, lacking any sense of individuality, they latch onto the judgmental emotionalism of PC. 'Easy' connotes tolerance, taking-it-easy, and live-and-let-live attitude(the kind seen in the movie DAZED AND CONFUSED), but today's Easies are instantly 'triggered' by whatever that goes against their indoctrination and 'idolatration'(the process of instilling idol-worship). In a way, so-called ‘wokeness’ is paradoxical. Ideologically, it is so flimsy and keeps changing at the drop of a hat. And yet, its minions are puritanically rabid. Now, how can anyone be SO SURE about an 'ideology' or idol-driven-ideology(or 'idology') that is changing all the time, often contradicting itself, and/or going from one outrage to another at breakneck speed? One moment, the all-consuming outrage is over ‘those poor immigrants’. Next moment, the immigrants have all been forgotten and it’s about celebration of ‘gays’. Then, the ‘gays’ are neglected and the new outrage is about the Noble Negroes and 'systemic racism'. Then, it’s about trannies. Then, it’s Me-Too and feminism(even though the 'liberal'-dominated pop culture has pornified womanhood). Then, it’s something else and etc. People who would have scoffed at the notion of Bruce Jenner as a ‘woman’ are suddenly SO SURE that he is one, and YOU BETTER AGREE or else you’re a ‘transphobe’ who must be fired, purged, and blacklisted. So much conviction with so little consistency. How can this be? It’s because PC is essentially amnesiac. It instills people with a righteous sense of outrage but without roots/heritage and/or individuality/criticality. Conservatives argue for roots/heritage, for values with deep historical and spiritual pedigree. Classical liberals and libertarians argue for a strong sense of individuality. PC rejects both and calls for Collective Outrage over the latest ‘injustice'(to be decided by the Power). PC minions are game for this because they have no roots and weak sense of self. They are neither like Patrick Buchanan nor Ayn Rand. Whatever one feels about Buchanan, he has a strong and hard sense of tradition and heritage as a shield against the winds of fashion. Whatever one thinks of Ayn Rand, she believed in the power of the individual to think for himself/herself. She refused to agree with anyone under pressure or merely to seek approval. But lacking such qualities, PC minions have a kind of passion without a core of roots or criticality. It’s a passion of amnesia that easily conforms to the latest fads. PC created a population that is ‘Easy’ but also Queasy. They are Easily molded by the Power but feel so queasy about anything that won’t jibe with the latest fashionable outrage. They are puritans of impurity as the current PC ideology or 'idology' is actually more a mindless idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks, thus a kind of Tri-Supremacism. It should be obvious to anyone with sense that 'wokeness' is not leftist, egalitarian, or progressive. It is about the supremacism of Jews and whatever Jews prefer uber alles. In a way, Easy-Queasies are like dogs. Notice dogs can be made to bark/bite at ANYTHING by their master. A dog that is gentle with a rabbit can be turned instantly to maul it. Their emotions of servitude to the master overrides all other consideration. Even though most Jews claim to be ‘liberal’, they themselves are not easy-queasy. If anything, they push the Easy-mentality on the goyim because, deep down inside, they themselves are Hard-minded about their own tribal identity and interests. Jewishness is hardcore tribal supremacism wrapped in ‘liberal’ clothing.

The Easy-Queasies hate the Hards. If Easies have soft clay heads molded by the Jewish hand, the Hards are hard-hats who are tougher to crack. Some are hard due to a sense of heritage or tradition. People like Buchanan are true Catholics with a deep sense of church history and values. They won’t cower to the latest fad or outrage. Others are hard for reasons of individual pride. They believe that right-or-wrong and good-vs-bad must be a matter of individual reasoning and conviction. It shouldn’t be decided by popular outrage or political pressure. These individuals may disagree with one another, but each of them is Hard in that he or she trusts himself/herself than pressure from above or below or from their peers.
This is why Jews like the Easies and hate the Hards. Easies are easy to control, whereas the Hards have their own ideas rooted in tradition or individuality.

Of course, there are Hard-Tards as well, such as moronic Creationists or the ‘god hates fags’ crowd who simply won’t believe the science that homos are born that way. Being dogmatic or stubborn for the hell of it isn’t a good way to be Hard. There are also the Hard-Lards, those who seem to be Hard but are actually all talk and no walk. All those ‘right-wing’ talk show hosts sure talk big but usually fold when push comes to shove. Donald Trump is hard-lard. He acts and talks tough but usually caves to every fashion and to the Jews who hate him. ‘Muh Israel’.

WHY JEWS PUSH GAY MARRIAGE - Brother Nathanael

Limits of Putinism in Russia and the Need for Themocracy — Duality of Human Nature to be Free and to Serve Something — Why Russia must become a Fascist-Democracy like Israel as National Entity

Vladimir Putin can only do so much and stick around for only so long.
Russian people must mature and learn to become great on their own.
Russia has huge advantages. If Germans or Japanese(or past Anglos) had open access to all that land and resources, Russia would be the #2 or #3 economy in the world in no time.

Russia has:

1. Large enough population with decent enough IQ.

2. Lots of land.

3. Tremendous resources.

4. National pride(something lacking in most white nations).

5. Moral capital(as victors over Nazis, survivors of communism, and resisters of Globo-Homo-mania).

But its economy is on par with that of Spain or Italy and only because of its resources in gas, oil, and minerals. Without those, Russian economy would be that of some third rate Middle Eastern nation. This simply isn't tolerable. Russians need to get their act together, and no leader, however great, is going to do it for them.

So, what do Russians need?

Culture of discipline
Culture of individuality
Culture of accountability
Culture of conscience
Culture of restraint(especially from vodka)
Culture of maturity(such as refraining from wrestling with bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis)


Russia needs a cultural revolution. The Orthodox Church needs to develop an activist wing that trains people like Jesuit cadres to spread and instill values of conscience, diligence, responsibility, and patriotism to ALL Russians.

Russia needs something like Protestant-Work-Ethic cultivation. Its rich elites need to be less lavish and corrupt, and its people need to be more enterprising and less dependent on statism.

A people can be statist and still be productive. Germans were always statist but economically highly productive. The state was always a big feature of France under monarchy and republican rule, but France made great strides just the same. While excessive statism can complicate things with too much red tape & regulations, there have many examples of nations failing despite their lack of 'big government'. The sudden lack of statism surely didn't do wonders for Russia in the 1990s.

In the end, the character of a people will be of paramount importance. Putin has been a good leader(given the alternatives), but he cannot do for Russians what Russians must learn to do for themselves. Granted, a truly great leader can alter the character of his people, but such a man must have vision and iron will. Putin is an able manager and serious statesman, but he's no visionary or prophet. He isn't the Russian Moses... or even a Russian Frederick the Great. A leader who changes the political course of his nation controls the winds. A leader who transforms the national character of his people moves mountains.

In the absence of a Russian Moses, Russians must learn to tell themselves... "WE can do it." For one thing, Russia is one of the few nations that could go it alone if it were forced too. Now, it's good for Russia to trade with the world, but even if Russia were hit by sanctions by the entire world, it could survive because it has enough land and resources. This is not an option for Japan, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and most nations. Germans have human capital but no energy. Saudis have energy but poor human capital and lots of desert.
Russia has people, land, and resources. It could develop great industries.
But there's too much corruption and lack of direction, and so, too many talented Russians prefer to move to other nations, especially in the EU and US. Unless Russian entrepreneurs can be assured of rule of law and a capable work force, they will be reluctant to invest fully in their own nation. For ambitious people, enough is not enough. They want to grow bigger and expand the economy, and this requires a support system of law, work ethic, and reliability. Naturally, we can understand why talented people anywhere would want to move to the US to make a quick buck in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc. Even though the US is culturally and morally decrepit, its Anglo-German-Dutch-American legacy of Rule of Law still allows for the kind of property rights and assurances that attract much capital. (But, it's unlikely that American Rule of Law will last very long given the look of California as the future of All America. With each passing year, the Golden State is looking more like a patchwork of Jewish oligarchy, Asian mandarin drones, white freaks & homo degenerates, and Third World serfdom.)

So, in order for Russia to keep its best talent, it has to ensure that the ideas and investments of the most ambitious/ingenious/industrious Russians will be protected and profitable. Also, Russia must appeal to their sense of patriotism, i.e. that, as patriots, they ultimately owe something to the motherland because, all said and done, dollars and rubles don't constitute the highest meaning of life. Furthermore, since smart people like creative stuff, Russians must create a counter-creative culture that defies the globo-homo-dominant fashions & trends of the West that are poisoning the world, not least by fooling so many that they're 'most evolved' for waving the 'gay rainbow' flags.

Putin was a necessary figure, but, especially as there doesn't seem to be a Russian Moses on the horizon, the next stage in Russian development must come from the Russian people themselves. They mustn't look to Putin as mother-bird who forever feeds the chicks in the big nest. Russians must go beyond nest-mentality and build Russia into a real aviary where every Russian can stand alone as well as together. Indeed, the best collective is one of strong individuals. While a collective of weak-willed people might have advantages over disunity among strong-willed-but-atomized individuals, the ideal is a unity of strong-willed individuals. Anglo-America of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century had both strong individualism and powerful sense of racial-national solidarity.

All Russians should tell themselves... "If Germans or Japanese had our land, they'd do great things. Then, why have we Russians have done so much less with all our blessings and advantages? Why isn't Russia a giant Prussia?" Indeed, if tiny Prussia with all its disadvantages could become so powerful, why has Russia always lagged so far behind? Granted, Russia achieved great things under Josef Stalin, but if a people must be whipped like horses and cattle to do great things, they will more cattle than human. The real question is, "Can Russians do great things as FREE people with a sense of agency and accountability?" That is the million ruble question.

Russians should also remind themselves... "A bunch of Anglos arrived on the East Coast of a wilderness called America. After independence, within a century and half, the US became the most powerful and richest nation on Earth. We have even more land and resources, but we achieved so much less. Why?"

By asking such questions, Russians can identify and fix the flaws of Russian character.

For much of Russian history, there was Tsarism and Orthodox culture that crushed individual initiative. Also, Russian elites, so into French and German culture, sought approval from foreign elites while treating their own people like dirt. Many preferred to speak French while regarding their mother tongue as vulgar and barbarian.
Communism was the great hope of uniting Russian elites and Russian masses, but communism crushed individual initiative and enterprise, and so, communism became like modern Tsarism. Furthermore, as non-Russians were dominant in the original Bolshevik Regime, Russian-ness was suppressed for a time in the USSR.

Because Russians lacked individual initiative and enterprising spirit, they were like deer in the headlight when communism ended. Instead of seeing the new order as a great opportunity for fresh possibilities, most Russians were just dazed and confused as they'd grown accustomed to jobs and benefits from the state. In the ensuing chaos, sharp-eyed globalists easily targeted and looted Russia, a nation where most people were clueless as to what to do, especially under the tutelage of the inept Boris Yeltsin. Implosion of statism didn't lead to the emergence of sturdy & sober individualism but bewilderment and nihilism. For many youths, freedom meant revelry and thuggery. For Jews and gangsters, it meant a fire-sale to grab all the good stuff. Among the decent and honorable, everything seemed hopeless as the new elites were utterly crooked while the masses mishandled freedom like children playing with fire. The end of communism was like the second end of serfdom in Russia, but the result was vagrancy than vibrancy. Especially as Jews grabbed so much of Russian resources, it was as if Russians lost not only their private wealth but national property. If Russians after communism had been more like enterprising Chinese(who were governed by strong leaders), they would have jumped at the chance of new opportunities.

Vladimir Putin and his cohorts restored some degree of political, social, and economic order, and that was for the good. But in the end, Putinism can only be a form of transitionalism. It can only provide a temporary respite during which Russians could take hold of their own future. It is a window of opportunity. But how many Russians have the foresight and fortitude to take advantage of the situation that won't last forever? How many want to step forward and take charge, as opposed to all those who are accustomed to having OTHERS fix the problems for them? As of now, most Russians are faced with two possibilities: The Western Model and the Russian Model. Both are bad.

The Western Model is, at least for now, good for innovation, creativity(except in PC-taboo areas), and initiative. Most of the innovations are coming out of the West and Westernized parts of the East. But the Western Model is too divorced from cultural roots, identity, and meaning. It cannot be sustained because Homomania, Afromania, and feminism cannot be the basis of any healthy civilization. Homomania leads to decadence with fecal penetration and tranny-dick-cutting as new rites. Feminism turns women into bitches or sluts who won't have kids.. or become single mothers. Afromania promotes Negro thuggery and megalomania and egotism. And yet, the current Russian model is too lethargic, turgid, and static to encourage and invigorate the creative, enterprising, and innovative spirit that is so crucial to competition in the modern world.

What Russia needs is a kind of Themocracy, or theme-based-democracy. A kind of fascist-democracy... akin to what Israel has. National Zionism is fascism + democracy — of course, its evil twin, Imperialist Zionism that violates the national sovereignty of other nations is hardly praiseworthy. The fascist-democracy of National Zionism must serve the higher themes of Israel: Jewish state, Jewish power, Jewish destiny. Israel is not some abstract propositional nation but a democracy linked with a certain key theme. Iran is like that too. Iran is a democracy with elections, but its theme of Islamism cannot be violated. Now, I'm not so sure about the wisdom of religion serving as the main theme of a democracy. I prefer the thematics of Israel: Blood and Soil. Israel is open to religious Jews, secular Jews, any kind of Jews AS LONG AS they defend Jewish ethnicity and territory. So, the Jewish mind is free to pursue anything as long as it serves the Jewish body on Jewish land.
In contrast, if all Iranians must bow down to Islam, it restrains what can be thought, debated, and explored. (One advantage of Islam is that it has been an effective bulwark against the new religion of homomania, which is a kind of neo-theocracy of idolatry. And to the extent that moral Jews in Israel have been utterly ineffective in preventing decadent Jews from spreading homomania and turning whole parts of Israel into Sodom and Gomorrah does make us wonder about the legitimacy of Israel.)

Anyway, Russia needs more spirit of freedom and enterprise. More individuality. It needs more democracy. More rule of law. However, these freedoms must be anchored to higher(yet also deeper) themes of blood, soil, and history or identity/inheritance, territory, and narrative. While democracy can be good and useful, it must not be the highest theme.
Any Jew in Israel understands this. If you were to ask a Jew, "Which would you prefer? In scenario A, Israel turns autocratic and rejects democracy but remains a Jewish state for Jewish people. In scenario B, Israel becomes 75% non-Jewish but remains a democracy. Do you go with A or B?"
Any Jew will say he will go with A. After all, even if Israel turns autocratic but remains Jewish, it could one day revert back to democracy(as it's not all that difficult or uncommon for political systems to change). But if Israel becomes majority non-Jewish, it is no longer and will never again be a Jewish state even if democracy lasts forever; indeed, even return of dictatorship will not make Israel Jewish again as the overwhelming majority will be non-Jewish."
Indeed, worship of 'liberal democracy' as the highest good is the disease of the West. By placing democracy, hedonism, libertarianism, money, and economic growth ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, they've lost the will and means to preserve blood, soil, and history. By rules of 'proposition nation', any transformation is 'good', 'necessary', and 'imperative' IF it leads to higher GDP, more celebration of vanity(esp via homommania, Afromania, or slut culture), more 'diversity'(a virtual religion in the West), and etc. So, themes of identity, history, and territory take a backseat to themes of atomization, political correctness, and 'tolerance' & 'inclusion' which comes down to invasion by foreign hordes. Of course, Jews get passover rights as even the most fanatical diehard libertarian or globalist will say Jews and Israel get waivers from what is demanded and expected of all other groups.

What Russians must say is, "We want and need more freedom and liberty, BUT the highest themes of Russia are blood, soil, and territory." After all, even without liberal democracy under the Tsars and Commie-tsars, Russia remained Russia, the homeland of the Russian people.
The trick is to fuse themes of blood, soil, and history with freedom.
That was the source of European and American greatness in the past. At one time, more freedom meant more freedom for the ethnos to do great things for their own people. But over time, the idea of freedom came to be divorced from ethnos and came to be centered around the individual. In traditional myths, the hero was an individual who did extraordinary things for his tribe, his people. In contrast, the modern individualism increasingly came to be about reaching the stars only for self-aggrandizement. And then, it came to see ethnos as an enemy of freedom since radical libertarians don't want to feel restrained/constrained by any obligation to any people, culture, or territory. Libertarians are like bird-folks. They see themselves as having evolved away from land-creatures who are wedded to a territory as their homeland. For globalist bird-people with wings of cosmopolitan-privilege, the notion of walls and borders is antiquated and irrelevant. They want to fly from globo-city to globo-city. Their worldview is migratory. They see every nation as anachronistic nest that must be abandoned in the globalized world where everyone should have wings to fly around all over. No wonder that the migratory globo-bird-people feel most affinity with mass migrations of peoples. Globo-elites see themselves as birds-of-privilege and they see Third World migrants as fish-of-need. (Also, by sentimentally latching onto the poor migratory masses, the rich migratory elites justify their own winged privilege of flying all over and shi**ing on everyone below. Of course, Jewish birds insist on having their iron nest in Israel.) These globo-elites put their individual privilege at the center of everything. Sure, they act like they're for 'social justice' and 'progress', but that's mostly empty talk by people like Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and the like who live in an Elysium Sky world safe from troubles on the ground.
For most people, their land really matters to their well-being. It matters economically and psychologically, culturally and historically. Since they don't have much in the way of private property, they feel 'rich' in the knowledge of at least having a place to call their (sacred)homeland. So, when Third World masses pour into their nations, the effect is like attack of winged monkeys in Wizard of Oz. This is why Polish and Hungarian patriots don't want their nations to be monkey-invaded by Turd World hordes. To patriots, Soros and his ilk are like the Wicked Witch, and the third world masses are like flying monkeys(or sea monkeys as they come by boat to Europe).


The result is massive chaos, but since the main themes of globalism are individuality, 'inclusion', and diversity, the elites don't care what they are doing to the world. And of course, they got their privileges and goodies and remain above the ground on which all hell is breaking loose. Also, they rigged the narrative and ideology so as to have the moral high-ground against patriots. So, if patriots say they want to defend the homeland, the piggish winged elites call them 'far right' and 'neo-nazi'. Elites denounce the patriots for not being 'inclusive' while ignoring the fact that the elite world is the most exclusive domain reserved only for those who 'belong'. While the elite world is also 'diverse', it is the diversity of the moneyed class. In contrast, diversity for the masses means that white people in the West must be pushed aside by grubby morons from Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China, Guatemala, and worst of all, the ghastly continent of Africa with all those crazy Negroes with muscles and aggression. (Look how Africans act in Australia. Ugabuglobalism is the worst.)

Russia must lead the way with its brand of Themocracy that is for more freedom and rule of law BUT in service of the ultimate themes of Russian identity, territory, and history. So, freedom must serve something higher. Freedom serving Freedom is like cannibalism. Freedom needs to serve deeper themes, those with lasting value, like blood and soil.
After all, what is Chinese-ness? Chinese had different religions and cults(Buddhism, Taoism, Maoism), but in the end, what binds all of Chinese history and culture together is a sense of blood ancestry and territory. The deepest themes of Chinese-ness isn't about political systems, economic ideology, or individualist fashions. After all, China no longer has emperors or the concept of Mandate of Heaven. But it's still China because it's the land of Chinese who remember their own history. Now, most people are agreed that capitalism is the most productive system, rule of law & private property are most useful, and republican/democratic system of government tends to be most just. So, it'd be good for peoples to adopt them BUT with the knowledge that those cannot be the highest or deepest themes, which must be blood, soil, and history. Capitalism, democracy, and rule of law must serve something more lasting and deeper in meaning.

Indeed, there are two sides to human nature. One side longs for freedom, but another side longs to serve something. It's like that Bob Dylan song, "Gotta Serve Somebody". This is why even globalists with privilege come to feel empty and hollow and eventually become neo-religious and search for something 'higher' to serve. Clever Jews understand this and urge globalized gentiles to serve holy homos, Magic Negroes, and Israel as the highest goods. Globalists feel this craving to serve something so badly that they go with the officially approved neo-religions that deify Jews, Negroes, and homos. (Why don't they serve their own race, culture, and history? Because globalism has infected their minds that gentiles, especially white ones, who primarily serve their own people, culture, territory, and narrative are 'far right', 'racist', and 'neo-nazi').
People need to serve something. This is why even Libertarians get all weepy about MLK. Even Rand Paul go boo hoo and wets his pants over the thug puncher of women. To serve something is part of human nature, no less than the desire to be free. After all, being free just to be free feels good for awhile but gets vapid and pointless. It's like a novelist or film-maker wants the freedom to express himself but also to serve a story, idea, message, meaning, or cause. Sergei Eisenstein was a great film-maker, but he didn't just make movies to show off his talent. He served the Revolution. SEVEN SAMURAI shows how warriors gain meaning by serving a cause, a noble one of protecting farmers from bandits.
Jews understood this aspect of human nature and came up with the idea of Covenant. It means Jews must serve God. This was a brilliant move because if Jews didn't serve God, their human-nature-desire-to-serve-something might have led to serving another tribe or kingdom more powerful than the Jews(as people tend to worship the powerful). By making Jews serve God, they were immune to serving another tribe or people. And to incentivize Jews to serve God, Jews made God the most powerful and only God in the world. After all, if the Jewish God were a weakling god or just one of the many other gods, Jews might feel tempted to worship the gods of a more powerful people. But by making their God the only God, Jews could only serve God. And through the Covenant, Jews were told that they have a duty to serve this God. But more clever yet, the Covenant meant that God, the ultimate power, had a special duty to help the Jews. So, Jews were to serve God who was to 'serve' Jews, and that meant Jews must serve Jews. Very ingenious arrangement.
When we compare Jews and East Asians in the West, we see how Jews serve their own identity and power because they have this covenant mindset. In contrast, East Asians outside East Asia easily come to serve OTHER peoples, especially Jews, homos, and Negroes, since they have no concept comparable to the Covenant. So, their human-nature-need-to-serve-something can easily be directed to serve the 'new gods' of Jews, homos, and Negroes.

Anyway, Russia needs to ditch the notion of Third Rome. It must think in terms of Second Israel or Zion for Russians.
So-called 'liberal democracy' of the West says the white folks of the West must sacrifice everything for the 'propositions' of globalism. So, even identity/inheritance, culture, history, and territory must be sacrificed or surrendered IF doing so furthers the proposition of 'liberal democracy' that has become all about 'diversity', 'inclusion', and GDP(that, btw, mainly benefits the top 1%). This is an inversion of the old principle that all freedoms must ultimately serve the nation, people/ethnos, culture, and history. This principle still exists ONLY IN ISRAEL. Outside Israel, Jewish elites fear and loathe it as promoting solidarity among gentile majorities of nations that can serve as bulwark against Jewish supremacist penetration. So, Jews rigged the globalist narrative so as to make gentiles feel that their serving their own kind is 'evil'. But Jews love it in Israel because it means consolidation of Jewish power and preservation of Jewish pride of identity.

What Russia must do is promote an order that is democratic, enterprising, and individualist BUT where the highest themes are nation, culture, and territory. Russian human nature is like that of rest of humanity. One part of Russians want to be free. Another part of Russians want to serve something. The magic formula is for Russians to be free to serve their people, culture, and homeland.

Problem of Lack of Individuality in Russian National Character — Communal Sense without Individual Spark means Lack of Reform, Progress, and Growth

Anatoly Karlin wrote about the problems of Russia in The Russian Empire: Too Nice for Its Own Good

I’m thinking that the problem with Russians is the lack of individuality.

Now, some on the Right(esp Alt Right) are skeptical and even hostile to this thing called individualism. They see it as selfish, egotistical, vain, atomizing, and ahistoric. This may indeed be true in cases where individualism is the core of one’s worldview and ‘value’ system.

But individuality can serve something bigger than itself. And any agenda, vision, or order is best served by energized individuals with the will to be bold, headstrong, inspired, ingenious, and innovative. The problem with collectivism is it discourages and dampens individual initiative, and of course, initiative is always a function of individuality. So, even though the collective consciousness emphasizes the good of the whole, the actual good comes from those individuals who make the extra effort to assert their will and make dreams come true. Collective consciousness is necessary for a community of shared identity, values, and purpose. But the collective is about inertia than initiative. In order for things to get started, the individual must provide the initiative. Collective consciousness is like a pile of logs waiting to be lit. But they alone cannot make fire. It takes a spark. Individuality and Initiative are the sparks created by striking of flint stones. It’s like we can create any institution to serve the community in a specific capacity. It can be a center for art, drama, or music. And the members of the community can collectively agree on the purpose of the institution. But that collective knowledge will not create art, drama, or music. It takes individuals with initiative who are willing to pour their energies into creating something unique or special. Collective consciousness is about a general sense of what is necessary. Lots of people can agree that fine music would be a good thing. But it takes strong individuals like Mozart or Beethoven to actually make the music. And this is why the culture of individuality has been so important in the rise of the West in contrast to the Rest where collective conformity suppressed individual initiatives as rude, irreverent, presumptuous, destabilizing, or subversive.
Of course, a fanatical ideology that values radical individualism above all other considerations is bound to be fatal. The paradox of Ayn Rand’s success is that she reached mass readers with a vision that actually held most of them in contempt. Her obsession was only with the BEST, the 1% of the 1% in talent, beauty, and/or wealth. She saw most of humanity as just useless rabble whose only meaningful purpose was to serve as helot-cattle whose menial production and material consumption would sustain an economy that could fund and fulfill the mental vision of the genius. The fantastic element was in the idealized hero who possessed not only great talent but granite integrity and spellbinding beauty. (Reality is, of course, far messier and more complicated, less a myth of heroes than mystery of hustlers and hermits who, often by accident, stumbled on something remarkable.) She railed against middlebrow comprises(as characterized by Toohey), but hers was a middlebrow fantasy of heroic elitism sold to mediocrities. Still, upon arriving in the US, she was quick to notice what was missing in Russia due to Slavic tradition and Bolshevik tyranny. Both provided a general sense of the common good but repressed the independence and initiative of individuality. (On the other hand, Rand failed to understand that hyper-individualism destroys democratic individualism because the hyper-individual comes to believe that he is so great and awesome as a man of destiny that his individual will must trample over the individual wills of others. So, even as Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler came to be associated with anti-individualism, it was because they were hyper-individuals with radical will who felt that their individual vision must quell all obstacles. Not for nothing did Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to be associated with both individuality and tyranny. If every individuality was equal, nothing great can be done. The great individual must trample on the individuality of others and bend them to his individual will. Whether this is done through communism or capitalism, the dynamics is much the same. Still, a capitalist system allows for more than one powerful individual to call the shots, and that allows for more competition and achievement.)

There is collectivism where people conceive of the common good and try to work as a team. The downside of such mindset is passivity. After all, everyone would be waiting around to be told what to do for the common good. He’d lack the individual will to put forth his own ideas and plans. He’d know how to receive and take orders but not how to assert himself and propose/execute ideas to lead others.

There is individualism where the only consideration is self-interest or self-satisfaction. The most extreme type of this kind of individualism is found in gangsterism, vice industry, and globalism. Druglords don’t care what narcotics may do to society. They only care about raking in the bucks. Vice industry casino oligarchs don’t care about the negative impact of gambling on morals and values. They only care about profits. And globalist entrepreneurs don’t care about the peoples of their own nation and around the world. They just play the entire world to maximize wealth and prestige for themselves.

But there is the third option: Individualism for the shared national good. Peter Thiel is partly of this school. He believes in individual enterprise, boldness, risk-taking, and innovation… but he also believes there must be a sense of national purpose and good.

The problem with Russians is this lack of individuality for the national good. Many Russians do have a collective & shared sense of national good, but it isn’t enough to provide the spark for enterprise, innovation, and reforms. And some Russians do have a narrow sense of individualism that only cares about the self. Such egotistic opportunism will even do things that hurts the nation-as-a-whole as long as there is something in it for ‘me’.
Russian(often Russian-Jewish)individualism has taken the form of self-serving egomania. Its only obsession is to become rich by any means necessary and live like a king with yachts and mansions all over the world. (To be sure, Jewish-Russian oligarchs at least have a sense of "Is it good for the Jews?" They are willing to exploit and cause harm to Russia for self-gain, but they will serve the interests of Israel and EOJ or the Empire of Judea.) This kind of pathologically self-centered individualism is harmful to the nation. The powerful, the privileged, and the well-connected only care about themselves. And as fish rots from the head, such excessive vanity seeps down to the masses who, though remaining poor, ape the crass, trashy, and narcissistic. Of course, it’s a problem in the US too, with moronic masses imitating, at least in style and attitude, the decadent excesses of celebrities.

There has long been a sense of communal and shared good in Russian culture, and it goes back to the spread of Christianity… which may explain why so many Russians took to communism, which seemed familiar to Russian sensibility. Russians, lacking individuality and initiative, were used to being told what to do. They were used to others doing the talking for them. This kind of communalism discouraged individuality, spark, adventure, and can-do-spirit. It emphasized conformism to orthodoxy of the righteous and just, whether under Christianity, Tsarism, or communism. Or Putinism.

There is a positive side to communalism but also a negative side. Without sufficient individual spark and boldness, too many communal-minded people remain passive and sit around to be told what to do. In contrast, communalism of energetic individuals will be lit by sparks of initiative and will. In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, George Bailey is compelled by circumstances to strive for the good of the town, but he is bursting with boundless individuality. He knows how to take charge. He is idealistic, resourceful, adaptive, and keen. He knows how to engage with all kinds of people. He has both communal spirit and individuality. In contrast, the lack of individuality in Russia led to too many Russkies just waiting around to be told what to think or do. Or, the strong individual exerted his precious will to control than inspire others. Consider the Strelnikov character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He is strong-willed like George Bailey, but he instills fear than inspires freedom.



The difference between assertive communalism(of individuals) and passive(or tyrannical) communalism(of collective mindset) is this: Suppose the electricity goes out in a community. In the community of civic-minded individuals, many will try to contact the company to see what’s up. Each person will try to take the initiative. In contrast, in the latter community, everyone will just sit around trusting or hoping that someone ELSE will do something about the power outage. This makes all the difference.

America used to be both individual and communal. It had civic sense and national unity, and it was composed of individuals who rolled up their sleeves in can-do spirit and went about building and fixing things. In contrast, the Russian lack of individualism meant a communalism that tended toward inertia or lethargy as most people lacked initiative and just waited around for orders from above. And Putinism hasn’t fixed this national character flaw in the Russian mindset.

Indeed, what is striking about the ‘Russian Revolution’ was how non-Russian much of it was. How was it that a small rabble of Jews, Latvians, Poles, and even Georgians gained so much power over vast numbers of Russians who almost overnight became their servants? Those other cultures had a stronger assertive will(though not in the Anglo-libertarian mode). Russian masses had long been inculcated to follow orders and do like others do. (This was why the Whites were doomed in the Civil War with the Reds. The Reds, though anti-liberty, found a way to whip up mass frenzy. The Russian masses were made to feel they were playing a heroic role in history. In contrast, the elitist and reactionary Whites had little to offer but orders and commands that promised nothing but return to the old order.) Unlike Russians, the ethno-minority Bolsheviks came from cultures that produced individuals who were more bandit-like, merchant-like, intellectual-like, and etc. Consider how a tiny number of Jews came to dominate so much of the economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider how a tiny rabble of Chechen cutthroats were able to intimidate far bigger Russian gangs.

So, it's not surprising it took awhile for the USSR to become a genuine Russian Empire. Up to the 50s, it was largely an empire ruled by non-Russians with greater penchant for assertive will. Indeed, Russians gained power only because the non-Russian elites created a system wherein Russians could be educated and elevated up the Iron Ladder. Russians could use a system but weren’t adept at creating one themselves. Consider how Germans had played a pivotal role in the creation of modern pre-revolutionary Russia. Consider how it took many non-Russians to create the Bolshevik system. And after the fall of communism, Russia handed over privatization(that turned into ‘piratization’) to foreigners, mainly Jewish Americans. Russians felt they couldn't do it themselves.

Another problem with Russians is the persistent strain of barbarism that wastes energy on childish things. When Russians do indulge in crude forms of individuality, they are often silly stuff like swilling excessive amounts of vodka, having street fights, driving around like loons, wrestling bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis. Jews don’t waste their core energies on such silliness. If you have a gallon of gasoline, it should be poured into an engine. Russians douse gas all around and set things on fire just to celebrate and have a good time. Total waste of energy and creativity. True individuality is a smart use of energy with focus and sense of purpose.


As Russia looks to the future, the main conflict will be this:

Russian nationalists and patriots with sounder values & nobler spirit but lacking in individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference

VERSUS

Jewish, Homo, and Cuck Globalists with terrible values and subversive mindset but bursting with individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference.

It’s like what Israel Shamir wrote of the Lucy Stein gang. Awful people but full of spunk and spirit. A spirited badger can bring down a passive cow. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/lucy-stein-gang-rides-moscow/