The Militarism Canard... or the 'Civilian' Actors Have Been More Dangerous

 

One thing for sure, one needn’t be of the military to be militarist as, often is the case in the West, the civilian leadership(or puppetry of the oligarchy) tend to be more militarist, whereas a considerable number of military men often warn against excess adventurism. It goes against the grain of the popular narrative(via academia and mass media/entertainment) that the warmongers are embedded in the military. How often have we heard about the role of Japanese MILITARISM in the series of impossible wars that brought death and destruction upon mainland Asia and finally upon Japan itself?
The early Cold War Narrative often pits relative peace-seekers like John F. Kennedy against the War State, which some have suspected in the assassination of the former. Films like FAIL SAFE, DR. STRANGELOVE, and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY have military men plotting to bring about World War III in the name of defeating communism. And of course, the great bogeymen of World War I(or the Great War) have long been the German MILITARISTS.

But, some of the biggest warmongers have been in the civilian sectors of government, business(like William Randolph Hearst who beat the drums for what came to be the Spanish-American War), and the intellectual class(later to set up their various think-tanks). Most Jewish-Zionist Neocons, including women like Victoria Nuland the Cookie Monster of Maidan, never served a day in the military. (Tulsi Gabbard did and is less enthused for endless wars.) The near-epithet of ‘isolationism’ was cooked up by the intellectual class to shame and/or purge those calling against aggression or conflict via interfering in foreign affairs. Oftentimes, it was the civilian types blaming the military types for an unwillingness to engage the world in a warlike manner.

The Jewish, as well as the homo, angle is rather interesting in the phenomenon of civilian-militarism, or ‘civilitarism’. Many peoples/cultures throughout history have been depicted as warlike: Macedonians, Romans, Germanics, Mongols, the Turks, and etc. But not the Jews, renowned more for spiritual pursuits and aptitude for business. Of course, one could argue that the art of prophecy, of which Jews became masters, is a kind of spiritual declaration of war on the souls of humanity, its modern variant being the radical-secular ideology, such as Marxism that inevitably instigated wars and counter-wars.
In a sense, Jesus and Muhammad were the biggest warmongers of history even if by accident. So many wars in their name. And of course, one could argue that business, driven by ruthless competition, fuels aggression and expansion that could opt to resolve matters by war, or war as a continuation of business by other means.

At any rate, we’ve often been fed the impression that Jews, who tend to be cerebral, found themselves surrounded by warlike goyim. Even Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, has been characterized as a man of peace at odds with the militarists who want to blow up the world.
To be sure, there’s been the figure of the Jewish radical or revolutionary, one committed to violent means, but the distinction(convincing or not) is nevertheless made in his favor as someone who uses violence as a means of idealism, whereas militarists supposedly love war for war’s sake(as in the case of PATTON the movie). Revolutionaries supposedly fight wars to save the world, whereas militarists fight wars to beat the world up.
In lobbing bombs, anarchists believed themselves to be working for justice/peace, i.e. the institutions are oppressive and tyrannical, and one must dismantle their structures to bring forth a world of everlasting peace and justice.

Of course, the revolutionary is the inheritor of the prophetic mindset, what E. Michael Jones calls the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Mindset’, and it has obscured the warlike nature of the Jewish Way. No matter how many bodies pile up, the Jewish narrative speaks of ‘tikkun olam’ or ‘healing the world’. Some trace the warmongering of the Neocons to their Trotskyite origins, and perhaps there is something to that, but given the near-universal support of the Wars for Zion among the entire spectrum of Jewish elites from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, the Trotskyite origins are probably more a footnote than the main thesis of the Jewish Worldview.

A key difference between the Jewish radicals/revolutionaries of old and the Jewish-Zionists Neocons/Neolibs of today is that a good many of the former were willing to join in the fight. They were true believers in the new prophecy(such as Marxism), for which they were willing to give their lives. It was a redeeming facet to their fanaticism, whereas the current hegemonists of World Jewry have no concept of the Good other than Jewish Supremacist Power, i.e. they are too good to expend their own precious lives.
As such, they prefer to expend any number of subhuman inferior goy lives to realize their own agendas. What do Zelensky of Ukraine and Netanyahu of Israel have in common? Their reckless provocations seek to draw the US into a wider war. Make goyim fight goyim. Make Slav fight Slav, make Western Europeans fight Eastern Europeans, make American goyim fight Russian goyim. And Netanyahu’s wet dream is to make the US take on Iran and the rest loathed by Israel.

Even the sheen of Jewish warrior spirit and courage has gone from Zionism. One appeal of Zionism to the Jewish(and sympathetic goy) imagination was that, unlike the stereotypical Jew of yesteryear who cowered before their tormentors(and were herded into trains to the camps during World War II), the founders and defenders of Israel stood firm and fight like lions and hyenas, the mythos behind EXODUS the novel and movie. The Six Day War narrative had little Israel besieged by hostile Arabs preparing for The Holocaust the Next Chapter, but proud and heroic Israeli Davids, all on their own, smote the Arab Goliaths in a mere six days. Jews sure could take care of their own!

But with the grueling quagmire in Gaza and given that Israel’s neighbors aren’t quite the pushovers they used to be, Zionism is less about Jewish Spartanism that Smartanism, or how to cleverly manipulate the US to enter the war and fight Israel’s enemies so that precious Jewish lives don’t have to be sacrificed.
Amusingly enough, Jewish feelings about whites aren’t all that different from their feelings about the Palestinians — they are all inferior subhuman goyim — , but various goyim are under the delusion of being favored by the Jews, the rightful master race. It’s like a bunch of dogs believing that they will be spared and rewarded if they serve the Asian master who kills and eats dogs; it doesn’t occur to them that THEY may be the next in the pot. So, even though Jews did the Palestinian Nakba and are now pushing White Nakba, white shabbos goy dogs hope and pray that Jews will spare and reward them as the ‘good dogs’ if they bark and bite at the ‘bad dogs’. But even Palestinians like Rashida Tlaib could be so deluded. She denounces what the Jews are doing to her people but earlier played cheerleader to the Jewish War on Russia via Ukraine as proxy.

Of course, some will say that the stereotype of the passive Jew who got beaten up by bullies(before Zionism revived the warrior spirit of the Israelites) has been something of a stretch. Passive Jew? Jews have long been known for being ‘pushy’, hardly a passive trait. And the criminal world has been filled with ‘Tough Jews’ in both Europe and the US. And Bolshevik Jews, before Zionism became a thing, amply demonstrated how blood-curdling they could be. Even though the Jewish schlemiel-weakling isn’t as fantastic as the Noble Magic Negro, it too has been something of a false stereotype that lend the dubious impression of Jews being hapless victims or nincompoops in tight spots.

Video Link

Given the reality of Jewish life and history, it’s hardly surprising that the Jewish ‘civilian’ sector is rife with aggressive tendencies, the kind that may lead the world to Chutzpacalypse Now. Besides, if perceptions and passions precede action, the vitriol that often spews forth from the Jewish community against white goyim, Christians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and now even the Chinese is a sure sign that much of Jewishness is a raging cauldron of arrogance, fear, resentment, and paranoia. Many Jews relished in ‘Punch a Nazi’ and ‘Trump is Literally Hitler’ antics that often led to violence, culminating in Antifa and BLM wrecking entire parts of cities in 2020, though in the case of Ukraine, Jewish violence opted for ‘Hug a Nazi’, if only to hurl the ‘Nazis’ at the Russkies.

Outwardly, homos also come across as unlikely warmongers. The common image of a thug, bully, or warrior is that of an alpha male tough guy, like Colonel Kilgore(Robert Duvall) in APOCALYPSE NOW. Arnold Schwarzenegger in CONAN THE BARBARIAN was no pansy fairy but a testosterone-filled slayer of men and humper of women. Homos have often been portrayed as victims of macho-man bullies and ‘God Hates Fags’ patriarchal types.
In truth, homos tend to be vain, and vanity seeks privilege, a domain of power, and the nature of power is aggressive, expansive, and coercive. Once a part of the power elite and/or the deep state, homos have sought to impose their neo-aristocratic will on everyone else, out of revenge if not haughty delight.
It is then hardly surprising that the US deep state, run by Jews and homos as the top elites, has become even more warlike than in the days of the ‘hawkish right-wingers’, the types who overestimated or exaggerated the Red Menace but nevertheless regarded it as a genuine threat, whereas the current pro-war mania merely and cynically invokes ‘muh democracy’ as a cover for an agenda that is entirely ethno-supremacist and homo-hegemonic, as if the entire global economy must be dictated by Jewish bankers and all the world’s institutions, secular and spiritual, must hoist the ‘gay’ banner.
The quasi-aristocratic homos sneer at the straight world as the peasantry that must bow down to the superior tooty-toots. Like Tim Roth’s feline character in ROB ROY who loves to cut down the lower-class dogs.

Video Link

Though true that plenty of gung-ho types in the military rattle their sabers at perceived enemies while plenty of peacenik types in civil society chafe at overseas(or neo-imperialist) ventures, the fact remains that, by and large, the most adventurist and reckless figures driving the world to the edge(of even Nuclear Armageddon) tend to be in the ‘civilian’ sectors whereas the military brass generally harbors a sober and cautionary attitude on foreign policy, if only because they feel responsible for their men.
It’s the reverse of developments in Japan in the 1930s when the civilian government’s attempts at diplomacy went undermined by the military that was hellbent on war as the only solution.
The so-called Greens in Germany, once associated with the Peace Movement, are now among the most vociferous beaters of war drums even at the risk of World War III with Russia(and its partners).

At the very least, many American civilian-leaders in the past had served in the military(and even participated in war) and had few illusions about what it was about. Even those who hadn’t chosen military careers had direct experience of violence. John F. Kennedy suffered from pain all his life. Dwight Eisenhower as President, head of the civilian government, grew increasingly anxious about where the Cold War may lead, as World War III could involve nuclear weapons.

In contrast, most civilian hotheads today have no military experience, and this could be said of most of their family members, friends, and associates as well. As such, they tend to see military men as pawns and toys than as fellow comrades, the kind of people with whom one once rubbed shoulders.
Furthermore, there’s an ethnic component to the civilian-military dynamic in the current order. The Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist types who dominate the civilian government tend to see goyim as expendable, less than fully human. It’s no wonder that they are so blasé about casualties, military and civilian, in wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine, or about the victims of US-led sanctions, like the 500,000 Iraqi children whose deaths Madeleine Albright deemed as ‘worth it’; indeed, even when Jews carry out wholesale massacres in Gaza and spread terror throughout the region, the main narrative from the Jewish-controlled media is “What can be done to protect Israel?”
But then, Jews, who tirelessly heap abuse on whites, Christians, Muslims, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Venezuelans, Hungarians, and etc. and defame entire nations & cultures, are the first ones to bitch about ‘antisemitism’ and how they need ‘protected group’ status despite constituting the most powerful and destructive force in the world.

As for cuck-minded goy maggots like John Bolton and Lindsey Graham, they crave approval and plaudits from Jews as their masters and bark like attack dogs. (Given the pathetic nature of so many goyim, Jewish supremacist attitudes are understandable to a degree. If all those around you acted like lap dogs vying for your approval at every moment, would you respect them?)

The so-called civilian ‘democratic’ regimes of the West demonstrate that militarism can thrive outside the military as a mindset of excessive confidence and arrogance of force. The Neocon/Neolib administrations are totally militarist, far more so than the average officer in the Army or Navy.
The Iraq War was the brainstorm of the civilian government led by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who figured that the surest way to increase Jewish allegiance to the GOP was by giving Zion the war it wanted, especially with ‘liberal’ Jews in the media also hankering for the so-called War-on-Terror.
Needless to say, Jewish Power played it smart. It got the war it wanted while also criticizing Dubya as a reckless cowboy, useful as plausible deniability. The New York Times pushed for the Iraq War, but when it went badly, claimed to have been duped by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

While the German militarists have been named as the chief culprits of the First World War, the conflict was as eagerly embraced by the civilian sectors of society. And the civilian government in France had been itching for war, if only to avenge the defeat at the hands of Bismarck. At the very least, the Germans, militarists and civilian authorities alike, believed that the war was a matter of survival or national integrity as Germany was squeezed between vengeful France and increasingly hostile Russia. They regarded it as much a war of defense as of offense(as the best defense). The most gratuitous and unnecessary participant in the war was Great Britain, ruled by a civilian government, with which Germans sought no conflict.
Even in the Pacific War, the Asian sphere of World War II, it is too simplistic to lay all the blame on the Japanese militarists as evidence suggests that the civilian FDR administration was trying to bait Japan(and Germany) into war. And near the end of the war, prominent military figures like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur detested the use of the atomic bomb, the decision of Harry Truman, the civilian head as commander-in-chief.

The myth of Camelot(of John F. Kennedy), which stems in part from the Cuban Missile Crisis and America’s involvement in Vietnam, usually pits the idealistic Peace Corp president against the right-wing military generals or the military-industrial-complex as the bogeyman(while blithely overlooking the fact that Eisenhower had originally meant to call it the ‘military-industrial-congressional complex’ to highlight the civilian aspect of the beast — today, more fearsome is the Military-Intellectual Complex whereby Jews cook up the ideas and agendas to be executed by goyim-golem in the military). Liberal opinion at the time was of the mind that, but for Kennedy, the world would have been embroiled in World War III and with nukes. This tough guy attitude that talk is weak, diplomacy is delusional, and only overwhelming force will thwart the enemy was seen as dangerous, even pathological. But then, the Liberals set the template in the late 1930s and early 1940s that war and only war could resolve the issues with Germany, Japan, and Italy, and the right-wing Cold War mentality was essentially a continuation of war-only mindset.

General Jack D. Ripper of DR. STRANGELOVE is a precursor of ‘Dirty’ Harry Callahan but at the global level: Diplomacy, like legal process, is for ‘liberal’ wimps, and it is time to grab the gun and pull the trigger. Again, the anti-militarist satire is rather ironic as the very people(of Liberal persuasion) who denigrated the hardcore Cold Warriors as paranoid and psychotic had been the ones who’d insisted on the absolute and total destruction of the enemies in the buildup to and during World War II. Anyone calling for peaceful solutions were tarred as ‘unpatriotic’. And figures like Oppenheimer were hellbent on speeding up atomic research in order to turn German cities into ashes. (And the Liberals, Jews and Goyim, hardly opposed the theft of US nuclear secrets by Israel that ignored or violated all international rules and norms and even cooked up scenarios like the Samson Option. If anything, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Jews alike have demanded that American politicians of all stripes stand behind Israel no matter how bellicose its foreign policy.) Today, the supposed heirs of this ‘no appeasement’ school invariably denounce any diplomatic solution in conflicts involving Russia, Iran, and increasingly China.

While there were hardliners in the military, especially in the early part of the Cold War, the kind who even pressed for first-strike on Russia, hawks were also to be found among civilian ideologues, and it wasn’t just the likes of Barry Goldwater. Indeed, the gloom-and-doom specter of the right-wing demagogue often masked the warlike nature of the entire spectrum of American Politics. LBJ appealed to voters as the Peace Candidate contra the madman Goldwater, but he was the one who escalated the war in Vietnam. (In our time, voters were warned that Trump was too unstable and dangerous on the world stage, but it was the Jewish-heavy administration of Joe Biden that unleashed new wars. As long as the ‘right-wing demagogue’ trope remains potent in political discourse, the actual warmongers can evade responsibility by pulling the alarm on the ‘far-right’ or ‘fascist’ threat. They pose as counter-bullies to the right-wing bullies, domestic and foreign, in the name of ‘democracy’ or whatever, even though they are now the most hegemonic bullies in the world.)

Many military men, having witnessed the horrors firsthand in the Second World War, have advised against aggressive actions in the Cold War. In US history, generals who became presidents — George Washington, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower — tended to be sober-minded on matters related to war. Indeed, America’s involvement in the bloodiest wars — The Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and Iraq War — owed to presidents whose closest advisers were ideologues or businessmen.

The ‘industrial’, as well as the intellectual/ideological, feature of the military-industrial complex was far more decisive in the formulation of agenda. Regarding the current bloodbath in Ukraine, the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for more death and destruction are in the civilian sectors than in the US military. The business elements are ecstatic about profits, and the intellectual/ideological(mostly Zionist) elements are fanatical in their dream of conquest of Russia as the final trophy in the hegemonic design of World Jewry.

While Oliver Stone’s revisionist film JFK shows Lyndon B. Johnson being prodded into escalation in Vietnam by military types, the real drivers of policy were the so-called ‘The Best and the Brightest’, the know-it-all mandarins with their high concept of ‘defending’ the Free World.
Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, and FAIL SAFE propped up the useful scapegoat of the US military when, in fact, the bigger danger lay in the civilian sector.
For sure, it was the rising prominence of Jewish strategists of varying worldviews, which more or less converged on ‘neoconservatism'(or Nulandism), that would turn the US into a full-blown imperialist power that has simultaneously managed to frighten and alienate much of the world. Ironically, most of these saber-rattlers never served in the military or even fired a gun.
The Ukraine catastrophe and the looming disaster in Taiwan are the brainchild of civilian ideologues and think-tankers or political shills. Whether it’s Nancy Pelosi visiting globo-homo Taiwan to provoke China or Lindsey Graham accompanying the likes of Victoria Nuland to Ukraine, civilian rule hasn’t ruled out militarism.

In retrospect, 20th Century Wars weren’t generally the conflagrations started by militarists. The most notable militarist-led disaster was Japan’s ventures in mainland Asia and eventual clash with the US, and it may have owed to Japanese militarism being rooted in Japanese culture and ethos going back to the samurai. Even after modern Japan abolished the samurai caste, the vision of the military as the true embodiment of the spirit and honor of Japan remained, thus fueling a ‘sacred’ sense of mission absent in most militaries(premised on professionalism) around the world.
Otherwise, however, military men were often the peace-makers or at least peace-keepers. Kemal Ataturk of modern Turkey had no ambitions beyond the national. Franco, upon victory in the Spanish Civil War, was careful not to become entangled in alliances that might drag Spain into a larger conflict. Ultimately, Charles De Gaulle ended the bloody war in Algeria. Generally, it appears those who’d held higher ranks were more judicious than those who’d held lower ranks. Hitler, after all, was only a corporal.

Fascists have often been confused with the military, not least because fascist leaders donned military gear. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler dressed and acted the part of military commanders. Actually, both came into their own as intellectuals, ideologues, and activists.
Unlike most military men who specialize in tactics and logistics(and are thereby acutely aware of the limits of power based on availability of men and material), the intellectual/ideologue types tend to base their worldview on Big Ideas or the ‘vision’ thing.

Perhaps, fascists are the only people who’ve been demeaned and scapegoated more than the military for the wars and destruction of the late modern era. While the militarists(usually depicted as military men though anyone can qualify) have often been impugned as thick-skulled and overly blunt in their approach to foreign affairs, they weren’t necessarily depicted as sadistic, cruel, and/or evil. Not knowing any better, they’re prone to solving crises with violence and aggression. In their lack of ideas(and even brains), they may be childish and stupid in their violence-first or violence-only approach, but at least they aren’t inspired by Evil Ideas.

In contrast, fascists are reviled as people of ideas, all bad. Such a characterization is somewhat understandable given the romanticism of war by certain Italian Fascists and Hitler’s brutalist vision of the world, humanity and history locked in a constant flux of struggle and violence.
Still, fascist-bashing is usually a form of scapegoating by dumping the blame of history on the fascists when, in fact, capitalists, communists, liberals, and etc. have hardly been amateurs in war and aggression. FDR was the true father of the military-industrial-congressional complex. Winston Churchill plunged the British Empire into a war it could easily have avoided. While Josef Stalin and Fidel Castro were generally cautious, figures like Leon Trotsky and Che Guevara were globe-trotting revolutionaries committed to stoking conflict wherever and whenever. Communism, even more than fascism, blurred the lines between revolution and war, between civilian and military.

Not only have the fascists been blamed for virtually everything, but even when non-fascists have resorted to aggression and violence in politics, they were smeared as ‘fascist’, thus placing the blame on ‘fascism’ than on the actual parties involved. It’s like Christians blaming Satan for everything that goes wrong, thereby absolving themselves and their religion for the failings, i.e. even when they did it, the ‘devil’ either did it or made them do it.
So, when Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump did the bidding of Jewish Neocons, they were often condemned as ‘fascists’ when, in fact, their policies were the logical extension of Western capitalism, decadent liberalism, corrupt conservatism, and ethnic nepotism(of the Jews).

By calling one another ‘fascist’, both the ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ can go on pretending that they themselves aren’t the problem, which supposedly lies with ‘fascism’. So, Clinton the Democrat wasn’t really responsible. It was Clinton the closet-fascist. Or Bush the closet-fascist. Or Obama or Trump the closet-fascist. What a convenient way to exonerate the system of its failings. Just call everything bad about the American System ‘fascist’, and Americanism is spared condemnation. Instead, the problem is the ‘fascism’ that has somehow managed to infect the pristine US system. You see, it was the ‘fascist’ bug that messed up the system. This way, one sector of American political discourse can always pretend that Obama-ism or Trump-ism isn’t just another manifestation of Americanism but an errant ‘fascist’ mutation that seized power against the spirit of the Constitution and Apple Pie.

The Remarkable Significance of the Pro-Palestinian Movement in the 21st Century

 

What is the significance of the mass protests since Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Gaza following the Hamas strike on October 7, 2023? A truly unprecedented development, the answer is bound to be multifaceted. One is the blow to the idolatry of victimhood, a kind of eternalization of historical tragedy seeking to permanently seal a certain group’s identity with a particular event or prolonged(but far from unending and/or continuous) condition.
The mental habit may have origins with the Christians who made a grand fetishization of victimhood/suffering and permanently affixed their faith and community with the suffering of Jesus Christ and the Early Christians. In other words, because the Romans fed the Early Christians to the lions, Christians get to accrue forever interests on noble victimhood regardless of their aggressions, violence, and hypocrisies through the ages.

Over time, it became a kind of passive/aggressive strategy(not always conscious) in dealing with the outside world(and ‘heretical’ sects of Christians). It became a de facto ploy of European Imperialism whereby, oftentimes, the Christian missionaries were among the first ones to make contact with the Other, only to be misunderstood, persecuted, and even killed by the natives. Thus, the Christian West earned Sacred Victim points via the ‘passive’ sacrifices of the missionaries and cashed them in as moral justification to conquer and quell the infidels. “We tried to spread love and faith to your darkies, but you slayed our missionaries with vicious cruelty, thereby leaving us no choice but to set things right by the might of arms.” Send in the missionaries, create saint-martyrs, bleat sanctimoniously about their sacrifice, and then invoke God and Country to wreak vengeance and spread the ‘civilization’.

Still, one saving grace of Christianity, for all its hypocrisies, was the commitment, at least in theory and ideal, to be as hard on oneself and one’s own people(if not more so) as on the Other. After all, whereas the benighted heathens may not have known better in their spiritual darkness, the Christians who’ve accepted the blessings of Jesus the loving and compassionate God should have known better and expected more of themselves.
Then, it’s no wonder that, along with the violence and hypocrisy, there were genuine efforts in the Christian West toward social and political reforms based on Christian moral precepts.
Also, one useful quality about hypocrisy is it could be pointed to reveal the hypocrisy of those who preach one thing but practice something else. One might say a hypocritical Christian was less dangerous than a consistent Nazi ideologue, Roman soldier, or Mongol barbarian who honestly acknowledged he was invading to conquer, exterminate, and enslave, and that was that. You can’t fault them for hypocrisy as they practiced exactly what they preached.

Christians exploited past suffering to sanctify their present and future, but in their emphasis on victimization and suffering, they were confronted with their own transgressions or trespasses against others. Thus, being a Christian didn’t mean you only got to cry victim; it also meant you had to face up to your own potential for evil unto others.
Indeed, a Christian who wraps himself in the banner of Jesus, endlessly bleats ‘Christ Is King’, and acts as if he or his people have nothing to answer for is a pretty useless Christian. (Even more useless are American Christians who really worship the Mammon of power and wealth, which explains why they currently worship Jews above God and Jesus and cackle with hideous glee at the sight of Gazans being butchered by the almighty IDF. Such types have proven that faith in Christianity is no guarantee for moral rectitude. At the other end, you have those insufferable holier-than-thou types who relish wallowing in guilt as a kind of exhibitionism. “Just look at me kiss a Negro’s feet, boo hoo hoo.”)

If there has been a degree of self-reflection among Christians, such has been mostly absent among the three groups that have recently staked claims of permanent tragicism or eternal victimhood. They are Jews, blacks, and homos. It wasn’t always so, however.
Post-Holocaust Jews, while hardly critical of Jewish behavior, did believe that Jews, given their own history of suffering, should be more conscientious and compassionate about other groups who’ve experienced similar tragedies or face horrors of the now. It partly explains why many Jews took up the cause of Civil Rights for blacks, pushed for revisionism on the American Indians, and protested the Vietnam War where American militarism was embroiled in neo-imperialist destruction.
And the appeal of Michael King(aka Martin L. King) to many whites was the message of reconciliation and understanding, a call to peace as a means to settle the racial divide in America. And before him, plenty of black leaders were critical of blacks and mindful of bettering themselves to show their worthiness of being fully accepted into American Society.

However, Jews and blacks by and large proved to be not as self-reflective as the White Christians. The reasons could be genetic, cultural, historical, and/or political. Blacks, being wilder and more childlike, tend to lack empathy and instead view the world in terms of ‘gots to have me’. Jews being of pushier temperament and wilier mindset, tend toward egocentrism, tribalism, or ‘advantagism’.
But aside from genetic and cultural traits, their victim mentality is more ingrained due to prolonged historical conditions. As far as blacks are concerned, at least up to the Sixties, they lived under the white yoke since their forced arrival on American shores as slaves. Their entire memory is that of having been on the bottom. Likewise, the entirety of Jewish existence in the West until relatively recently was under white/Christian power. Thus, Jews always felt their lot was precarious, never certain. Even when times were good, there was always the chance that the winds of fortune may blow the other way, and they’d lose it all or be expelled yet once again. And even privileged Jews felt surrounded by goyim who muttered about ‘Christ Killers’ and ‘stingy Jews’.

In either case, their condition didn’t mean that blacks or Jews were all saints — as surely there were plenty of rotten ones among them as among all other races and tribes — , but it did mean that, saint or sinner, they all lived under the power of another people consistently for a long long time. Unlike Jews in Judea who were sometimes victors and sometimes losers, the Jewish diaspora were always at the mercy of bigger powers. Likewise, blacks felt that they were just a bunch of ‘niggers’ to white people who held almost all the power through most of US history(and American History was the only history that blacks in the US knew).

But the victimhood mentality among Jews and blacks may have grown out of proportion due to the Northern European Protestant factor, the reasons being twofold. (1) Northern Europeans reached the summit of world power, even to the point of feeling invincible, thus allowing them to relax a bit and take their might for granted. Thus, they felt they could afford to be more generous, redemptive, and magnanimous. In contrast, such feelings hardly existed in Southern Europe and Eastern Europe that never felt as powerful or secure; excessive moralism or generosity for the Other was out of the question. Even in the US itself, the richer and more advanced northern elites tended toward greater generosity and moral concern than the poorer and less secure whites in the South who thought more in terms of protection and survival, especially from the wild Negroes. Morality in the South emphasized duty to God and one’s place in the order, not to change society for the betterment of all. It was much the same in Latin America where white minorities ruled over the darker populations of browns and/or blacks.
(2) Protestantism made Northern Europeans more personally and individually conscious of their moral choices than leaving it up to an institution to offer them instructions on what’s what. Thereby, whereas doing good work in the Catholic South was a matter of taking cues from above, in the Protestant North it meant taking one’s own initiative and accepting one’s own accountability to improve the world. Perhaps, Northern Europeans, having evolved in colder climes, were more earnest by nature as well. Compare Robert Redford with Joe Pesci. In a way, Martin Scorsese’s films exhibit a kind of Catholic Envy of Protestantism. Despite having remained a Catholic, a film like MEAN STREETS pulsates with Martin-Lutherian impulses of protest against Church teachings. Its (anti)hero Charlie wants to seek ‘redemption’ his own way, find ‘salvation’ in the streets among the hoodlums and the hoors. Anyway, Jews and blacks could have taken Northern Protestant moralism two ways. Adopt it themselves and shape their own morality in a similar manner OR take advantage of White Guilt to favor their own racial or ethnic power; in other words, use the Northern Protestants for the suckers that they could easily be. Needless to say, they opted for the latter.

In a way, the predominance of the Jewish and black victimology makes sense within the American context. The black one is obvious as blacks were imported as slaves and largely lived under bondage until the end of the Civil War; and then, blacks continued to face various legal and social discriminations on racial grounds in a country founded on the principle of equal justice. Not only was it a struggle for blacks to overcome the various obstacles but it was a challenge for whites to overcome their own prejudices. The challenges were difficult but also bracing and redemptive for many whites who, through the black narrative, hoped that a better version of America would emerge with the eventual fulfillment of its founding principles of the republic.

The other great noble victim narrative involved the American Indians, but it never quite caught on like the one involving blacks. Unlike blacks who arrived in chains to serve as slaves, thus were always under white rule, American Indians were free-roaming warriors who fought the white settlers in bloody clashes. Though doomed in numbers and by technology, the frontier war narratives portrayed them as fearsome braves who met a tragic end(like the Japanese in World War II) than as bona fide ‘victim’ groups. (Of course, blacks were fearsome tribal warriors in the Dark Continent as well, but as they arrived on American shores subdued in chains, they were always regarded as little more than slaves, a people completely at the mercy of whites.)

Furthermore, whereas black populations exploded and increasingly poured into influential urban centers(eventually in the North and the West), American Indians faded away in sparsely populated areas of the country, the so-called ‘reservations’. And their stony and stoic demeanor didn’t do much for their expression as a community.
And with the popularization of the American Western, it once again became fashionable to depict Indians as Red Savages who had to be rubbed out to make the West a nice decent place for Christian womenfolk and children. Also, for all their legendary prowess as natural warriors and hunters, American Indians hardly turned out to be more athletic than the white man. In contrast, whites would become virtually addicted to the siren song of black sports and music.

If black victimology in the US is understandable given the history, the primacy of Jewish victimology needs some explaining. After all, so-called ‘antisemitism’ in the US was relatively mild compared to what prevailed in Europe, especially parts of Eastern Europe. (Granted, even the slightest hint of ‘antisemitism’ is now regarded as an unpardonable sin, somewhat akin to blasphemy against God in the Middle Ages or using the Lord’s name in vain; but then, if anything has the status of godliness in our times, it is Jewishness, largely thanks to Jewish control of academia, media, and finance. Thus, the slightest infraction against Jewishness is deemed infinitely worse than the most bilious invectives against, say, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Whites, Christians, Arabs, and etc. In other words, a society where Jews have it all but may hear the epithet ‘kike’ on occasion is more alarming than a society where whites/Christians or certain other goyim come under a constant barrage of ideological and racial abuse, not least from none other than Jewish Power.)

Jewish American historiography is rife with narratives about ancestors fleeing from pogroms in the Pale of Settlement(then a part of the Russian Empire) and coming to Edenic America to find hope, freedom, and opportunity. And the great Jewish calamity of the 20th century, the Shoah or Holocaust, didn’t happen in the US but across the Atlantic, and the US expended a great deal of material and human resources in the defeat of Nazi Germany. As horrible as the Shoah was, it happened in Europe, and there is no reason for Americans to make it a centerpiece of collective consciousness. If Americans really want to wax tragic about its own guilt of ‘genocide’, they should fixate on the fate of the American Indians or the millions of victims of American Wars(especially in East Asia and the Middle East). When something close to genocide is happening now in Gaza at the hands of the Likud(ation) government of Israel fully backed by the US, now there is something Americans can get all weepy over.

And yet, the majority support for Israel(that is carrying out mass slaughter), far eclipsing any concern for the Palestinian bodies piling up in Gaza, offers a clear indication as to why Jewish Victimology has become so central to American values and mythos. All said and done, when push comes to shove, the great majority of White Americans are shallow, brown-nosing, and sycophantic dweebs looking to gain approval and status by sucking up to the richest and most powerful people. As Jews are by far the wealthiest and most influential group, whites are naturally most servile to them. But then, Jews don’t want to be seen as the most powerful group being feted by a bunch of toadies, sidekicks, and whores. And whites don’t want to be seen as what they really are: brown-nosing cuck-maggots.
And so, the Jewish Victimology turns out to be convenient for both sides. Via the Holocaust Cult, we can keep pretending that Jews are forever the Holy Holocaust People always being hounded by new specters of ‘antisemitism’. Thus, even though cuck-goyim suck up to Jews for shekels, approval, favors, and status, there’s the pretense that it’s all about protecting poor helpless Jews. So, never mind the fact that Jewish Power is built on bribery, blackmail, and gangsterism. Never mind that most white Americans(especially in government and Christian Zionist churches) have the mentality of dogs(at least in relation to Jews). Jewish Victimology allows whites to pretend that they are noble white knights coming to the rescue of a much beleaguered people who are yet once being threatened by new manifestations of ‘nazism’.

Given the kind of lock that Jewish Power has on the American Psyche, many in the dissident sphere came to despair of the pathetic state of affairs in the general discourse, political and moral. Just about everything Americans seem to obsess about in periodic outbursts of moral panic seems to be the brainchild of Jewish Power. Jews push the button, and the machine does as programmed. It’s as if the American Mind is a putty in Jewish Hands. Whether it’s ‘feminist’ panic about ‘date rape’ at white fraternities, ‘hate crime’ hoaxes, yet another iteration of ‘innocent’ or ‘gentle’ black child killed by whites/cops, the supposed persecution of saintly homosexuals or ‘trans-genocide’, Assad gassing his own people, Putin as New Hitler threatening ‘democratic’ Ukraine, the rise of the ‘far right’ and ‘white supremacism’, or ‘systemic racist’ police mowing down random black men in the streets, and etc., it’s difficult to conceive of any victim narrative around the world independent of Jewish-controlled narratives and agendas. It’s as if Jews gained the monopoly on licensing victimology, without whose validation, one’s suffering amounts to a plate of beans(in the eyes of the ‘free world’ or ‘rules-based order’), whereas even a non-event like the death of George Floyd(who most certainly died of self-induced fentanyl poisoning) could be blown up into the greatest tragedy since the crucifixion of Jesus H. Christ.
The fact that so many Americans keep falling for such nonsense time and time again indicates that Americans are infantile, close to retarded, trashy and shallow, beyond help.

Then, what a surprise that an outpouring of support for the Palestinians exploded upon the scene as a great black swan moral event. How and why did this happen? What are the lessons to be learned from this? Is it a culmination of certain long suppressed trends or the beginning of something that is likely to grow bigger in the future?
One thing for sure, this happened outside the purview and permission of Jewish Power, which, if anything, had been doing everything in its power to prevent something like it, not least in the suppression of the BDS movement. To be sure, Jewish activists did play a key role in pro-Palestinian movement, much like conscientious whites played a significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. But these dissident Jews never had the kind of power that Zion Inc. had built up over the years. Norman Finkelstein admitted that he’d pretty much given up on the movement that hardly went anywhere as the pro-Zionist wing of the Jewish Community seemed so invincible and pervasive at all levels of society. It took him by surprise that the movement exploded into the street and sprouted all over campuses, leading media outlets that had previously ignored him to suddenly appeal to him for analysis and commentary.
It’s all the more remarkable given that the current controversy began on Oct 7, 2023 when IDF bases were overrun by Hamas fighters, initially lending Israel the moral advantage as the aggrieved and victimized party. And of course, to this day, there are plenty of US politicians and religious figures who invoke Oct 7 to justify whatever Israel has done since, much like Americans felt justified in everything they did in World War II following Pearl Harbor.
But when bombs began to rain down on Gaza and indiscriminately blow things up, the political shift was dramatic.

One thing for sure, the outpouring of sympathy for the Palestinians was not manufactured, making it all the more remarkable. Just about every political agenda or mass passion has been astro-turfed for as long as we can remember. Think of WMD in Iraq or War on Terror. Think of GloboHomo pushed by Hollywood and the courts. Or the ‘date rape’ panic that always focused on White Fratboys. Or the #MeToo hysteria. And of course, Trump as ‘literally Hitler’, Russia Collusion mass paranoia, Covid mania, and BLM-George-Floyd riots. And if anyone paid attention to the idiocy known as ‘American Conservatism’, the biggest alarm bells were about the monopolization of power by the ‘far left’, which would include BlackRock and other super-capitalist oligarchs, LOL. All these political and/or moral panics were manufactured by certain elements of the elites, be they ensconced in government, academia, media, entertainment, or law firms.

But the Pro-Palestinian movement was different. If anything, the elites of both parties have been targeting BDS for destruction. Whether it was Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump, American Politics has mostly been about the biggest names in government rolling over at the feet of Netanyahu and the like.
Yet, out of the left field, Pro-Palestinian voices exploded on the scene. Even more remarkably, it happened during Biden’s presidency. The mass outrage of BLM in 2020 could be explained as the Deep State’s coordinated effort to delegitimize Trump’s MAGA-America, one of white supremacism where cops went around hunting down innocent and angelic blacks. Indeed, the Democratic elites(and even some ‘RINO’ ones) poured gasoline on the social unrest, aka ‘mostly peaceful protests’, and the overwhelmingly Jewish-Democratic media played along.

In contrast, the pro-Palestinian protests were bound to hurt the Democrats by exposing them as just as bloodthirsty as the GOP on Zionist issues and just as servile to AIPAC. Thus, one cannot chalk up the angry protests to political opportunism. If anything, many protesters were soon targeted for blacklisting on future job prospects(and some heads rolled in elite academia for having defended the free speech of the protesters). As such, this was possibly the most authentic movement since the Anti-War movement of the Sixties.

Palestinian-Americans have miniscule power and influence compared to the Jewish-Zionists(and their cuck-n-proxy goy allies), so how did this happen? One explanation is Palestinian-Americans(and Arab/Muslim-Americans in general) invested much of their energies on impacting(if not dominating) a key department in academia: Middle East Studies. Unlike conservatives who’ve failed to consolidate control over any single department and whose influence is diffuse across academia, Arab-Americans have worked hard at gaining significant representation in Middle East Studies, a key field considering America’s imperial foreign policy that has often targeted that region of the world.
Thus, even though Palestinian/Arab/Muslim Americans have limited power and influence in most sectors, they’ve amassed considerable intellectual/moral arsenal in at least one area of expertise. And even though these individuals are usually ignored by the Jewish-dominated ‘mainstream media’ or MSM, they’ve gained a considerable following through social media. Over time, growing numbers of young people grew up listening to both sides instead of merely the Jewish-Zionist-oriented one.

But there is also the Jewish Factor as many American Jews, especially of the younger generation, have grown disgusted with Israel’s turn to far-right extremism as embodied by Netanyahu and his allies(who have majority support among the Israelis). Ironically, mega-Zionist Trump and MAGA may have hastened Jewish-American disillusionment with Israel and Zionism, indeed far more than the wars of George W. Bush.
While some on the (dissident) Right appreciated Trump for standing up to the Neocons and their Wars for Israel, some Jews and influential people on the Left grew even more hostile to Israel when the Trump-Netanyahu pact emboldened Israelis to act even more aggressively and arrogantly in the region. Jewish Power vilified Trump as a white supremacist, hate-monger, xenophobe, literally Hitler, Neo-Nazi, and etc. but there was Netanyahu shaking hands with Trump who gave the green light for Israel to annex more territory and beat up on Palestinians. If Trump is ‘literally Hitler’ and if Israelis prefer him as the leader of America, it implies Israel is a kind of ‘nazi state’.

One thing for sure, if the Pro-Palestinian movement has one decisive advantage over the Alt Right, especially in its incarnation during 2016-2017, it was the themes of nationalism and humanism, as opposed to supremacism and neo-imperialism. While plenty(and probably most) of Alt Right types rejected supremacism and imperialism, the movement got hijacked by Richard Spencer, a neo-imperialist who merely wanted to replace Jewish Supremacist World Hegemony with Anglo-White one. As such, he tended to encourage stuff like Heil-Gate and form alliances with Neo-Nazi types like Mike Enoch, Chris Cantwell, and etc. As such, it was easy for Jews and globalists to paint the Hitler mustache on the Alt Right. A lost opportunity for the Dissident Right. Never let a child lead a movement. Spencer is a spoiled brat.

In contrast, the pro-Palestinian voices merely want the world to recognize the humanity of the Palestinians. Also, unlike 007-Darth-Vader-wanna-be Richard Spencer and other such ilk who speak in global hegemonic or ‘Jupiterian’ terms, pro-Palestinians only demand a rightful homeland for Palestinians in the land of their ancestors.
In the US, Jewish Power is actually against equal justice for all peoples and nations. Rather, it insists on special affinity and favoritism for Israel, meaning those at odds with the Zionist agenda must be relegated to enemy-or-less-than-human status. Far from pushing the American System to treat Jews and Palestinians equally(here and abroad), Jewish Power demands that the US always favor Jews and Zion. Jews, blacks, and homos are the holy trinity deserving of ‘more equal than others’ status. Jews slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children is no big deal. But Palestinians calling for their own homeland is twisted into ‘calling for the genocide of Jews’.

There seems to be an overlapping if not a convergence of rightist and leftist strands in regards to the increasingly abusive and corrupt Jewish Power. Many on the Right feel that Jewish-Zionist-centric Neoconservatism is antithetic to American Interests. As the nationalist fervor following 9/11(with its own questionable narrative) fizzled in the morass of the Iraq War(built on a lie that no one could long sustain), the mainstream of the American Right turned against interventionism, which explained the popularity of Donald Trump’s foreign policy platform in 2016(to the chagrin of Jewish Neocons who wanted to keep milking American blood for Jewish Supremacist Wars).
Even though the American Left was slower to coalesce into a viable opposition against the establishment, it’s likely that many came to a similar realization as the so-called nationalist-populists on the American Right. Neolibs of the Democratic Party are merely the flipside of the Neocons of the GOP, and most Democratic elites have done little but shill for Zion.

A key difference is this: Whereas many anti-Neocon conservatives don’t care enough about the issue to meet up in fiery rallies — it’s more apathy about Israel First than outright antipathy toward Zionism — , many on the Left, especially the young, relish the romance of protest and activism(and are furthermore concentrated in urban areas whereas the rhetoric and action become most heated). Thus, they are situated to make a bigger impact on the political direction of the country.