Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Let Us Now Bless the Jews... with Tough Blessing - How did 'to bless' come to mean to 'to kiss ass' in regard to Israel in the West?

 

 Video Link

Recently, Tucker Carlson’s interview with Senator Ted Cruz went viral. What grabbed people’s attention, raising alarm in respectable circles but fanning enthusiasm in the alternative/dissident political sphere, of course wasn’t Cruz’s fanboy ruminations about Israel(as that sort of thing is dime-a-dozen among politicians of both parties) but Tucker’s pushback and counter-argument, as well as his refusal to be pigeonholed as an ‘Anti-Semite’.
Over the years, virtually everyone in the so-called Mainstream Media has either nodded along or remained silent upon politician after politician professing their utmost fealty to Israel, Zionism, and Jewish People in general. While Carlson didn’t go far enough, his eagerness to press upon Cruz to explain himself(as beholden to another country) signaled a seismic shift in the political discourse regarding Jewish Power and its impact on US foreign policy.

Even though it was refreshing to watch a popular media personality challenge what passes for conventional wisdom(or an article of faith) among US politicians and deep state operatives on matters pertaining to Israel, there was disingenuousness on the part of Carlson as well as of Cruz. While it’s true that Oozie Cruzie tried to imply that Carlson is an ‘Anti-Semite’, Carlson’s heated response wasn’t entirely convincing. Not that Carlson is indeed an ‘Anti-Semite’ but that the term has lost all meanings, not least because Jewish Power now labels as ‘Anti-Semitic’ just about anything that calls foul on bad Jewish behavior. Now, if ‘antisemitism’ means blaming Jews for everything and/or crediting Jews for nothing positive, most people would agree it’s a bad thing.
But nowadays, Jewish Power has conflated Zionism with Judaism(or Jewishness), and all ‘good’ people are now expected to unconditionally support Israel no matter what it does, such as supporting ISIS in Syria, carrying out genocidal acts in Gaza, bombing civilian targets in Lebanon, and pulling a Pearl-Harbor-style attack on Iran.

Therefore, for Carlson to still be triggered by the accusation(even if only implied) and profess innocence — “No! I’m not an Anti-Semite!” — is rather weak and wussy. Humanity needs to retire that term because it’s been redefined by Jewish Power as an apologist-justification for Jewish Supremacy: “We Jews are the masters of the universe, that’s that, and you goyim better support us or else you’re lowly ‘Anti-Semites’ who must be destroyed like ‘Amalek’.”

But more importantly, it’s disingenuous to speak of Israel merely as a foreign nation or entity when the current US is part of an empire, not a sovereign republic. The US and Israel are joined at the hip, and therefore, even though Israel is technically a foreign nation, it actually functions as the spiritual-imperial center of the Global Western Imperium.

Furthermore, the real power isn’t in Tel Aviv or someplace in Israel but in the Jewish strongholds in the US(and the EU). Without Jewish-American control of the US, there isn’t much that Israel could do. Netanyahu is able to trample all over US politicians because they are beholden to Jewish-American oligarchs and figures of influence across the institutions and industries.
Tucker Carlson must surely know this but is afraid to GO THERE: Addressing the deeper issues of global Jewish Power. It’s less risky to speak of the US vs foreign state Israel, i.e. the US shouldn’t be kicked around by a foreign government, than to speak of how Jewish tentacles reach into every corner of American Power, an undeniable reality that, however, may still be construed as ‘Anti-Semitic’.
By focusing on Zionist Israel, Carlson hopes to evade charges of ‘antisemitism’ by making a distinction between a foreign entity and Jewish Power in general. You see, he’s not talking about THE JEWS but only about a foreign country that happens to be Jewish and exerts an inordinate amount of influence on the US.

But, this is nonsense because Israel on its own couldn’t generate such overarching influence. It does so only because THE JEWs across the West have supported Zionism and used their levers to exert maximum pressure on goy puppet-politicians to do the bidding of the Greater Israel Project.
The dynamic between Jewish Power and the Goy Elites is like the one between the backwoods hillbilly and Ned Beatty’s character in DELIVERANCE. Jewish Power rams its cock into the arse of the goy who squeals like a pig, “Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee, weeeeeeeeeeee.” White goy cucks might as well be called Wee’s. Ted Cruz certainly is a Wee. Whatever comes out of his mouth is just more ‘weeeeeeeeeeee’ with a fat Zionist cock shoved into his cucked Cuban-American arse.

 Video Link

At one point, Cruz accuses Carlson of being ‘obsessed’ with Jews, and of course, it’s pure projection as it is Congress(and all institutions of consequence) that obsessively toes the Zionist line. According to the likes of Cruz, it’s purely natural and normal, not ‘obsessive’, for Congress-creatures to applaud a pathological liar and psychotic murderer like Bibi Netanyahu with 57 standing ovations. But if anyone points out such cases of goy servility to Zion, that’s somehow unhealthily ‘obsessive’.

That said, shouldn’t a supposed liberal democracy be obsessively focused on who has the most power and how it is used? It’s in tyrannies that the people are not supposed to ask questions and merely chant “Heil the Great Leader”. For anything resembling a democracy to function properly, there has to be an open discourse as to which groups are the most powerful and what their agendas are.
Given that Jews are by far the most powerful group in the US(and the West), all of us should be obsessed with it, just like the Jews were once obsessed with what the Anglo-American elites or the WASPs were up to.
If we went on and on about West Virginia hillbillies or Mexicans in Pecos, Texas, now that would be unhealthily obsessive about absolutely nothing. Last I heard, it’s not the hillbillies who run Wall Street, and it’s not small-town Mexicans who run the State Department(and make the US fight Wars for Mexico).
The last thing we should be is passive(than obsessive) about The Power. There’s no point to the US being a democracy if it’s verboten to address the sources and the problems of The Power, which happens to be Jewish/Zionist.

Even though Jewishness, Judaism, and Zionism aren’t the same thing, they’ve become too closely interwoven to the point where one cannot step on the toes of one without stepping on the toes of others as well. It’s true that the majority of Jews are secular, but their ethnic identity is inseparable from Jewish religious conceptions and tradition. While a good many Jews are opposed or indifferent to the idea of Zionism, the overwhelming majority since the end of World War II have supported the project. More importantly, the Jewish Power Elites(who get to call the shots) have overwhelmingly been pro-Zionist, reflected in their influence on both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party(and all across the vassal states of the EU).

Thus, there are times when a certain identity aligns with a certain ideology, when the two become so intertwined that it’s difficult to understand one without the other. This may not be a permanent condition but is nevertheless potent while it lasts. Think of National Socialist Germany in which Hitler’s regime was wildly popular and embodied the collective will of the nation. As long as Hitler was in power, it made little sense to speak of a Germany separate from National Socialism. Same goes for Russia under communism.
As things turned out in the end, there could be Germany without National Socialism and Russia without communism, but while those ideologies lasted, they defined the character and the destiny of entire peoples. Same might be said of Iran as an Islamic Republic.
Likewise, the main thrust of the Jewish collective will and Jewish elite power from the end of World War II until now has been to defend Israel, discredit(and defame) its critics in the West, and to destroy its perceived enemies in any part of the world(not only Iran but countries like Venezuela and North Korea that has working relations with Iran).
Unless Tucker Carlson is willing to address this problem of the Zionist grip on America(and by extension the entirety of the West), he isn’t really being candid on the issue. In the long run, it may well be that the Zionist project will fail and Jews around the world withdraw their support and forge a revised sense of Jewishness untainted by an association with genocidal-supremacist Zion, but that day, if possible, isn’t here yet.

Tucker Carlson isn’t fully convincing in his game of semantics over what constitutes ‘Israel’. True, the meaning of the term in the modern era is different from its meanings in the past. In the strictest sense in our time, it means the nation-state of Israel that was founded in 1948. However, one could construe its existence as the fulfillment of the long-dreamt hope of the Jewish Diaspora to reclaim the lost homeland. In this sense, there is an eternal or ur-Israel even without the nation of Israel as long as the Jewish people exist and keep their heritage and hopes alive. It’s like Poland was wiped off the map by various empires, but the dream of the Polish nation was never extinguished and realized once again following World War I. And even though there is no Kurdish nation-state, one could still speak of Kurdistan of the heart-and-mind. So, one could argue that Israel the nation-state is merely the political manifestation of the long-held Jewish dream of the restored homeland.

Some more theologically inclined types argue that God made the promise to Abraham, not to ‘Israel’, but given that the Jewish Tribe began with Abraham, it doesn’t matter whether it’s called Abrahamic tribe, Jews, Israel, Zion, or whatever. Surely, any people/culture evolves and changes over time — Greece today isn’t exactly the Hellas of long ago — , but there are certain constants that distinguish them from others, and in this sense, one can speak of a continuity from Abraham to Moses to the Jewish Diaspora to the European Jewry(and its rise) to Jewish Americans & Zionism.
So, even if today’s nation-state of Israel would have been inconceivable to Jews of the past, it could be seen as the latest embodiment of the ever-evolving history of the Jewish people. Likewise, would the Chinese of the past have imagined the rise of Modern China(or even have approved of it)? But modern China is a continuation of the Chinese civilization and represents the will or at least approval of the vast majority of the Chinese people.

Besides, one can understand why the nation of Israel and Zionism in general have had a certain appeal to the Christian West. Zionism, despite having developed as a secular-nationalist ideology, compels Jews into a spiritualist frame of mind.
After all, if Jews merely needed a nation-state to call their own, why did it have to be in that part of the world? The only justification is ethno-spiritual, i.e. it has special meaning to the Jews as the Promised Land as granted by God.
The Jewish Diaspora was bound to be problematic to both Western Christians and Western nationalists. To the Christians, Jews were a problematic people who wouldn’t accept Jesus and remained a tribe apart. There was also the matter of Jewish Deicide in Christian theology. As such, Christians and Jews couldn’t have much in common in the West. Despite their shared reverence for the Old Testament, the Christians went in one direction with the New Testament whereas the Jews went in another direction with the Talmud, a kind of lawfare weaponization of the Tanakh.

However, Jews and Christians could make common cause via the Zionist project. For all their differences, they had a shared interest in reclaiming the Holy Land from the Muslims. Christians could also see the project as a means by which Jews would eventually come to Christ, either out of gratitude for Christian support or because of the Second Coming whereupon Jesus would return with something like the Waffen SS and command that all the Jews who convert be spared(and be prepped for Heaven) while all those who don’t be holocausted on the spot to burn in Hell forever.

Especially given that the Jewish Diaspora, at least since the Emancipation, has been associated with rootless cosmopolitanism, liberal decadence, cultural subversion, promotion of sinful hedonism, and/or radical politics, Western Christians found it difficult to find common ground with most modern Jews. Spiritually, Christians and Jews were divided on prophecy. Morally and culturally, Christians(representing the more conservative values of the West) were often appalled by the ‘pornographic’ and irreverent inclinations of the secular Jews.
But via Zionism, Western Christians finally found something to feel excited about in their cooperation with Jews to found a Jewish nation-state. Whatever disagreements existed between Jews and Christians on the divinity of Jesus, they were agreed on the specialness of the Holy Land. If Greeks should reclaim their land from the Ottoman Turks, why shouldn’t the Jews do something similar? Even the secular aspects of Zionism might have been appealing to Christians in an odd way. The idea was that these irreligious Jews, in returning to their ancient homeland, would be so inspired that they would come to God and give up their rootless and decadent ways.

And Western nationalists also saw an advantage in Zionism. Better for Jews to pursue their own nationalism in their own country than stand in the way of goy nationalist aspirations in goy lands. Jews were problematic as tribalists, rootless cosmopolitans, or radical universalists as long as they lived among goyim. Jewish tribalism(or nationalism) could never sync with, say, Polish nationalism, German nationalism, Serbian nationalism, and etc. Jewish rootless cosmopolitanism(especially via Jewish control of media and academia) subverted the identities and culture of goyim. And Jewish radical universalism, most potently expressed through Marxism, threatened to undermine the national sovereignty of goy nations in its mission of world revolution.

Zionism was appealing to goy nationalists because it would remove Jewish Tribalism from the West and transplant it to some place where Jews could do their own thing. Thus, the Jewish plant, instead of contending with goy plants in the goy pot of soil, would be allowed to grow in its own pot(with no bother to the goy plants).

As things turned out, however, the creation of Israel, far from freeing the West of the Jewish Question, burdened it with ever increasing obligations to the Zionist entity. For one thing, Zionism didn’t ‘re-migrate’ most of World Jewry to the Promised Land but only a portion of them, with the rest gaining power in the West and using it to ensure ever increasing Western subordination to Zion.

Of course, the real Promised Land, as far as the Jews were concerned, was America. Even though Jews didn’t have the numbers to conquer it and take it outright(as they did with Palestine), they managed to pull off the next best thing: They made the white elites succumb to Jewish Will, and then all else followed to secure the Jewish takeover of America.
From the Jewish point of view, the US is their New Promised Land while Israel is a symbolic reminder of their humble but audacious beginnings. Even if Jews lost Israel, their global power would be intact. But if they lost America, they’d be in the wilderness again. Thus, in some ways, all this talk of Israel-Israel-Israel serves as a distraction from the true nature of Jewish Power: Its successful colonization of the white elites into cuck-collaborationist Wee’s squealing ‘weeeeeee, weeeeeee’ as the Jews pummel their bungs.

As for Ted Cruz(or Senator Wee), he’s of course full of crap. A total sleazebag who will say and do anything for personal advancement, the only reason he sucks up to Israel is because Jews have the most power and money. Cruz knows that Jews can make or break careers. Chuck Schumer said Donald Trump was foolish to alienate the intelligence agencies that have many tricks up their sleeves, but he might as well have been talking about Jewish Power that has the power of finance, law(fare), media, deep state goonery, gangsterism, and outright thuggery(via groups like Antifa & BLM) to derail just about anyone’s reputation, profession, or simple peace of mind.

Of course, Cruz won’t admit the truth, that he’s just a political whore bought and sold like the rest, and instead spins a fairytale of his childhood years in Sunday School, ROTFL. Right, after all these years in politics as a total sleazebag, the reason for his unbridled support for Israel has something to do with church sermons he heard as a child. Do people still swallow this swill? P. T. Barnum comes to mind.

Surely, if Cruz really cares about Christian ethos, he must have heard something about compassion for humanity as a whole, which would include Palestinian women and children being starved to death or mowed down by IDF death squads. Where in the New Testament does it say, “Thou shall support Jews in their bloodlust and give unto them all the necessary tools to wipe out other tribes deemed as subhuman Amalek”? Where does it say, “Blessed are the Jews who starve Arab Christians” or “Feed the fat Jews and starve the famished Palestinian children”? Or “Supply Jews with endless bombs signed with your names to turn Palestinians into pieces of meat”? No matter how one interprets the New Testament, there is no way any real Christian can justify what the Zionists have done to Gaza.

Now, let’s play a game. Let’s take Ted Cruz at his word and pretend that he and his ilk are utterly sincere in their convictions about Israel, i.e. they truly do believe that those who bless Israel will be blessed(presumably by God, though these days, Jews, along with homos and Negroes, seem to be bigger than god). And let us agree, for the sake of argument, that the proposition carries validity. Those who bless Israel or the Jews shall be blessed in turn. And those who curse Israel or the Jews shall be cursed in turn.

That said, we need to define the meaning of ‘to bless’. Surely, it doesn’t mean a mindless, unthinking, naive, childlike, imbecilic, and unconditional endorsement of whatever Jews do. Why, that would mean Jews are PERFECT, tantamount to saying they are god(s), because, after all, only God is perfect. That would be blasphemy, to posit that Jews are as perfect as God Himself.
If Jews are humans, there’s no way they can be perfect, which means they are capable of sin and horrible crimes. Even as the Chosen of God, Jews would still be human and would have all the human flaws(and would be tainted by the Original Sin and the Mark of Cain).

Therefore, goyim’s obligation to the Jews should be both supportive and critical. Admire Jews when they do good, admonish them when they do bad. Otherwise, if to-bless-the-Jews means to favor them and praise them regardless of the issues, that’s more canine mentality than human mindset. Only dumb dogs suck up to their master no matter what he does, no matter how lousy he is.
If God gifted us with the heart and mind(or the soul) as the source of our moral compass, then we’re obligated to use it, even against those we love, admire, or are partial to for whatever reason. Just because we admire a certain movie actor or athlete doesn’t mean we’re obliged to defend whatever he does. Just because we appreciate a certain teacher or thinker doesn’t mean we must praise whatever he says or does. Just because a parent loves his or her child doesn’t mean he or she has to always shower the kid with treats and never ever punish him. The best kind of love is tough love, and the best kind of admiration is tough admiration, which means the best kind of blessing is tough blessing.

So, even if the Bible says that the Jews are special, it doesn’t mean they’re entitled to be immune from criticism and judgement. As Jews are humans and not divine(as only God and Jesus, at least according to Christians, are divine), they are just as imperfect as the rest of us. In a family, the parents may favor one kid over the others: The kid is smarter, has a likable personality, and/or possesses good looks; or, the kid gets more sympathy because of frailty or special needs. Whatever the reason, it still doesn’t mean the special kid is perfect and incapable of doing really foolish, even foul, things.

So, if we must bless the Jews, what does it really mean? Does it mean to turn off our hearts and minds(or our moral compass) and blindly endorse whatever the Jews do regardless of the harm it may cause to certain groups, not least ourselves? Must we ‘bless’ the Jews even when they carry out genocide in Gaza, do a sneak attack on Iran, promote anti-white hatred, or push White Nakba(or the Great Replacement) on the West?

Or does it mean to press upon the Jews to live up to their spiritual and moral duties of chosen-ness. If indeed Jews(and certain types of Christians) really do believe that the People of Abraham are special and gifted by God with the mission to be an inspiration to all mankind, then it seems that ‘to bless the Jews’ impels us to remind them when they act badly and lead them back toward the righteous path, as indeed Jesus did at times, especially with the money-changers at the gates of the Temple. In other words, the Tough Blessing is the only true blessing. Unconditionally blessing the Jews no matter what they do is to assume that they are god and beyond the moral laws of man. Also, it misunderstands the essence of what it means ‘to bless’.

‘To bless’ implies a degree of authority. In other words, God blesses mankind than the other way around. Those higher above bless those below. So, Jesus blesses us, and we receive His blessing and try to live by His teachings. It would rather be presumptuous for us to bless Him as He is the Son of God and doesn’t need our endorsement.
True, ‘to bless’ has multiple meanings, and an inferior can bless the superior in the sense of praising or glorifying the powerful. But more often than not, blessings are conferred by the superior unto the inferior. And so, traditionally, the child sought the blessing of the parent, especially the father, for the wedding, like in THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. Or the priest blesses a marriage. Or a home.

And, blessings are never unconditional. In the Bible, God blesses a people or individuals based on their merit. A proper priest will bless a marriage as a moral union of man and woman, not some polygamous union of orgiasts and certainly not a homosexual union(though, in our sick times when Christianity has ceased to be a conservative value system, plenty of clergymen/women will do just that in conformity to what Jewish Power deems as the New Normal). And a home will be blessed if it will be used as a place for virtue. What priest would bless a whorehouse, a meth lab, or a gambling den run by hoodlums?
In other words, to bless requires moral compass, integrity, discernment, and judgement. It makes no sense to bless someone or something for all times for all excuses. To bless and to curse are two sides of the same coin. When people do right, they deserve to be blessed; but when they do wrong, they deserve to be cursed.

Now, there’s the stupid meaning of ‘to curse’ that is the flipside of the stupid meaning of ‘to bless’. To unconditionally curse someone or something is as retarded as to unconditionally bless someone or something.
But then, that is exactly the state of affairs in the current cucked West: Unconditional blessing of Jews/Israel and unconditional cursing of Palestinians/Iranians. Even when Jews do terrorism, it must be defended. Even when Palestinians and Iranians use justified violence against Zionist horrors, it’s called ‘terrorism’. Even when Israel does a sneak attack with acts of terror in Iran, it’s deemed ‘defending itself’, but when Iran retaliates with missile strikes, it’s a bunch of Islamofascists attacking the blessed state of Israel.
In other words, Jews are right even when they do wrong, whereas Palestinians/Iranians are wrong even when they do right. Always bless the Jews/Israel no matter what they do, and always curse the Palestinians/Iranians even when they’re justified.
After Israel’s unprovoked surprise attack on Iran, the entire West not only sided with Israel but the US dropped bombs on Iran, all the more outrageous considering Israel has lots of nukes whereas Iran never had them. Both the art of blessing and the art of cursing in the West are completely without moral compass.

To properly bless someone or something also implies the need to curse him or it when necessary. No matter how special a student may be, the teacher isn’t obligated to grade everything he does with A+. If the student slacks off and does poorly, he must expect C’s and D’s. No matter how much a critic appreciates a certain author or artist, he isn’t obligated to praise every work. The critic’s duty is to ‘bless’ what is worthy and to ‘curse’ what is unworthy.

But, moral criticism has gone out the window in regard to the Jews, rather ironic since Jews have been among the most critical people, always finding faults(even imagined at times) in other groups. The taboo of ‘antisemitism’ has somehow convinced many in the West that Jews are always deserving of unconditional support, praise, and ‘blessing’.
Even when one disapproves of the agendas pushed by Jews, the ‘correct’ thing is to blame anyone or anything but the Jews — it’s the ‘leftists’, ‘globalists’, ‘Soros & gang’, ‘neocons’, or whatever — while seeking out those Jews, however small in number, with whom you share common interest. So, if nine out of ten Jews want to bash your head in, don’t mention their Jewishness, but if the one Jew wants to shake your hand, make a big deal of his Wonderful Jewishness.
Notice most Jews are anti-conservative and anti-white, but the white cuck dogs of the GOP emphasize their happy partnership with the ultra-Zionists. (Of course, the ultra-Zionists are no less hostile to white goyim and only exploit the craven cucks, i.e. whites sprinkle holy water on Jewish identity while Jews urinate on white identity.)

Curses must accompany the blessings. Indeed, it’s the way of none other than God. God’s blessings on the Jews came with conditions that they follow the righteous path. If not, God cursed them until they atoned for their transgressions to regain His grace. If God’s blessings on the Jews are unconditional, it would imply the Jews are equal to God or even superior.

According to the likes of Ted Cruz, God sees no fault in the Jews and blesses them unconditionally, which requires the goyim to do likewise. But is unconditional blessing really a blessing, or is it submission? When a dog reveres and obeys its master, is it ‘blessing’ him? In actuality, the dog doesn’t know any better than to submit and do as told. In contrast, ‘to bless’ implies a degree of judgement. If to bless something means to appreciate its worth, it assumes the mental acuity to do so, to gauge the value of something. To praise, one must first appraise. One must be able to tell real gold apart from fool’s gold, real diamond from imitation glass. In other words, blessings aren’t conferred blindly.

Even if Christians argue there’s nothing for us to think about and we should bless the Jews simply because God in the Bible says so, aren’t they cognizant of the fact that God’s blessings upon the Jews is conditional and judgmental, i.e. His blessing could be withdrawn temporarily(or even permanently) if Jews wander off the righteous path.
After all, the rise of Christianity was predicated on Judaism having met its expiration date, whereupon the New Israel comprised those who accepted the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. Indeed, what would be the point of the NEW Testament if self-professed Christians defer to the OLD Testament for the final word on the most important matters? Whatever God had promised to Abraham, at least according to the New Testament, culminated in the New Covenant offered to all mankind through the figure of Jesus. The New Testament says that Christians, in order to be blessed, must accept Jesus as the Messiah. It does away with the idea that mankind may find favor in the eyes of God through the Jews, an Old Testament tale.

Still, even if we were to look to the Old Testament as a guide to to-bless-or-not-bless, it’s clear that God never blessed the Jews unconditionally. Also, when Jews gained favors from other tribes or kingdoms, it was on the basis of give-and-take. Goy kingdoms or empires were nice to the Jews because the latter was of some service to them.

Then, even if we were to agree with Ted Cruz and the Old-Testament-Christians that we must bless the Jews, it must be done judiciously, critically, and morally. We must confer Tough Blessing upon the Jews. Just as love isn’t all hugs-and-kisses but rebukes-and-reprimands when, say, friends or family members go astray, blessings mustn’t entirely consist of praise and support but also criticism and denunciation when wrongs are committed.
Criticism is a kind of blessing for it presses upon people to see the wrongfulness of their ways and atone for what they’ve done. History says that World War II was the ‘good war’ because the ‘good guys’ not only beat the ‘bad guys’ but redeemed them from the ashes of defeat and restored them to the brotherhood of man. In that sense, one could argue that the defeats of Germany and Japan, though traumatic and ignominious, were a kind of blessing as those countries were exorcised of the evils of supremacism and militarism.

Then, the same goes for Jewish Power that has grown arrogant, supremacist, and megalomaniacal. It has become cancerous, and the proper way to tough-bless the Jewish People is to name this disease and remove the tumor so that they may be rid of the sickness of tribal megalomania.
In other words, our blessing must be conditional and critical, in the manner of God in the Old Testament who, when infuriated with the Jews, bitch-slapped them around some until they stopped acting like Ron Jeremy sucking his own cock.

People like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton confuse ‘to bless’ with ‘to kiss-ass’. Their message to goyim is to turn off the mind, forget morality, and forsake judgement. Just believe on faith that Jews are good, great, awesome, and wondrous in every way, and everything they do is magic(like in the Police song). Everything Jews do is magic, and we should be like silly children or dumb dogs fawning over the latest policy proposal cooked up by Netanyahu, Mark Levin, or Ben Shapiro.

Video Link

Let us ‘bless’ or kiss-ass everything they do. They want to drop bombs on apartment blocks and kill everyone? Kiss-ass the Jews. They send snipers to target Palestinian children? Kiss-ass the Jews. They blow up every hospital in Gaza? Kiss-ass the Jews. They blow up every school in Gaza? Kiss-ass the Jews. They laugh at the plight of Palestinians? Kiss-ass the Jews. They lure Palestinians to food centers and mow them down with machine guns? Kiss-ass the Jews. They prevent aid from getting in and let untold numbers of Palestinians die of starvation, thirst, and disease? Kiss-ass the Jews. Appeasing Jews, the centerpiece of what Western Civilization is all about.
So, according to John Hagee and Mike Huckabee, those are the kind of horrors we must ‘bless’ or kiss-ass in order to win favors from God? And all this time, we thought that the evolution of Yahweh was a moral advancement from the crude gods of Babylon that demanded child sacrifice.

The true meaning of ‘to bless’ implies a degree of authority and agency on the part of those who do the blessing, but there isn’t a hint of such among the Christard-cucks who believe that blessing-the-Jews means serving as flunky apologists for whatever Jewish Power cooks up nest, even if it means engineering a genocide of an entire people in Gaza or elsewhere.
Even when white conservatives oppose mass immigration(mainly pushed by Jewish organizations), they feel obligated to frame the argument in defense of Jews. You see, all those darky/brown immigrants aren’t as fawning and deferential to the Jews as white dog cucks are. “We blanka hundos serve the Jewish Master like no other bunch of goyim do, woof woof.”

It’s all so ridiculous. Throughout their history, Americans have been admiring of peoples and cultures around the world but never unconditionally. Americans have found much to praise in the virtues, values, and achievements of other nations, be it Germany, France, Japan, Russia, Mexico, Egypt, India, and so on. But Americans also noted much that was bad and ugly among the nations of the world. Even Great Britain, the mother country of the US Republic, was both an object of reverence and rebuke.

At some point, however, in regard to the Jews, the US went totally ape-shit in unconditional servility, all the more troubling as it goes against the defiant spirit of Americanism, the cowboy thing. Americans staked their pride in the revolution that rejected monarchy in favor of freedom, national autonomy, and individual agency, but they now look upon Jews as their god-emperor.
Americanism maintains that Americans should be free to speak their minds, criticize any power, name any abuse, and also keep the government free of theological dogma & tyranny, the kind that burned people at the stake for blasphemy in the Old World.

But now, all we hear from the ruling elites, even tough-sounding Trump, is that we must kiss-ass the Jews, suck Zionist toes, and trample on the Constitution itself to forbid ‘antisemitism’ that, in the current socio-political climate, can mean just about any criticism of Jewish Supremacism.
Even though Jewish Power is clearly in gangsterist, supremacist, imperialist, and genocidal mode, it is ‘Anti-Semitic’ to say so. And conscientious Jews who expose and excoriate the Jewish sickness are tarred-and-feathered as ‘self-loathing Jews’, which would imply that the only way to be a proper Jew is to support the madness of Netanyahu and his deranged cohorts. If you support Jewish supremacist evils, you are a good goy. If you denounce Jewish supremacist evils for the sake of larger humanity, you’re an ‘Anti-Semite’.

I have a better way. Let us bless Jews in a more sensible way that is good for them and for us. Let us bless them with tough-reminders of what it means to be moral citizens of the world. Let us bless them with sermons against targeting women and children. Let us bless them with condemnation of genocide regardless of who does it, Jews or Germans. Let us bless them with demands that the Jewish people reject supremacism and bring the likes of Netanyahu to justice. Let us bless the Jews with lectures on the US Constitution, i.e. it’s not okay for Jews to use lawfare to distort American laws in service to the Jewish supremacist project. Let us bless the Jews by awakening them to their hypocrisies, i.e. elevating the Holocaust into a new religion while supporting far-right Nazi-type elements in Ukraine and aiding-and-abetting Islamic terrorists to bring down governments while warning the West about the threat of Jihadism. Let us bless the Jews with the ideal that the mass media are supposed to serve as the Fourth Estate, not the extension of the Deep State committed to serving Global Zion. Let us bless the Jews with the rules of honor that would surely damn as perfidious the use of surprise attack(along with terrorist acts) by Israel against Iran. Let us bless the Jews with the hypothesis that if Anne Frank came back to witness the horrors in Gaza, she would weep. Let us bless the Jews with the irony that even a semi-retard like Greta Thunberg knows a genocide when she sees one while so many well-educated Jews are still making excuses for Israel, now Diseasrael.

And we can go on and on. If we are in the position to bless the Jews, it means we must also pass judgement on them and curse them out when they do bad. Cursing the bad is the flipside of blessing the good; they go hand in hand. Otherwise, it’s not really an act of blessing but of ass-kissing, which is what the US and the West are really about in regard to Jewish gangsterism turned most foul.

Power works like chemistry, and the greatest evil in the world has resulted from the compounding of Jewish Supremacy and White Submission. Jewish Supremacy on its own couldn’t do much, and White Submission(or Cuckery) on its own would be rather aimless. It’s like a man alone isn’t much and neither is a horse alone. But put a man on a horse, and he can conquer the world.
When Christianity dominated the West, both Jews and goyim had to give up something to meet one another halfway. Goyim would worship the God of the Jews but through the figure of Jesus, the King of Kings. And if Jews fully wanted to be part of the Goy Order, they would have to convert and become fellow Christians. Thus, Jesus would serve as the glue between the Jews and goyim. Same was true of communism, whereby the goyim would submit to the prophecy of Karl Marx the Awesome Jew while the Jews would abandon their tribalism and become comrades with the rest of humanity.
As for Zionism, it began as a nationalist project for the Jews — Jews would have a nation to call their own, like various European groups had their own nations, and Jews would mind their own business in their own nation — , but that original appeal to the goyim faded as Zionism morphed into the basis for Global Zion, whereby Israel wouldn’t merely be a nation for the Jews but the quasi-spiritual center of the Empire of Judea(that took possession of the US as its jewel in the crown).
Thus, the idea of midway compromise between the Jews and the goyim was tossed to the wayside, and incredibly enough, the universal theme in the West became the all-pervasive goy obligation to bless the Jews(who only bless themselves): Surrender everything to the Jews who, in turn, feel no obligation to concede on anything. Thus, Christianity went from a midpoint compromise between goyim and Jews to a mass cult whereby the goyim would effectively replace Jesus Christ with the Chosen-ness of Jews(that trumps all other considerations, with much of the New Testament now deemed ‘Anti-Semitic’). The fusion of Jewish Supremacism and White/Christian cuckery is surely the most dangerous development in the 21st century. All the major wars and conflicts of the new century have been its product.

Foulism Pt 2: The Long-Term Effect of Crime/Corruption Made Banal on TV and the Complete Fading of the Anglo Advantage

 The corrosive impact of prolonged exposure to the banalization of foulness in popular culture: The increased tolerance of corruption among the elites.

Foulism: Foul Play Replaces Fair Play, Re-Moralization Follows Demoralization, and the True Failure of the Imagination

It seems over the years that more and more Americans have come to stop worrying and learn to love corruption. It’s as if many people, perhaps the majority, have become accustomed to corruption(and even criminality), much like Asian Indians have learned to live with air pollution. Corruption and foulness have always defined humanity and in many societies simply became mundane facts of life, even across centuries(or millennia for that matter).
However, the passivity, even a kind of acceptance(and embrace), in the face of corruption among Northern Whites is historically significant. Not that Northern White societies were ever devoid of corruption, a timeless and universal feature of humanity. But just as air pollution, though a universal condition, is a far bigger problem in some places than others, the levels of corruption have never been uniform across cultures. Some have been notably more corrupt than others, some remarkably less so. Some have been very tolerant of corruption, some highly allergic to it. Granted, there have also been societies that learned to ‘harmoniously’ navigate through meticulous rules-based corruption, like in Japan.

At any rate, the socio-political orders developed by Northern Whites have long held a reputation for being law-abiding, conscientious, and ethical. Some have called them ‘high trust societies’ due to confidence in the authority and the populace in general. A distinction between Northern Europe and Southern Europe(and Eastern Europe) has had much to do with public governance and civic virtues.
A similar distinction has applied to North America and South America, with the North having cleaner, more ethical, more efficient, and more conscientious societies than the South where too many people, from top to bottom, have become resigned to corruption and incompetence. It’s been a key reason for the mass migration from the south to the north, i.e. many in Latin America have given up on fixing their problems and opted to migrate up north in search for a better life.

This contrast between the North and the South has held for a long time. Therefore, the acceptance of corruption as the New Normal among Northern Whites is a troubling, even alarming, development.
For sure, the Northern prestige has dissipated over the years. In the past, Northern Whites in both Europe and America took pride in running the most functional societies in the world. Thus, they expected new arrivals from the corrupt South(and backward parts of the world) to show some respect and appreciation for what the Northern Whites had achieved. Those from corrupt countries had much to gain by modeling themselves on the Northern Whites who led the world in forming and sustaining sound societies.

But over time, with the rise of the ‘White Guilt’ ideology and ‘anti-racist’ dogma, it was unacceptable for Northern Whites to take special pride in their achievements. And for the peoples of the Global South being mired in poverty and corruption, the bulk of the blame was usually placed on ‘Western Imperialism’ — never mind that Latin America was the first creation of Western Imperialism in the New World; why did imperialism produce functional societies in North America but dysfunctional ones in South America?
With the abnegation of pride and confidence among Northern Whites, the only game in town was to blame them for having more goodies(apparently by exploiting and stealing from other peoples, especially the ‘darkies’) than to ponder why they achieved more(often with less) in life. Notice that Somalis and American blacks in Minnesota never make an effort to learn from the Scandinavian-and-German Americans who created nice societies; they only know how to bitch, complain, and demand.

But then, can we blame them when so many Northern Whites have been inculcated with ‘white guilt’ by the Jews? Jews made Northern Whites feel guilty about their achievements, and Northern Whites imparted this ‘wisdom’ to the darkies whose go-to-explanation to any problem is ‘systemic racism’ and ‘white supremacism’.
One of the vulnerabilities of Northern White conscience and high trust was the priggish(and even puritanical) desire to purge oneself of sin by deferring to figures of moral authority. Northern Whites came to regard Jews as especially intelligent & wise and predictably based their course of self-improvement on Jewish advice from the likes of Barbara Specter, a guru to childlike do-gooders in Sweden.

Undue emphasis on ‘white guilt’ and ‘anti-racism’ led to the fading of racial identity, solidarity, and pride among white elites who soon reneged on their special obligation to white folks, their own racial brethren. These days, any positive racial consciousness among white elites is anathema, the result being they’d rather serve the Jews(as the rightful master race), prioritize Globo-Homo, idolize blacks, and promote Diversity.
The white elites spin this as the new ‘woke’ virtues of ‘diversity’, ‘equity’, and ‘inclusion’, but they only end up indulging the corrupt proclivities of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and nonwhites while placing the blame on whiteness as the catchall scapegoat for every problem.
Sadly, with no white elites to represent and guide them, the white masses find themselves without direction, especially in a globalized world where jobs are exported and labor is imported.

And given that Pop Culture, the only culture that matters in our age, has increasingly become debased, shameless, hedonistic, nihilistic, and pornographic, it’s no surprise that so many people, even Northern Whites, have become so trashy and retarded.
Even their righteousness has been perverted: Many Northern Whites believe green/purple hair dye, multiple piercings, trashy tattoos, and tranny delusions constitute ‘progressive’ values of the highest moral fortitude. Immorality has become the New Normal in morality, which is worse than honest immorality.
With so many people having grown up in broken families in broken communities with no elites to lead them and with debased Pop Culture as their only compass, it’s no surprise that so many people have turned to drugs, legal and illegal.
But then, the venal elites who presided over this cultural rot and allowed tons of illicit drugs to enter the US, leading to the fentanyl crisis that took the life of George Floyd, had the temerity to beat their chest and lecture us as to for what/whom we should ‘take the knee’.

In one respect, social degradation that accompanies the normalization of corruption cannot be good for the elites. Who wants to rule over a sick society beset with pathologies? On the other hand, systemic corruption and degradation may be less dangerous to the elites than the expressions of political will, genuine or false. The false ‘virtue’ politics of 2020 certainly did more damage to ‘blue’ cities than simple degeneracy and degradation could ever have done. Better for ‘grunge’ losers in Seattle and Portland to just wallow in drugs and squalor than join a crusade and smash entire business blocks in the name of ‘social justice’. As for political will based on genuine virtue, it raises consciousness and calls out the elites, like the pro-Palestinian movement that condemns Jewish supremacy as the sick soul of America. Politics of virtue, genuine or false, brings people together to confront the powers-that-be.
In contrast, the acceptance of and participation in corruption among the masses has a way of fostering greater tolerance of corruption at the top. “It’s just the way it is”, and nothing can be done about it.

Video Link

This is why long-running TV shows like THE SOPRANOS and BREAKING BAD may have had a profoundly corrosive impact on society by rendering corruption and criminality as the banal facts of life. The overall message, even if unintended, seems to be, “Don’t worry, be crappy.” If indeed corruption is presented as pervasive at every level of society, why not just accept it for what it is, like Asian-Indians have no choice but to inhale the foul air in cities like Mumbai.
There seems to have been a cultural-moral break at some point in modernity, with the US as the exemplary, trend-setting, and authoritative center of the universe.
The general culture seems to have gone from a moral denunciation of crime/corruption to an artistic/critical exploration of it(as well as an intellectual fascination with it) to finally a blithe and banal resignation to it. Are we all goombas now? And if we’ve adapted to this reality, why even bother to call out on the corruption of the elites? It’s just the way it is, ain’t it? Indeed, Watergate now seems quaint compared to what the elites are able to get away with these days(and out in the open too). Joe Biden and Donald Trump are exactly the kind of ‘leaders’ we deserve given the circumstances.

Video Link

Crime and corruption are nothing new to entertainment, be it popular fiction, cinema, or TV. To moralists, however, depiction of crime has been more worrying on the screen than on the page. While popular fiction reached the masses, many more ‘illiterates’ were bound to be affected by moving images than the printed word. Even books for the unwashed require some degree of concentration and effort whereas movies(and TV shows) just ‘wash over you’. And if the radio can only suggest at violence through voice-over narration and audio-dramatization, the visual image further sensationalizes through (graphic)action.
While there were calls for censorship in publishing, the pressure was far greater on movies and especially TV. Prior to the rise of Cable TV, most of what was on television remained at the level of PG. And, when it came to language, it might as well have been Rated G as foul language was prohibited. Even years after censorship faded from the big screen, even leading to the legalization of pornographic films, the TV maintained its more-or-less strict rules on what was socially-morally acceptable.
And then, the rise of Cable and Home Video changed the TV-scape. Suddenly, people could watch violent and/or raunchy R-rated and even X-rated movies at home on the TV screen, which had been sanitized compared to other mediums. Still, the idea was that only adults could rent out certain kinds of movies, R-rated and above, and Cable TV had to be paid for, thereby remaining apart from the public sphere.
Increasingly, however, cable and then later streaming services became part of mainstream culture than special services for select households, overshadowing the traditionally dominant TV networks. One of the appeals was that, being censorship-free, Cable and Streaming offered a far greater variety of programs. (On the other hand, the control of programming still remained in the hands of the oligarchs who were no longer restrained in flooding the digital-space with whatever kind of ideological-pornographic material in service to their own agendas and anti-values. As such, Cable and Streaming constituted one-way ‘free expression’ than multi-way expression, the revolutionary feature of the internet.)

The general ‘moralist’ rule used to be (1) showcase the lawmen than the outlaws and in a positive light (2) if outlaws are emphasized, show that crime doesn’t pay (3) if outlaws are heroes, make them out to be misunderstood Robin Hood types(as in old Westerns about Jesse and Frank James) than nihilistic hoodlums or present them as redemptive, like in John Ford’s THREE GODFATHERS.
What came to be categorized as the ‘film noir’ was problematic to the moralists for its dark allure and intimacy with vice, but it nevertheless illustrated amorality as seedy and sordid.

Things really changed with THE GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART 2, though a case could be made for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE that ends in triumph of its anti-villain(or a revisionist departure from the traditional villain who is either rightfully destroyed or comes to a redemptive realization). THE GODFATHER films violated the rules of conventional morality in entertainment. The legitimate world was presented as just as compromised and crooked as the world of the gangsters who, if anything, seemed more honorable for their lack of pretense. And the crime certainly paid, indeed paid big, especially with super-smart and steely Michael Corleone at the helm.
Granted, one could argue that THE GODFATHER movies, at least in part, did conform to the moral convention of presenting criminals as partly justified by circumstances or somewhat better than their adversaries, even those in the ‘rules-based’ world. Michael entered the business because men tried to kill his father, and in the background story of THE GODFATHER PART 2, we learn that young Vito entered the crime world because it was the only game in town and, besides, he used his newfound power to ‘protect’ the good folks in the community.

Video Link

It’s also worth noting that, even though the Corleones are ultimately triumphant in ‘business’, the overall tone is tragic, suggestive of the Bible verse, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Unlike the tenor of the novel where Michael goes from naïve boy scout patriotism to manly realism, the mood of the films, especially the sequel, is dark and moody, like a long funeral for a man’s soul.

Still, crime does pay in THE GODFATHER films, and, for all the foreboding gloom-and-doom about Michael’s soul, one can’t help feeling the work is more about the Nobility(than the Banality) of Evil. In a world of gangsters, where even lawmen and politicians are crooks, it’s preferable that men like the Corleones come out on top than the Barzinis, Tataglias, Gearys, and Roths(or the Fanuccis for that matter). Also,there’s a sense that the Corleones had an ‘ennobling’ influence on those under their wing. When Clemenza first entered young Vito’s life, he was just another thief and killer, a man willing to kill a cop over a rug. Vito Corleone sticks to gambling & unions and loathes prostitution and narcotics. Michael doesn’t fool around and is loyal to Kay following their marriage. (If anything, she killed the kid.)

As such, the lighter parts of THE GODFATHER seem more like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE than LITTLE CAESAR and PUBLIC ENEMY, both about maverick psychopaths than members of a community with patriarchs, managers, loyal soldiers, and, of course, their families. In THE GODFATHER, Michael wins big, and THE GODFATHER PART 2, he wins even bigger, even outsmarting the U.S. government(though at the cost of alienating Tom Hagen, losing his wife who killed his unborn son, and ordering the death of his older brother; furthermore, even though he overcomes all the obstacles, his reputation has been sullied to the point where he never really be part of the legitimate world). It’s only with the vastly inferior THE GODFATHER PART III that Michael finally gets his comeuppance, ironically when he finally tried to do the right thing and make amends with everyone, which could be read in two ways: (1) ultimately crime doesn’t pay or (2) virtue doesn’t pay, and it would have been better for Michael to have remained in full-gangster mode.

For all their maverick outlook, violence, and/or subversive elements, DIRTY DOZEN and THE WILD BUNCH remain closer to the ‘classic’ moral formula: The only redemption for sinners is self-sacrifice.

One aspect of THE GODFATHER films dwells on the corrupting influence of the immigrant communities, the Southern Italians, the Jews, the Irish, and etc. who brought their own cultural pathologies to Anglo-America. Even though the ‘liberal’-minded Francis Ford Coppola made fashionable comments about the corrupting influence of capitalism, THE GODFATHER films, especially part 2, show that the Sicilians arrived in the US with their clannishness, distrust(or disdain)for the law, loose ethics(despite the conservative morality), culture of vendetta, and twisted sense of honor.
After all, it wasn’t American style capitalism that wiped out Vito’s father, brother, and mother in the Old World, and it was the persistence of the Sicilian Way in America that finally turned Vito toward a life of crime, albeit in a somewhat benevolent manner. (Actually, GOODFELLAS comes closer to showing how some of the mafia elements exult in the dog-eat-dog ethos of outlaw capitalism.) In other words, Southern Italians didn’t need any lessons from American Capitalism to dwell in the underworld.

And the same could be said of the Jews and the Irish. The Jewish Boss is Hyman Roth, a shrewd mastermind of big deals and the finance of gangster operations. And the Irishman is McCluskey the police captain, an embodiment of Irish domination of big city political machines. Italians had their families, the Irish had their clans, and Jews had their tribe.

The common gripe or rationale among the criminally-inclined and their apologists was that the non-Anglo groups had no choice but to turn to crime and corruption as the doors to socio-economic elevation were often shut to those without WASP pedigrees. Also the assurance of justice. THE GODFATHER begins with an aggrieved father, Bonasera, relating how the judge suspended the sentence of the young men who beat up his daughter for refusing to put out. The implication is that the perpetrators are the sons of the Old Stock(or at least Northern European) Americans who look upon swarthy Italians as people to ignore or exploit but not to be taken seriously.

But then, Michael was sufficiently accepted by the system and attended a top-notch college, and even got himself a light-skinned girlfriend, Kay. No doubt, much had changed in America between Vito’s arrival as a child in Ellis Island and Michael’s development as a young man, a war hero and college graduate, the first in his family. If there is an element of personal betrayal in the arc of Michael’s life, it’s that he needn’t have turned to crime to have a stake in America whereas his immigrant father did.
The difference between the America of Vito-as-young-man and the America of Michael-as-young-man was probably as stark as America-before-the-Civil-Rights-Movement and America decades after it. Michael came of age in an America in which Italian-Americans had come to prominence in certain fields, and not just in crime.
But then, given the racy romanticism of the gangster during the Prohibition Era, which did as much to undermine WASP moral-cultural authority as the War-on-Terror did on the Republican Party under George W. Bush, it wasn’t totally negative to be associated with hoodlums, often depicted as Tough Guys on the silver screen. (Oddly enough, even though the Neocon faction was most responsible for the foreign policy under Bush II, the various neocon stalwarts emerged from the fiasco almost unscathed and soon teamed up with Democrats for the exact same foreign policy while the white-goy-Christian figures in the GOP got most of the blame.)

At any rate, the most disturbing aspect of THE GODFATHER isn’t that Michael Corleone(and others like him) failed at Americanism but that Americanism was all just a myth. One way to interpret Michael’s trajectory is as a betrayal of America, but another way is as a fulfillment of what America really is: It’s all about winning, by hook or by crook. (It’s like the Nixon of Oliver Stone’s film staring at the portrait of JFK and muttering, “When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are.”) Even those who aren’t prone to corruption ultimately fail the ethics test if they aren’t up to the task of suppressing it. The weak-and-virtuous are a sitting duck for the strong-and-wicked.

That said, contra the cynical take on Americanism, one could make a persuasive case that certain ethnic groups were generally cleaner and more capable than others. Clearly, Anglo-Americans and German-Americans were more orderly, productive, principled, and efficient than the Southern Italians, Scotch-Irish, and Dumb Polacks. (Jews were an outlier as a people far more corrupt than the Anglos and the Germans but also more capable, a combination that made them rather formidable.)

Perhaps, the lower levels of corruption among the Northern Whites owed to the historical fortune of having developed, culturally and morally, under confident and secure elites, because few factors are as corrupting as having craven, cowering, and lowlife elites whose modus operandi is sucking up to foreign or alien powers. Comprador elites, living in fear and anxiety, are all about looking out for number one, namely themselves, and generally lack the sense of the national or communal good.
As the fish rots from the head down, such elites set a poor example for the rest of the population. Given how much of Southern Italy and Greece were under foreign rule for prolonged periods, the main priority of the local elites was to keep theirs and ignore/neglect the rest of the population that did likewise, if only in imitation of their superiors. Such venal attitudes became entrenched socio-culturally, extremely difficult to root out and eradicate(as they remain to this day). The same could be said of the Irish who lived under British rule.

In contrast, Anglo and Germanic socio-cultural norms developed under stronger and more confident national elites. But then, fast-forward to our time and notice the rapid decline in the quality of governance and social trust across the Anglo- and Germano-sphere as virtually all Anglo and Germanic elites have been reduced to playing cuck-comprador junior partners to Jewish Supremacist Masters. Anglo elites in both the UK and US live for only one thing, which is to look out for themselves by flattering and appeasing Jews at every turn, leaving the demoralized and despondent Anglo & Germanic hoi polloi to either emulate their cuck-maggot elites(and become compromised themselves) or lose all hope, surrendering to drugs and degeneracy.

In a way, the relative ease with which the Anglosphere conquered much of the world probably went to its head. From a macro-historical perspective, Anglos with their industry, ingenuity, and organization were bound to quickly take over the vast territories of the Americas and Australia. Anglos also quickly conquered vast areas of Africa inhabited mostly by half-naked savages. The Indian subcontinent and East Asia were sizable advanced civilizations but vulnerable and ultimately defenseless in face of the technological might of the industrial West. With the Spanish and Ottoman Empires on the wane, the Russian Empire occupied with territorial disputes, and the French empire’s resignation to its second-tier status, it seemed that the Anglos were unstoppable.
There was the intra-Anglo rift following the American Independence, but both the UK and US were essentially Anglo-ruled domains. Power can mean more power, but it can also mean complacency, the conviction that its might and mastery are here to stay. It could also mean the vanity of power, the narcissism that its might is a right. Jews surely understood this soft underbelly of Anglo Power, and Disraeli’s ascension to the top position, in the Conservative Party no less, forebode future developments wherein Anglos would become increasingly subordinate to Jewish will and manipulation.

An irony of Anglo history was that the aristocratic outlook lasted longer precisely because aristocratic power was diminished. In abrupt historical ruptures where one group or class is discredited, its influence could be rooted out wholesale, like in the Bolshevik Revolution(and to a lesser degree in the French Revolution — World War I had a similar effect on aristocracies all across Europe). But when a powerful group is willing to cede a measure of its authority in exchange for the preservation of its prestige and privileges, its attitudes and manners may not only persist but affect the lesser groups and classes.
The aristocracy had developed from the warrior caste but grew over time into a culture of refinement and honor as matters of social reputation. Therefore, whatever advantages the aristocratic types had accrued as leaders of men in the field of battle, they were less adept at fighting dirty and lowdown, which they surely did but lived in fear of being found out.

Furthermore, being defined by physical courage, the aristocratic culture(even among non-aristocrats) emphasized physical feats of daring and adventure, without which the culture grew considerably apathetic and stale. For such an order to thrive, a clear distinction had to be made between legitimacy and mere opportunism. While both Anglo seamen and pirates(of all stripes) shared a sense of adventure and excitement, a line had to be drawn between the dignified and the dirty, between the lawful and the lawless. And in order for the dignified to prevail, the down-and-dirty had to be kept out.

Yet, Jews managed to worm into the Anglo order because, despite their ‘dirty’ and ‘pirate-like’ ways, they were a learned people of the Law (and even to this day, they are experts of ‘lawfare’ where gangsterism is legitimized through master-manipulation of legal institutions).
Also, as a People of Memory, Jews increasingly put the Anglos on the defensive with reminders that the Anglo World Order grew out of piracy and all sorts of dastardly deeds. (And as a people of spirituality, Jews used the Holocaust Narrative to procure new sacraments and taboos.)

In the end, the Anglos met their match(or their Waterloo) in the Jews and then some. Consider the stark contrast between the Jews and the earlier foes/rivals of the Anglos. Even without much effort on the part of Anglos, the Spanish squandered their head start in empire-building and slid into irreversible decline. The French under the monarchy were too absolutist for individual initiative and then, post-Revolution, too contentious among themselves to sustain a united front(against Britain or Germany). The primitive natives of the Americas could be quelled easily enough. Hindus were too busy worshiping cows and burning widows to get their act together. And the Chinese, for so long complacent in their Middle Kingdom delusions, were traumatized for nearly a century before coalescing toward a workable modernity. The much despised Russians were backward, incompetent, and lazy.
Perhaps, the greatest Anglo-British tragedy, after so many triumphs, was the mischaracterization of the Germans as the biggest threat when they could easily have been the greatest ally and partner of Britain, the understated theme of Patrick Buchanan’s UNNECESSARY WAR. A tragedy made even worse by yet another Anglo miscalculation of Jews as the wisest advisors and finest friends, something worthy of the Godzilla-head-palm award.

As for the Anglo-American elites, all their challenges were surmountable prior to their capitulation to the Jews. After the stony-faced and alcoholic Red natives were wiped off the land, there were various ‘ethnic’ immigrant groups to contend with. Among the earlier arrivals, the Irish were most problematic for their Catholicism and unruly drunken ways, as well as their clannishness that gravitated toward ‘machine’ politics. And the Scotch-Irish could be rather troublesome in rural parts with moonshine and the like.
But all said and done, the Irish were petty and limited in imagination. Thus, their power was constrained and managed by the overclass through backroom deals. As for the Germanics, including the Scandinavians, they mostly liked to work hard, follow the rules, and respect authority. As for the danger of religious squabbles, it was managed through the principle of ‘freedom of religion’ that allowed every group, from elite-dominant denominations to rural churches, to congregate and worship as it chose in the mutual understanding that none of them would be particularly favored by the state. As for the browns in the Southwest, they were mostly dull and docile. As for the yellows, their numbers were low, and besides, they came from authoritarian cultures that emphasized submission to the dominant order. As for the North-South Divide, it was decisively settled in the Civil War, whereby the South accepted its military defeat with a mix of honor and self-pity.
Some of the later immigrant groups, especially the Italians, posed a challenge with their culture of criminality. But as things turned out, Italian organized crime degraded over time while law-abiding Italians assimilated into the American system. Blacks were a different matter. Though present in the US far longer than most immigrant-groups, they were less assimilable given their savage nature and their physical threat to the white race, Anglos and ethnics alike. However, minus the guidance and support of the Jews, blacks couldn’t gain a significant place at the table. Even mass non-white immigration was a manageable challenge in American History before Jewish Power went about weaponizing it against the White Majority beginning in the Sixties.

The bill for the great Anglo miscalculation of alienating the Germans, especially beginning with World War I, while accommodating the Jews would eventually come due. It continues to this day with the US policy of shitting on Russians while heaping fulsome praise on the Jews, in some ways even a bigger miscalculation than the anti-German strategy of the past. Unlike Germany that could be strangled economically, Russia is self-sufficient in resources and, besides, has reliable partners who’ve lost respect for the US as the crazy empire of cucked white brownnosers who cater to every whim of the Jewish Master Race that promotes Globo-Homo as the de facto state religion. When the richest and most powerful country in the world is about white weaklings sucking up to Jewish crazies, worshiping sodomy, and being spineless against black thugs burning down cities, the world surely wonders what the hell is going on.

Well, what once was and what could have been are no more and will never be. White elites have chosen to be total cucks to Jewish Supremacist gangsters, and the white masses are lost and confused, flailing about and looking for scapegoats to explain their mounting problems.
Gangsterism was always a part of the American Way, but most Americans now seem rather at ease with the reality. Thus, instead of regarding gangsterism as ineradicable but controllable, they’ve given in to its cancerous growth. We can’t rid the world of rats and other pests but still can keep them under control. But suppose we resign ourselves to having our houses be taken over by mice, rats, raccoons, ants, termites, and various other pests. That would be the end of anything to call ‘home’.

When people accept foulism(of crooks, gangsters, and cheaters of every stripe) as the normal state of affairs, they can kiss goodbye to any possibility of civil society. Gradually or rapidly, the social order will degrade and crumble, and there are unmistakable signs across the US. The kinds of conditions rife in Latin America are now cropping up in the US, which, except for black-heavy areas, was a nice place to live.
In many cases, Americans(white or otherwise) have just given up and only care about ‘what is mine’. As Robert Putnam expounded in BOWLING ALONE, the rise in Diversity certainly didn’t do wonders for social cohesion and civic-mindedness. Granted, it wasn’t Diversity alone but the promotion of ‘white guilt’ that proved fatal. Had diversity increased in the US but under the confident and proud leadership of White Americans(who’d made the system work in the first place), things might have been different. But just when diversity increased, pride in whiteness sank like a stone.

There are several reasons why so many Americans became inured to foulness, corruption, and criminality. One was the hip factor. Trashy pop culture sensationalized Da Gangsta, especially those associated with Rap Culture. And a shameless culture and rampant black narcissism led to the fading of sportsmanship and the emergence of athletes as thugs than ‘hero’ role models. Tattoos and piercings certainly didn’t help. In time, even the spectacle of women beating up women in mixed-martial-arts became something to celebrate, something for men(including President Trump and his entourage) to get their jollies from.

Another factor is the new clannism. If white elites only suck up to Jewish supremacist gangsters and if the white masses have been thrown to the wolves, the only chance that most white people have is to form their own ‘gangs’(though not necessarily street gangs). In small towns and rural areas, down-and-out whites form their own criminal communities, something like hillbilly mafias. What else are they supposed to do when they are now without representation as all their white politicians do little but stand in line to suck Bibi Netanyahu’s penis and pledge more trillions for the Wars for Zion?

There’s also the smarty factor, which explains why the educated types are so enamored of shows like THE SOPRANOS and BREAKING BAD. They regard themselves as too smart and knowing to believe in any boy-scout BS about civic duties, morality, and ethics. Flattering themselves as mini-machiavellians, their cynicism regarding politics and business serves as both defense mechanism and opportunism, i.e. they’re too attuned to what’s going on to be shocked by anything and too savvy to let idealism or principles stand in the way of their careerism.
It explains why so many young ones in government and the media are willing to join in the Big Lie. You see, it’s all about the game of power or ‘empowerment’, and it’s all a game of gangsterism.
Many so-called ‘liberals’ denounced Donald Trump as a Hitler-like gangster but were fully onboard with the gangster and lawfare tactics of the deep state. As for genuinely principled liberals like Glenn Greenwald, they mostly went ignored as passe and outdated. “You still believe in free speech? Come on!”
Surely, all those mainstream media personalities can’t be THAT stupid. Yet, they keep pushing the official narrative to keep their paychecks coming. They like to be ‘da playa’. Then, it’s fitting that their highest ‘moral’ theme is adoration of Globo-Homo, especially given that homos are among the most brazenly machiavellian bunch of gangsters who see the power-game as a figurative bitch-contest of fuc*ing others in the ass.

Video Link

Not that MAGA-tards are much better. Despite their fulminations against ‘wokeness’ and censorship, most have been either silent or apologist about Trump administration’s war on pro-Palestinian free speech. Believing that the power is now on their side, they’d rather play gangster than stand on principles. It’s rather ironic since it wasn’t the Palestinians(over there or over here) who led the war on whiteness; if anything, Palestinians, along with Russians and Iranians, have been the ONLY people on earth who’ve been reviled as much as white people have been by Jewish Power, the difference being Palestinians have resisted while whites only cucked. The leading lights of Anti-Whiteness have been the Jews all along, but MAGA-tards are now shilling for the very people who employed lawfare on Trump and their kind.
Perhaps, some have no idea while others do know, but they also know that the rule of gangsterism(that governs the US) means that MAGA or GOP must do everything to court the Jews who got the most money, power, and influence. So, it doesn’t matter that Jews have been the most anti-white. As they’re the most powerful, the ONLY HOPE for the whites is to flatter and win over the Jews to their side. A totally foulist approach.

Pop Culture is the only culture left standing, and its prestige now mostly rests with TV. Until recently, the TV was mostly regarded as the idiot box. Cinema was where the best in writing, directing, and acting was at. And for serious storytelling unrestricted by cinema’s time considerations(with most movies being around 90 min to 2 hrs), the novel was the favored format.
But over time, the TV screen grew larger with much improved picture quality. And Cable and then Streaming meant that TV programs could explore subjects previously discouraged or banned on mainstream channels.
And as most Movie Buzz came to center on spandex superhero action movies for the teen audience, as most of popular music turned into insipid worship of idols, and as the literary scene came to be dominated by teen fiction, e.g. HARRY POTTER, HUNGER GAMES, TWILIGHT, and etc., the more ‘serious’ audience gravitated toward TV as the most intelligent, complicated, and challenging medium.
Among the most lauded shows have been THE SOPRANOS and BREAKING BAD, with many claiming the one or both as the ‘Best TV Show of All Time’, even ranking with the very best that art has had to offer since the beginning of history, LOL.

Now, I’m not the one to judge as I’ve only seen four episodes of THE SOPRANOS and just parts of BREAKING BAD(and EL CAMINO: A BREAKING BAD MOVIE). Based on the evidence, I’m less than overwhelmed. THE SOPRANOS struck me as third-rate GOODFELLAS with goombas acting like goombas. But then, even if the series were on the level of Martin Scorsese’s classic, what would be the point of watching psychotic hoodlums cheat, steal, and murder week after week over several seasons? How much criminality does one have to observe to get the point that gangsters are sleazebags?
As for BREAKING BAD, it seems to be well-written, well-acted, and well-made but also padded with material better left to soap operas, albeit done with more grit and technical mastery. It would have been better as a ten-hour hour miniseries than an open-ended narrative that finally ran out of plot complications.

But regardless of their technical finesse and artistic merit(dubious, as with THE WIRE), what’s the likely social impact of allowing the banality of foulness to enter one’s living room week after week, year after year? After a while, some are apt to regard Tony Soprano as a family member, a kind of uncle, of dubious reputation to be sure but also someone with balls enough to make sure to ‘get what is mine’. He’s become something of a folk hero to many Americans, even a matter of ‘Italian-American pride’.
Yeah yeah, he is a hoodlum alright, but in a world full of sleaze, what’s wrong with breaking a few eggs to get things done? Besides, when he’s not robbing and killing, there’s Tony the husband, the father, the son, the neighbor, the customer at a restaurant. When he isn’t grinding up another goomba into sausage, he’s just one-of-us. After a while, he seems less a gangster than an ordinary guy who does some gangsterism on the side as a hobby or recreation.

Now, if we come to tolerate Soprano’s banality of foulness, won’t we end up tolerating corruption and foulness in general? One wonders, do shows like HOUSE OF CARDS(with Kevin Spacey) and BOARDWALK EMPIRE make us more critically aware of the system or do they put us at ease with corruption as fun and glamorous?
Back in the 1980s, viewers couldn’t get enough of DALLAS and DYNASTY, but they were never taken seriously. Also, they were about rich, corrupt, greedy, and vain people. Naturally, trash is sensationalistic, and greedy people are greedy(and such people live in a world of their own divorced from what most of us know as reality).

More troubling is that THE SOPRANOS features hoodlums as ordinary people in a world that is recognizably ours, the implication being that corruption has seeped into the very fabric of middle class existence. BREAKING BAD says a once honest school teacher had it in him to become an utterly ruthless drug lord.
And HOUSE OF CARDS is about people in government, with hardly any outrage that the legitimate world operates just like the gangster world. And it went on week after week, year after year.
Apparently, we should just accept the fact that even people who are supposed to be public servants are just pigs at the trough. With such an outlook becoming commonplace among hoi polloi, the corrupt ruling elites surely have less to worry about as no one’s shocked or offended by corruption anymore. The bad can indeed sleep well.

 Video Link