What was the greater historical injustice? The Capitalist West ceding Eastern Europe to the USSR or Stalin letting the US determine the future of Western Germany?
History and justice hardly march in lockstep. The law of history has been rather like the law of the jungle. It makes no sense for a leopard to complain about its kill being taken by a pride of lions or pack of hyenas. All that matters in nature is what is bigger, tougher, meaner, or more lethal in some eccentric way(like venomous snakes and poisonous spiders).
Likewise, history has mostly been determined by power. The US took the Southwest territories from Mexico because it could, and that was that. American apologists may gloss over such past events with legalistic arguments — both parties eventually came to terms and signed on the dotted line and so on — , but the fact of the matter was the US wanted those territories and grabbed them because it could, and there wasn’t much Mexico could do about it. Today, the US threatens Venezuela.
Granted, over time, reputation has become an aspect of power. Just like gods conceptually evolved from nihilistic natural or cosmic super-beings that had to be appeased(with even the sacrificial blood of innocents) to moral deities guiding mankind on the righteous path to the promised land, there has been an evolution in political philosophy as well. It wouldn’t be wise for Great powers today to behave like the empires of old, be they Persian, Assyrian, Roman Empire, or Mongol.
Even long before the modern era, Christian and Islamic empires justified their conquests on grounds of divine mandate and the message of universal brotherhood and justice. Modern Western Imperialism justified itself in terms of bringing the word of God or the light of progress(especially following the Enlightenment) to the benighted peoples of the world. America’s global expansion was rationalized in terms of the defense of freedom/democracy and/or the spread of prosperity. And the Soviet Empire presented itself as anti-imperialist, supportive of the aspirations of humanity to be free of capitalist exploitation and American neo-imperialism.
Still, much of what has transpired in recent history owed to a simple metric: What has more power and what does it want? Besides, as political morality is often a matter of spin, it’s possible to generate moral panics and quasi-spiritual crusades, especially if your side has control over most of the global institutions and world media. Then, it’s hardly been surprising that the US persuaded the majority of Americans and most of its allies(or vassals or satellites) that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked, setting off a quasi-holy war for the West, one pitting the free and civilized forces of NATO against the evil, barbarous, and autocratic Russia, whose suspected grand design is to revive the Soviet Union and swallow up its former colonies and pawns, and maybe all of Europe as well just for the hell of it.
In truth, it was the Jewish supremacists in control of the US & EU who engineered the conflict for reasons of tribal domination, and they decided to do so simply because they could. In control of the Lone Superpower and its tools of power, the Tribe simply couldn’t resist employing them to further expand its wealth and influence fueled by a supremacist ideology of insatiable power-lust.
Besides, the so-called End of History has meant that (1) there is no other superpower to stand in the way and (2) the world is less ideological about geopolitics(as purportedly, the ‘liberal democratic’ side won, and there’s nothing more to discuss). Therefore, if the hegemon wants it, it takes it, as its prospective prey has no protector to appeal to, unlike during the Cold War when the Arab States, for example, could lean on the Soviet Union for aid and support.
And if the hegemon controls the global media and discourse, it could readily cook up any number of excuses — ‘war on terror’, ‘spreading democracy’, ‘defending liberty’, ‘human rights’, ‘national sovereignty’, and etc. — to justify any act of aggression. Of course, the practice is cynically selective, as the ‘Collective West’ have been working hand-in-glove with terrorists to destabilize and destroy Syria. And it looks the other way when Zelensky the Jewish gangster-comic shuts down opposition parties and rules past the expiration date of electoral legitimacy. And the autocratic oil-and-gas rich states of Saudi Arabia and UAE are well-protected-and-rewarded as reliable servants of the Jewish-run West.
The globalist empire has had it even easier with the fusion of the Neo-Liberal ‘left’ with the Deep State, akin to the fusion of the Church and Imperial Rome whereby the spirituality of resistance was reshaped into the spirituality of power. With the (d)evolution of the Western Left into an elitist Globo-Homo club centered on Jew-Worship(and the ‘gods’ favored by the Jews, such as Negrolatry and Anno Sodomini), the so-called ‘progressive’ community has largely learned to stop worrying and love the Deep State and its neo-imperialist ventures.
Why not, given that one of the main themes of US-EU power is the spread of sodomy celebration and catechisms such as ‘trans women are real women’(chanted over and over and over)? It’s no wonder that the Imperial Deep State much preferred Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Obama, as ‘The One’, conveyed the illusion of the US as the land of ‘hope and change’, urbanity and sophistication, ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. And Hillary could be sold as the first female president, one with top-notch elite credentials. (While ‘progressive’ types take umbrage at the ‘elitist’ label, they sure love to brandish their elite credentials. In their minds, ‘elitist’ and ‘elite’ are very different things. Apparently, they attend the most selective schools not to gain power and privilege but to do service to humanity, LOL.)
In contrast, George W. Bush came across as a low-IQ cowboy galloping across Iraq mistaken for Injun territory, and Donald Trump exuded the essence of Ugly Americanism. Despite the huge spat between Trump’s MAGA and the Bush dynasty in 2016, both were embarrassments to the globalist elites.
As it turned out, many ‘progressives’ cared more about branding than the product. When Bush II policies were repackaged under Obama, the very ‘progressives’ who’d been howling about Evil Bushism were either supportive or muted in their criticism. Also, the very ‘progressives’ who’d either been supportive of or insufficiently critical of the ‘racist’ law-and-order policies under Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg(that had done much to reduce crime in NY and other cities to the benefit of white/Jewish/Asian urbanites, hipsters, and professionals) were suddenly up in arms in 2020 over the death of George Floyd, laying the whole blame on MAGA America as ground zero of ‘systemic racism’ enabling the mass murder of innocent blacks by KKKops.
The whole ‘progressive’ BS finally abated somewhat when a genuine rift developed within the Democratic camp following the Gaza Horror backed by the Biden administration. What emerged was a clearer picture of the divergence between anti-imperialist leftists and deep state ‘progressives’ nihilistic in their power-lust. One positive outcome of Trump’s re-election has been more soul-searching among leftists who’d blindly supported the Zionist-supremacist Democratic Party’s foreign policy under Obama and Biden. Is there really a difference between the Democrats and Republicans on the question of “Is it good for Jews?”
Even though history, including modern history, has been mostly shaped by the ruthless and unforgiving logic of power — what are the Tibetans going to do about their independence and what can Palestinians do about the eventual loss of Gaza and West Bank? — , historical discussion is usually loaded with heavy servings of moral criticism, even angst. Despite understanding that Power ultimately decides matters and will do so indefinitely(and besides, the past is done and can never be undone), there’s the persistent temptation to point to some moment in history as a great injustice, something that should have or could have been avoided.
One of the most oft-mentioned matters in the Capitalist West, especially during the Cold War but remaining a sore point even now, is how the leaders of the Free World betrayed Eastern Europe(and parts of Central Europe) at the Yalta Conference. Supposedly, the two-faced Winston Churchill and the naively trusting Franklin D. Roosevelt handed Eastern Europe on a silver platter to the totalitarian tyrant Josef Stalin. The Liberal Democratic West had billed the war as one between Good and Evil but in effect transferred Eastern and parts of Central Europe from one dictator(Adolf Hitler) to another(Stalin).
The radical right types even argue that Stalin was worse than Hitler, while plenty of conservatives(and even some liberals) more-or-less agreed that the two monsters were about equal in their evil.
Some on the radical right, especially those committed to ‘Aryanism’, believe that the Anglo World, not least under Jewish influence, betrayed their racial brethren(and Western Civilization in general) by siding with the ‘Asiatic horde’ of Russians then under the influence of Bolshevism(with origins in Jewish radicalism). Even as they concede that Hitler was deeply flawed and the Nazis committed terrible crimes, they nevertheless regard National Socialist Germany as the lesser of two evils, and therefore, the proper thing would have been for the Anglosphere to side with their racial German brethren against the racially compromised/corrupted Slavic hordes.
To be sure, the alliances were rather odd on both sides. Anglos, the most racially conscious among the imperialists, allied with the ‘Mongoloid’ Russian hordes, whereas the ‘Aryanist’ Germans were allied with the truly Asiatic Japanese, as well as with the swarthy Italians. As such, both Anglos and Teutons could be construed as ‘race traitors’, forming alliances with the Other against their closer racial cousins.
SIDEBAR: When grilled by Harry Cole on Darryl Cooper’s thesis that Winston Churchill was the biggest villain of World War II, Tucker Carlson goes into a long rant about the evil of Stalin, the murderer of millions of Christians. It comes across as a foolish response. First, Cooper’s argument doesn’t imply that Churchill was more evil in character or in his agenda than Hitler or Stalin. It merely means that Churchill’s actions unwittingly(or maybe wittingly) expanded what would have been a local conflict or one limited to Germany-versus-Russia into a larger one involving Great Britain and France. Had Churchill not interceded to sabotage a German-Polish resolution to territorial disputes, events might not have erupted into a war, or at least certainly not a world war. So, even though Churchill wasn’t more evil than Hitler and Stalin(though some may disagree), he knocked over the gasoline tank and turned what might have remained a local fire into a widespread conflagration. After all, the last thing Hitler wanted was another war with the U.K., and the difficulty of the Polish Question led to the dissolution of Poland-as-bulwark between Germany and the Soviet Union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, setting conditions for the German-Soviet War. But instead of highlighting these points, Carlson ripped into Stalin, implying he was just as evil as Hitler. True, Stalin was a monster, but Carlson’s argument poses problems of its own. First, while it’s true that the Bolshevik Revolution led to the deaths of millions of Christians, there was no concerted effort to kill Christians per se. Non-Christians, Muslims, atheists, liberals, social-democrats, and even fellow communists all suffered in the radical experiment. While Christianity as a religion and culture was attacked, people were not killed simply for being Christian. Also, all revolutions go through such iconoclasms. When Christianity became the official religion of Rome, there was widespread destruction of pagan temples. The Christian fire torched just about every last vestige of pagan culture in Northern Europe. And upon the Protestant Revolution, the two camps of Christians embarked on wholesale massacres against one another. The Thirty Year War is said to have destroyed about one-third of the German population. And for those who say communism was a Jewish Plot to kill Christians, wasn’t Christianity also hatched by radical or heretical Jews, and didn’t its revolution lead to mass destruction of the indigenous pagan cultures of Europe? Finally, while one could make a valid argument, moral and political, against FDR’s aid to Stalin, what was at stake in the German-Russian War was far bigger than a single tyrant’s moral character. The US didn’t simply aid one evil tyrant against another; rather, it lent a valuable lifeline to a civilization on the brink of destruction. Even Stalin knew the war was bigger than fascism vs communism, a war of ideas. As such, he summoned all groups across Russia, even non- and anti-communist ones, to unite to fight the Germany enemy whose agenda was the total destruction of Russia itself. During the war, Stalin even eased his grip on what remained of Russian Christianity. Thus, the Russian struggle, or the Great Patriotic War, was far more than about Stalinism, and one could make a strong argument that the US did the right thing by helping defend a civilization from extinction. Evil Hitler wasn’t merely trying to defeat Evil Stalin but erase an entire civilization off the map. That grim fact morally justified Soviet war efforts against Germany and the Western aid to the Russians.
The ‘Aryanist’ argument and the ‘Western Civilization’ argument, both despairing of the lost opportunity of an alliance with Germany against Russia, aren’t necessarily complementary, though the radical right might point to a direct connection between ‘Aryan’ genetics and Western achievements, i.e. what is known as Western Civilization is simply the cultural expression of white traits, among which the ‘Aryan’ kind is the most precious and productive.
However, the general view of Western Civilization isn’t so deterministic and instead regards the spiritual, cultural, philosophical, and scientific developments of the West to have resulted from an interaction of various ideas and expressions, many of them non-Western in origin, such as Christianity that emerged in the Near East among heretical Jews. So, while there is a broadly unique category known as Western Civilization distinct from the rest of the world, it didn’t simply spring forth from white or ‘Aryan’ genes but was rather shaped by them involving ideas, instruments, and expressions from non-Western cultures.
Thus, race and civilization, though related, aren’t synonymous. Furthermore, given that civilization connotes higher values, nobility of mind, and adherence to moral principles, it’s hard sell to rationalize Germany’s invasion of Russia as a civilizational crusade. While Napoleon’s war on Russia, despite its terrible toll, could be spun as a civilizing mission carrying the torch of revolution and liberation to the backward East, there were no such high-minded principles animating Hitler’s plan, which was purely racial in its objective, i.e. to enslave and exterminate one race to make room for another deemed superior. Even though some have disingenuously justified the invasion as a war on Bolshevik tyranny, the alternative offered by the Germans was infinitely worse.
Therefore, the ‘Western Civilization’ argument simply falls flat in relation to Operation Barbarossa as no sane and sound civilization would conceive of such a plan. The racial argument may be to those who subscribe to ‘Aryanism’, a cold-blooded worldview that history is essentially nothing but a struggle of the races in which the best race must win by any means necessary, even if it entails the wholesale destruction of other peoples deemed less deserving.
Granted, there is a moral contradiction within the concept of civilization. On the one hand, being civilized means to be more humane, conscientious, and understanding & empathetic, as opposed to seeing the world in terms of tooth-and-claw(animalism) or us-versus-them(tribalism).
Yet, civilization is nothing without its pride of achievement, higher levels of attainment in so many fields and endeavors. Civilization moves ahead by discarding and even destroying much that is deemed backward, primitive, atavistic, and useless. Technological advancements often lead to creative-destruction. Moral progress demands that certain conventions, such as slavery, not only be ended but condemned. In its striving for perfection, civilization can be ruthless and intolerant, as was the case not only against the American Indians(deemed savage and standing in the way of Manifest Destiny) but the American South with its social-racial caste system deemed antiquated by standards of high-minded principles of progress(though, of course, the South believed itself to be on the side of civilization by keeping the savage Negro in his place than by filling his childlike mind with ideas of freedom and equality, which could only be misused given his jungle-jive nature; besides, if the North believed itself to be advancing the cause of civilization by wiping out savage Indians and/or segregating them in ‘reservations’, what was wrong with the South doing something similar, though far less brutal, in regards to the Negroes?)
The fading of religion and the advent of modern science led to great advances but also a more brutalist view of reality, not least in the emergence of what came to be known as Social Darwinism. Science and technology, while uplifting mankind in so many fields, also inured it to a more cold and brutal view of humanity that would be the basis of the racial aspects of National Socialism.
From the vantage point of the West(and humanity in general), a compelling case could be leveled against FDR and Winston Churchill for their great betrayal. They effectively condemned Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe to fall behind the ‘Iron Curtain’, Churchill’s own coinage. What followed were brutal purges, communist repression, radical indoctrination, and vassalage under the Soviets whose system inspired George Orwell’s NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR.
Indeed, there had been nothing quite like Soviet totalitarianism, the closest that mankind ever came to constructing a system of absolute control from cradle to grave. Even though National Socialist Germany was also called ‘totalitarian’, it came nowhere near the Soviet model. National Socialists didn’t seek total control over all facets of life but sought to unite the various sectors of German society and industry under shared themes and goals. If an individual didn’t cause trouble for the system, he had personal freedom nearly on par with people in the West, whereas the Soviet system was built on fear, the sense of always being watched and heard, the dread of being charged and punished over the most innocuous words and actions.
Even though there were no mass killings in the Soviet satellite states, at least ones comparable to the horrors of the Great Famine and the Great Purge, life under communism was like an indefinite prison sentence. For the duration of the Cold War, capitalist and ‘liberal democratic’ Western Europe, notwithstanding its many real problems, was the clear winner vis-a-vis the Communist East. One merely needed to consider how people voted with their feet. East Germany built the Berlin Wall because it kept bleeding its population to West Germany. Even Western communists, quite numerous in Italy and France, didn’t want to move to communist countries, just like most Christians don’t want to live in a theocracy; instead, they preferred to strive for revolution in the liberal democratic setting than commit to hardline implementation of their dogma. Even if communist nations had gained material parity with the West, many there would have opted for the West simply for the sake of greater freedom. Indeed, one of the biggest selling points of Americanism was its promise of freedom. You might be poor, you might have to struggle, but you’re left alone to do your thing, not only to pursue your happiness but define it on your own terms(without a commissar on every corner).
It isn’t a difficult case to make: The US deserves all the credit in the world for having defended Western Europe from Soviet totalitarianism. And, Europeans can proudly recall how they rapidly rebuilt their homelands from the rubble of war into democratic, prosperous, and mostly peaceful nations. Furthermore, contrary to the Marxist-Leninist polemic that capitalism relied on imperialist exploitation, Western Europe managed not only to survive but to thrive in the post-imperialist global order.
Given the outcome of the Cold War, with the Capitalist West leaving the Communist East in the dust in just about every field — also true of capitalist East Asian countries vis-a-vis East Asian communist ones — , one could regard the decades under communism as the tragic lost decades for Eastern Europe. While the West was surging economically and bursting with cultural energy borne of freedom and individualism, the East remained mired in ideological conformity, bureaucratic red tape, and economic stasis.
What might Eastern Europe have achieved had it escaped the clutch of Stalinism following World War II? It was deemed doubly unjust because communism was not only repressive but a foreign imposition. If at least homegrown, it might have been appreciated as an expression of genuine nationalism, as were the cases with Vietnam and Cuba. But against the wishes of the majority, the Soviet Union installed its ideological pawns to run things. It didn’t help that Eastern European folks, even the Slavic ones, tended to associate Russia with historical backwardness while fawningly looking toward the West. In their eyes, even revolutionary Bolshevik Russia was more-or-less a continuation of the despotic ways of the Russians who apparently seemed allergic to liberty and individuality. All such historical and cultural assessments carry some validity on moral, political, and economic grounds.
Yet, from another perspective, the greatest injustice of the Yalta Conference was that the US and UK were handed control of the bulk of Germany. (To be sure, the main reason why East Germany ended up considerably smaller than West Germany owed to roughly half of it being ceded to Poland, mainly as compensation for the loss of Polish territories to the Soviets in the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.) By moral rights, if such exists in history, the Soviet Union should have occupied all of Germany, as the latter invaded with the express purpose of total domination over Russia, which also bore by far the greatest brunt of the war. Also, the scale and the gravity of the German-Soviet maelstrom was unlike any other sphere of conflict in the war, with the possible exception of Japan’s quagmire in China; still, even as Japan’s war-making across China was ghastly, its preferred objective was to force a peace in its favor, not to enslave and/or exterminate the native population. In contrast, the German invasion was an all-out Race War, the objective of which was the total subjugation and/or annihilation of the Russian people and culture. It was an existential struggle in the most extreme sense.
Furthermore, Soviet losses in the war may well have outnumbered all other losses combined in the European sphere. The estimate during the Cold War was around 20 million but was later revised up to 27 million. Given the diabolical intent of the Germans and the sheer scale of death and destruction visited upon Russia, the most just outcome would have been for the USSR to invade and occupy all of Germany. Instead, the US got to control the greater half of Germany, as well as half of Berlin. Americans entered the war later in 1944, and its losses came nowhere near Soviet losses. The Soviets did most to defeat Germany, the key industrial hub of Europe, but the US got to grab more than half the prize. Imagine that a bear did most to bring down a bison and got wounded badly along the way, but a late-comer pack of wolves got to devour more than half the meat.
The American share of input in the war, though considerable(especially through the lend-lease program), paled in comparison to Soviet contribution and sacrifice. Yet, the US got to dictate the outcome for more than half of Germany.
Within the US military were ultra-right-wing types who resented having fought the ‘wrong’ enemy and anticipated the possibility of a joint US-German war against the Russkies. George Patton wasn’t alone though certainly more outspoken than most, and once the Cold War got rolling, likeminded hawks would push the US toward a politics of confrontation with the Soviet Union to the consternation of Dwight Eisenhower and especially John F. Kennedy.
What can one say about the luck of the Americans, or has it always been the brutal logic of power? Russia bore the brunt of German war-making while China bore the brunt of Japanese war-making, but neither Russia nor China got the full satisfaction of historical justice from the outcome. Much of Germany ended up in American hands and would play a key role against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And all of Japan ended up under American Control, and many of its war criminals, who’d committed or commanded the worst atrocities against the Chinese, were rehabilitated and turned into reliable stooges of the US empire. To this very day, Japan plays the whore-geisha to Uncle Sam, now mainly against China, the country it caused the greatest harm to in World War II(even inadvertently paving the way for the communist takeover). Despite the war crimes tribunals and the executions, mostly for crimes against Western soldiers, by and large the ‘rehabilitated’ Japan, along with Germany, was protected on condition of total obeisance to the new boss in town, the US empire.
Less fortunately for Germany, Jews would come to prominence in the US and increasingly apply pressure for ever increasing demands for restitution.
Even though the eastern half of Germany suffered far more in the immediate aftermath of the war, West Germany would gradually come to feel more pain as the Jewish-dominant US was secretly committed to fulfilling the Morgenthau Plan of eternal damnation for the Germans.
Lucky for the Japanese, their victims weren’t the Jews but mostly other Asians who had minimal influence in the US; besides, Asians were more willing to let bygones be bygones, whereas Jewish grudge has no expiration date. As an added bonus for the Japanese, as Jewish Power eyes the Russia-China partnership ever more warily as a rival to the Empire of Judea, the Global Media have been hard at work to mute or minimize the crimes of the Germans and the Japanese, at least in regards to Russians and Chinese. Of course, when it comes to German crimes against Jews, that must never be forgotten. But when Russians commemorate their tragedy in World War II, it’s often dismissed as retrograde Russian nationalism bordering on militarism in the Western media. And when Beijing expresses outrage over Japan once again working with the hegemonic US to contain China, the West ridicules the Chinese as over-sensitive. (At least Japan in the first half of the 20th century was a sovereign state. Evil or not, it acted on its own terms. Today, Japan is just a whore-dog barking beside its Uncle Sam master, a total embarrassment.)
Of course, Japan, along with post-war Germany, has been lauded as a model of successful democratization, and there’s much to admire in the system imposed by the US. But, to the extent that so-called ‘democracies’ are actually republics where most politicians represent the interests of their donors, the result has been a kind of Imperial Democracy, plainly evident in the EU of today. Because the so-called ‘democracies’ are fun by handpicked puppets of the oligarchs, they are easy to game, not only by domestic forces but by outside powers with hegemonic authority over the supposed ‘rules-based order’. The current ‘democratic’ West is about the Jewish-run US making all the rules while the rest signs off on them.
No doubt the expansion of ‘Western-style democracy’ has benefited much of the world, not least in social and cultural spheres defined by rights, liberty, and personal creativity(though the emphasis on popularity and profitability has tended to degrade culture in favor of the ‘latest craze’). Unquestionably, post-war Germany and Japan offered many more freedoms than National Socialist Germany and militarist Japan did.
However, within the architecture of Imperial Democracy, the ‘open’ nature of operations has made it exceedingly effective for the Imperial Center to penetrate, infiltrate, and manipulate its satellites. No wonder George Soros loves the concept of ‘open’-ness as it provides portals for his ceaseless operations. American Power does as it pleases in places like Italy, Germany, United Arab Emirates, Japan, Taiwan, Poland, and etc., just like Global Zionists indulge their whims throughout the US deep state apparatus, government departments, and key institutions. American ‘democracy’ is thus rigged and jiggered by Jewish globalist power, just like the lesser ‘democracies’ reliably put out to the penetrative intrusions of the US imperial phallus.
Even a system outside the Zionist-US globalist network, Iran for example, isn’t immune to the infiltrative power of the empire. While not a ‘liberal democracy’, it isn’t an entirely closed system either, like North Korea. Even with limited access, the Jewish-run West was able to create sleeper cells within the country and carry out the sneak attack commandeered by Tel Aviv. If a semi-open system like Iran is so vulnerable, imagine the hold that the Imperial Democracy(centered in N.Y. and D.C.) has on its ‘democratic’ satrapies around the world.
During the Cold War, many dictatorial countries in the anti-communist camp moved toward democracy by condemning American Imperialism as the main culprit and enabler of tyrants, usually right-wing ‘puppets’ who protected US business interests and crushed socialism/populism. Ironically, the very system that the masses marched for, electoral democracy, turned out to be even more conducive to US imperialism. What did ‘Arab Spring’ really do for the Arabs? It made a total wreck of Libya and Syria. It did culminate in an election in Egypt, but when the ‘wrong’ side won, the US once again backed a bloody military coup(with hardly any protest from the Western ‘progressive’ community subordinate to Zion).
Not that we should opt for the false dichotomy of puppet democracy(like South Korea) vs sovereign tyranny(like North Korea), but one thing for sure, a democracy has real value only with national sovereignty and the means to fend off foreign, often pernicious and subversive, influence.
After all, Zionist-Israel infiltration within US politics is never to serve the interests of Americans but of World Jewry and Israel. Mike Huckabee getting on his knees to fellate Jonathan Pollard sums up the state of American ‘democracy’. Just like American Imperialists use ‘democratization’ to penetrate and manipulate other countries, Jews noted the same vulnerability and opportunity in American democracy; its openness created opportunities for smart and cunning Jews to infiltrate and rig everything in their favor, and maybe even pull off something like 9/11. If Jews could penetrate a semi-open country like Iran to pull off the sneak-attack, how much easier with an open country like the US in which Jews hold the levers of the institutions and the whore-goy-politicians?
Anyway, regardless of Stalin’s tyranny and the dark side of Soviet totalitarianism, one could make a valid moral case for Russia to have conquered and ‘liberated’ all of Germany. That the US(and UK and etc.) got to save more than half of Germany from the Soviet juggernaut could be deemed a great injustice. Furthermore, Stalin could be accused of betrayal for allowing a huge swath of Germany to remain beyond the reach of Russian vengeance.
To make things even worse, the western part of Germany would join the American side that instantly became the new enemy of the USSR. Thus, all of that German industrial might in what came to be known as West Germany, which could have served the communist side, ended up serving the capitalist side, indeed as the main economic engine of post-war Western Europe. Even more problematic was the US could deploy nuclear weapons in Germany, which came to fruition under the Reagan-Kohl leadership, cutting down the strike time on Moscow into several minutes. Imagine that: Germany, the very nation that had attempted to wipe Russia off the map in World War II, as the host of nukes that could wipe out tens of millions of Russians in an instant.
To appreciate the gravity of Stalin’s decision at Yalta, consider the following scenario. Suppose Japan attacked Pearl Harbor not merely to cripple the US Navy but as the first stage in the total takeover of America whereupon all white Americans would either be enslaved or gradually exterminated to make way for Japanese colonizers. Suppose Japan wreaked total havoc on the mainland US, killing up to 20 million people, leveling entire cities, destroying entire industries, causing famines and etc.
Americans fumed over the actual Pearl Harbor, but if Japan had invaded the US mainland and committed unspeakable horrors, Americans would have insisted that the only justice is for the US to conquer all of Japan and impose its total will on the island nation. But suppose by the war’s end, the US got to take only ⅓ of Japan, whereas Russia, which didn’t suffer at the hands of Japan, took over ⅔ of the country. So, Russia, which was spared the Japanese onslaught, gets to dictate the future of much of Japan and, furthermore, uses Japan as a vassal against the US in the post-war world. Americans would surely be infuriated by the outcome.
But, something similar happened with Germany. The scale of disaster wrought on Russia by Germans was beyond imagination, yet much of Germany got its justice not at the hands of the Soviets but from Americans who, in time, forgave a lot of Nazi War Criminals and revived the German economy as an arsenal for the West directed against Russia. (Later, there were efforts to re-open the books and bring the Nazi war criminals to justice, but it was almost always in relation to Jewish grievances, hardly ever in relation to the Russians and goy victims of Nazism. Besides, it had little to do with genuine German conscience but the fear of Jewish-ascendancy in the US.)
One could well argue that Stalin hadn’t much of a choice. Just like the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was fait accompli, with precious little that the West could do to rescue Poland and others from the clutch of the Soviets, there wasn’t much Stalin could do to prevent the Americans and Brits from reaching the western part of Germany first. Besides, they were supposed to be allies working together. Also, despite the Soviet momentum and inevitable German doom, it would have been costly for the Soviets to fight over every inch of Germany, to the very end the toughest nut to crack for the Allies.
As a result, the Soviets never got the full satisfaction of victory because so much of Germany fell outside the grasp of Soviet justice. Not that the Germans had an easy time under American and British occupation, but given that their greatest crimes happened in Russia, they ended up punished for lesser crimes or those perpetrated against non-Russians.
Of course, Soviet justice was something of an oxymoron. Given the very nature of Stalinism, often brutal and psychopathic, plus the vengeful bloodlust given the ravages of war, understandable but unhinged, were the Soviets capable of fair justice with the Germans? If the US saw fit to kill over a million Japanese over Pearl Harbor, weren’t the Russians tempted to bludgeon every other German to death as revenge? There was clearly that possibility.
Also, there was the reputation of Russians as a bunch of barbarian thugs. It’s telling that Japan, though firebombed and nuked by the US, preferred to surrender to Uncle Sam than to Uncle Joe, or at least according to revisionist historians who say that the main reason for Japan’s abrupt surrender was the fear of being swamped by the Russians than the fear of more atomic bombs. One wonders, though, whether the fear was more about big bad Russians or big bad Commies. The fear of Russian barbarism was borne out by reports of Soviet mass rapes(and not only in Germany), though the number of victims greatly vary. And communism has demonstrated its bloodlust with its purges and gulags.
Yet, communism could also serve as a protective shield for the Germans. Once the war rage subsided, the universalist-egalitarian humanism of communism could forgive and welcome Germans as fellow comrades. Also, Soviet communism’s opposition to ethnocentrism meant that Germans would be no more but also no less respected than any other group. Within the Soviet sphere, all ethno-national groups would be worthy of equal respect. Germans in East Germany would be equal to Poles in Poland, Czechoslovaks in Czechoslovakia, Estonians in Estonia, and the various national groups in Russia. Thus, the interests of a single ethnic group couldn’t take precedence over those of all others. So, even as Nazi Germans were reviled as racial supremacist and imperialist, post-war East Germans were no better but no worse than any other nationality.
Of great benefit to East Germans was the corollary that the Jews could not plead for special privileges. True, Jews suffered greatly in World War II, but the Holocaust couldn’t be used to prop up Jewish victimhood at the expense of all the rest. Communism simply forbade it, especially with the break with Zionism that put Jewishness before socialism. Because official communist policy was mandated from the top, there was precious little that the Jews could do to make themselves the tragic center of WWII. Even though the Soviets made a big thing of the Holocaust, it was to discredit Nazi Germany than to elevate Jews as a race of neo-christs.
In contrast to the communist consistency on the JQ, the capitalist West underwent an ever shifting power dynamic and thematic concerns. In the absence of something like the all-powerful communist party, different groups and factions constantly vied for influence and control. Also, as money was king, the groups that earned the most could buy up key industries and influence the top institutions, thereby gaining the leverage to recode the main themes of the system. Even though there was nothing intrinsic in capitalism or Americanism that would abide with Jews-uber-alles, both systems nevertheless provided the freedoms that facilitated the ascendancy of the most driven individuals and most capable groups, and they happened to be Jews.
With all their power, Jews could have opted for universalism and humanism in the spirit of Americanism, but they used their immense wealth and influence to elevate the new themes of Judeocentrism, Zionism, Holocaustianity(whereby history was turned into religion), and Jew-Worship.
Thus, if communism shielded East Germans from a special kind of ethnic vengeance, capitalism enabled Jews to take over the West and turn its entire mission into one of Jewish Supremacism, Jewish vengeance, and Jewish nihilism. In time, Jews were deemed as not one of the great victim groups of World War II but just about the ONLY victim group that mattered. German Evil went from a crime against humanity to crime against the Holy Jews. Whereas German identity and culture in the communist world were perfectly fine once detoxified of Nazism, the entirety of German history and civilization was rendered morally and spiritually tainted in the eyes of Western Holocaustianity, i.e. the sickness of ‘antisemitism’ had always been in the German DNA and finally went rabid in World War II, furthermore, no amount of contrition on the part of the Germans can eradicate this blood disease.
Thus, Western Ideology, increasingly under Jewish control, burdened all of ‘Germanity’ with eternal guilt. Germans were therefore deemed unfit for agency, even for the sake of humble national survival. If Jews demand that Germany take in millions of Arab/Muslim migrants, Germany must do so. If those Muslims in Germany protest the genocide in Gaza, Germans must beat them down in accordance to Jewish instructions, as well as lend full support for any Israeli action in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and etc. In the long run, it was Western Capitalism, which elevated Jewish supremacist globalist gangsterism to the throne, that proved to be fatal for the German nation.
Apart from the universalist-egalitarian-humanist ideology of communism, another factor was the lack of Russian contempt for the Germans. Historically, Russians at times feared the Germans, but they never considered the Germans as inferior humans, lesser humans, or sub-humans. Russian atrocities across Germany had to do with rage, revenge, and the madness of war, not with prejudice against Germans as an inferior race. So, once the rage ebbed, Russians sought good working relations with the Germans. Also, despite the lost opportunity of full satisfaction in victory by ‘liberating’ all of Germany, there was nevertheless a semi-satisfaction in having done most to defeat the Germans and taking Berlin, the Nazi capital. Thus, Russians could bask in the pride of victory, one that came at great cost.
In contrast, Jews were not only animated by a racial-tribal supremacism of their own but were frustrated and incensed by their insufficient role in the victory. Jews relied on others to defeat the Germans and couldn’t save themselves. Jews would have felt a degree of satisfaction if the atomic bomb(made with ‘Jewish science’) had defeated Germany. Then, Jewish Genius could hog credit as the main factor that brought the German machine to its knees. But, the Bomb was too late in coming and was used on Japan, no enemy to the Jews. And in the years following the war, Jewish war rage was redirected toward the Palestinians who suffered the brunt of Jewish blood-lust for revenge… except they had nothing to do with WWII & Holocaust.
Jews never forgot nor forgave the Holocaust, the defining theme of Jewishness in the post-war world, and have committed themselves to destroying Germany forever. Not that Jewish animus is motivated by vengeance alone, often ugly but nevertheless a crude form of justice. Actions speak louder than words, and the true nature of Jewish Worldview has come to light with the Jewish takeover of the West. Initially, Jewish Ascendancy, especially the US, presented two objectives, both deemed reasonable or at least understandable. One was Zionism as the realization and defense of the Jewish Homeland, albeit at the expense of the Palestinians. The other was the search and demand for greater justice regarding World War II and the Holocaust, understandable given the gravity of the crimes.
But over time, Zionism went from nationalism to imperialism, a vision of Greater Israel, i.e. Jews wanted to dominate the Middle East and North Africa like the National Socialist Germans once sought to dominate Europe.
Furthermore, Jewish animus sprouted into a prolonged campaign against Russia based on arrogance, contempt, and hatred similar to those of Nazi Germans during World War II. Ironically, Judeo-Zionists began to exhibit the characteristics of the Nazis even as they preached endlessly about the evils of the Holocaust. Thus, Jews must ally with Ukro-Nazis against Russia because Putin is a New Hitler. And Jews must carry out a holocaust in Gaza because Jews suffered the Holocaust. Post-war Jewish Power, so often defined by demands of historical justice, began to expose its true or at least truer nature: Racial supremacism not unlike that of Nazi Germans. If Jews cannot let go of their tragic history, they should be making common cause with the Russians, the people who did most to smash Nazism, against the Nazi-like elements in Ukraine. But, future supremacism matters more than past injustices to the Jews who loathe Russia as the last great bulwark against the Jewish supremacist agenda of total finance capitalism, goy political cuckery, and GloboHomo.
One outcome was the current bloodbath in Ukraine that killed well over a million Slavs. There’s also the looming crisis between Israel and Iran, instigated by the former of course with the backing of the US & EU, as well as war clouds over Venezuela on account of the Maduro government’s working relations with Iran and sympathy for the Palestinians. Maduro is to Zion what Tucker Carlson is to Mark Levin: Someone who has to be stamped out as an obstacle to Zionist supremacism.
The Soviet policy toward post-war East Germany was considerably more consistent than the American policy toward West Germany(and later unified Germany). The Soviet approach was premised on the communist ideology of universal-egalitarianism-humanism, whereas ethno-politics usually undergirded the American approach. Anglos had a long love/hate thing with Germans, recognizing them as racial cousins but disdaining them as ‘Teutonic’, unleavened by the Latin influences that permeated Britain via France. Anglos wanted Germans at their side but as followers than competitors. In World War I and World War II, Anglos felt that the Germans had to be put in their place: Germany’s place in the Sun mustn’t threaten the empire on which the sun never sets. Such rivalry existed not only between Britain and Germany but between Anglo-Americans and German-Americans(who were eventually pressured into following the Anglo lead).
Still, deep down inside, Anglos preferred the Germans to the Russians who were deemed semi-European at best. Germans could be Bad Europeans, but they were Europeans nevertheless. As for the Russians, the Anglos weren’t so sure. Therefore, a substantial component of the Anglo-American Establishment, especially on the Right, felt a certain affinity for the Germans, at least when it came to Germans vs Russians.
Given the epic scale of World War II as not only the biggest war ever but the ‘Good War’, few among the so-called WASPs were willing to say outright that they wished the Germans had won(or that the Anglosphere should have backed the Germans, perhaps evil under Nazism but still part of the civilized world, against the barbarian Russkie hordes). Those in the America First movement of Charles Lindbergh were as much motivated by racial biases as political ones. True, they wanted the US to stay out of foreign wars and remain neutral(or at peace), but they also regarded Germans and National Socialism to be preferable, racially and ideologically, to the Russians and Communism. Perhaps, they’d wished that Germany hadn’t invaded Russia in a winner-takes-all struggle; besides, they regarded National Socialism not so much as a good but as the lesser evil vis-a-vis Russian Bolshevism. Still, even as they despaired of Hitler’s great gamble, they preferred that the Germans win, a position that became untenable only when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, followed by Germany’s declaration of war on the US, in which case even the Germanophiles felt obliged to support the war effort.
Even though Liberal WASPs, for ideological reasons, found Soviet Communism to be the lesser evil vis-a-vis National Socialism, they too felt closer at the ethnic and cultural level with the Germans than with the Russians. Though falling way short of the kind of pro-German views of George S. Patton and likeminded men in the US military, then mostly a bastion of right-wing ideology, the Liberal WASPs also favored a more forgiving treatment of the Germans in the post-war era(relative to the Jews). This was an era when many WASP clubs were open to German-Americans but not to Jewish-Americans. Anglo-Americans of the Right felt either that the US had joined with the wrong side(the commies) or that Soviet Communism was just as evil as German Nazism. Liberal Anglo-Americans regarded Nazism as a great evil, a civilizational perversity, but made a distinction between Nazis and Germans; Nazis were Germans who’d lost their minds during Hitler’s reign, but now that the war was over, Germans could join the civilized world again and all could be forgiven.
Jewish-Americans simmered with rage but had to grin and bear the indignity as the WASP establishment had the ultimate say, but they looked forward to when they could shift the balance of ethno-politics once they were on top. They would elevate Holocaustianity to a quasi-religion of the West, treat all Germans as criminals in eternal moral debt to the Jews, and blackmail the white gentile establishment for its insufficient handling of German guilt(which sort of explains the moral panic of the Anglo elites in the UK and US who’ve been falling all over themselves to profess their undying fealty to the Jews).
In a nutshell, there was no consistency on the German Question in the West. If communist ideology served as the blueprint for dealing with German war guilt in the East, the solution in the West shifted from benign pressure(and considerable forgiveness) under WASP rule to eternal damnation & vilification under Jewish rule, though in the irony of ironies, Germans must fulfill their moral obligation by supporting the Judeo-Nazi alliance in Ukraine and reviving anti-Russian animus reminiscent of the Nazi period.
Communism maintained that the Germans had lost their way under National Socialism, a form of fascism as the last gasp of capitalism in turmoil; as such, the Germans waged wars and committed horrendous crimes against humanity. And even though the Soviet Union lost the most lives and expended the greatest effort to defeat this evil, no single ethnic group could hog victimhood as their special birthright, not even the Russians. Also, given it was the failure of ideology that led Germany to infamy, the removal of that ideology and the reconstruction of Germany on the basis of brotherly socialism would reintroduce Germans to the human community.
Therefore, East Germans were not burdened with special eternal guilt regarding a particular group, like the Jews. They were not instilled with the notion that ‘antisemitism’ is a German Original Sin, virtually ineradicable. West Germany, in contrast, increasingly came under such opprobrium, and collective self-loathing became its main ideology and spirituality, even a kind of national sport or hobby. West Germans were raised to feel as if embedded with the evil gene that would transform Dr. Jekyll Germans into Mr. Hyde Germans at the drop of the hat. Thus, Germans had to be their own Big Brother, always watching over themselves in cautionary paranoia that, inside every German, there’s a Nazi trying to get out.
Granted, the admonition was rather contradictory. On the one hand, Germans were led to believe National Socialism was the result of the abandonment of reason, the appeal to chaos, the rabid plunge into darkness. Therefore, Germans must always favor rationalism over irrationality. On the other hand, Germans were also told that National Socialism was the result of German preference for order, harmony, unity, and balance. Such striving for perfection led to the culture of intolerance. Therefore, Germans should embrace the crazy, subversive, and degenerate(like the film director F. W. Fassbinder) to save themselves from the resurgence of something like Nazism. Always be rational and degenerate. Hardly a sound advice, which explains the neurotic basket-case that is current Germany.
It’s no wonder that when the German reunification happened, one of the main misunderstandings was over the Jewish Question. While former East Germans acknowledged the evil nature of Nazi Germany, they rejected Jew-Worship as the proper atonement for the German nation, as such would have idolized a particular race or ethnic group in contravention of the universal and egalitarian ethos of communism or just plain humanism.
Under socialism, East Germans believed in making every effort to be in good graces with all of humanity. In contrast, the Liberal West, lacking an overriding ideology, shifted in its outlook at the whim of whichever group attained the most power and influence. With Jews increasingly edging out the Anglos in the US, the West(but West Germany in particular) was compelled to morally, spiritually, culturally, and politically favor certain groups over others. Thus, if East Germans were inculcated with universal good will as the ultimate moral guide, West Germans were drummed with the idea that they must favor the Jews uber alles for eternity.
For the duration of the Cold War, Western Europe was the envy of those behind the Iron Curtain who had far less freedom, wealth, and opportunity. One could even argue that true leftism was more alive in the West than in the East where leftist dogma was imposed by the state beholden to Moscow.
In contrast, leftist politics in the West was more lively and contentious, more intellectual and critical(and protected by free speech). And whereas liberal democracies tolerated all manner of leftism, everything from hardline communism to anarcho-nihilism, only one school of leftism was permitted in the Soviet sphere, whereas the rest was hounded and suppressed as ideological heresy.
Indeed, given the strictures on original thought, the communist system found itself harking back to tradition for cultural respectability and legitimacy, and as such became more culturally conservative than the West in many areas. The Soviet-ruled East also disdained much of modernism as bourgeois decadence, or expressions of elitist conceits than as art & culture in tune with the working masses.
Still, it must be said the East vs West divide has been over-simplified. For starters, there was considerable artistic freedom in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin(who himself was a patron of culture to some real degree, unlike the boorish Mao). Also, the communist nations weren’t exactly uniform in their cultural policy. Some, like Albania, were especially repressive, adhering to hardline Stalinism. Others were relatively tolerant, and amazingly personal works were produced in countries like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, some even critical of the communist system. The Soviet Union allowed for such deviances on condition that they didn’t interfere with political fealty to Moscow. For example, the Soviet Union tolerated the thawing symptoms of the Prague Spring as long as Czechoslovakia remained in the communist camp. The Warsaw Pact nations closed in only when it became apparent that Czechs(more than the Slovaks at any rate) were moving toward post-communism. Communist ice could tolerate spring thaw but not summer heat. At any rate, the arts & culture scene was far from dead in communist Eastern Europe and often ran parallel to and won plaudits from those in the West.
Given the rise of Political Correctness, ‘woke’ DEI agenda, and Censchwarzship, the Judeo-Oligarchic West has shown itself to be capable of repression as well, though the sheer reach of the internet has ameliorated the problem to some degree, at least in the US with free speech protections written into the law, even if often circumvented by the deep state alliance of government and Big Tech. Especially alarming is how what were once issues of tolerance in the West have morphed into insistences of conformity, obviously illustrated by the rise of Negrolatry and GloboHomo: Equal Rights for blacks turned into idolatry for all things black, and tolerance for homosexual deviancy turned into elevation of homos and even trannies into secular angels, rendering it effectively blasphemous to express disdain for homo-fecal-penetration and tranny genital-mutilation.
For example, Western governments went from favoring tolerance for men-pretending-to-be-women to laws mandating that we address trannies as ‘real women’, or else. And it went from tolerance for homosexual relationships to the legal mandate that all of the US(and the EU of course) accept ‘same-sex marriage’ as a Constitutional fact. Thus, liberalism went from equal rights and free speech for all individuals regardless of race, color, or creed to a legally-backed and ‘spiritually’-consecrated elevation of particular groups over others. It sure explains why the West permits the Holy Jews to do as they please. Under Neo-Liberalism, Jews are not equal under the law but superior above the law because Jewishness, along with Homosexuality and Blackness, is one of the holies.
Even though Western Europe outshined Eastern Europe during the Cold War, seeds were sown that would sprout into a formula of civilizational suicide. This isn’t to imply that communism was(or is) the answer but merely to acknowledge that history is not a simple binary of good and bad. While the capitalist West did more things right than the communist East did while the struggle lasted, its power dynamic came to facilitate the rise of a hostile group, the Jews who were driven in equal measures by paranoia, vengeance, and arrogance. In their paranoia about ‘antisemitism’, Jews were willing to subvert anything in the West that might speak truth to Jewish Power. With Holocaust as the sacred canon of postwar Jewishness, Jews sought vengeance not only against the Germans but all those who’d collaborated with the Germans, all those who hadn’t done enough to protect the Jews, and all who might become ‘future Nazis’. Thus, virtually all of the White World was burdened with Holocaust Guilt or diagnosed with latent ‘antisemitism’. (Jews are likely miffed with Russians because the latter suffered as much or even more in World War II and did most to defeat Nazi Germany, rendering them immune to Jewish guilt-baiting.) Also, the historic Covenant-mentality, plus the sudden rise to dominance in the US, went to Jewish heads, and many Jews, like Alan Dershowitz, began to regard themselves as the true Master Race(or the ‘Masters of the Universe’), made even more problematic with WASPs and other white elites accepting the new reality of Jewish preeminence as either God-ordained, bio-determined, or historically-justified. Thus, with white brownnosers sucking up to every Jewish demand, the Jewish mindset became flush with megalomania.
The great tragedy of the second half of the 20th Century is that the World was faced with only two options: The ‘liberal democratic’ capitalist model or the collectivist communist model. During the Cold War, it was a no-brainer that the capitalist model was outpacing the communist model by just about every metric. However, post-Cold-War trends have shown that humanity had been caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of soul-rotting capitalism and soul-frozen communism.
Notice how Eastern European nations were relieved to be liberated from communism, only to realize that the demands made on them by the triumphant West made little sense. They were finally free of the Soviet yoke and enjoyed their national independence, but the West insisted that they surrender their sovereignty and cave to the globalist agenda of open borders, great replacement(or White Nakba), Jew-Worship, Negrolatry, and GloboHomo.
In some ways, the new demands were far worse than communism, the main theme of which was justice by means of proletarianism. Surely, lionizing the working class was thematically nobler than worshiping Jewish gangsters, Negro thugs, and homosexual degenerates. It was like ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’. Eastern European nations were glad to be free, only to be met with demands that they open up to endless immigration from non-white countries. It was like a prison under communism, but there was no danger of losing their nations permanently to foreign folks. The Soviets never tried to erase the Polish nation, Hungarian nation, Romanian nation, and etc.
In contrast, the globalist West, under Jewish rule, was pressuring nations like Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, and etc. to follow the lead of Paris, London, Brussels, Malmö, New York, Toronto, and etc. The outcome could only be total erasure of the native peoples and cultures of Eastern Europe. Under communism, they could at least keep their nation and culture. Under global capitalism, they were told to abandon what was most dear to their sense of patriotism and heritage. What are they to do as the crisis remains unresolved. The EU is demanding that Hungary and Poland accept the Londonistan future.
Eastern Europe cannot return to communism, extinct even in Russia, but its full adoption of the current capitalist model means certain doom, a civilizational suicide so obvious across the major cities of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and etc.
But had there been a third option, Eastern Europe and much of humanity could have avoided or rejected the false dichotomy of capitalism or communism. The ideal third option would have been fascism, the most promising ideology of the 20th Century, but Adolf Hitler threw it all away by waging a winner-take-all war with Russia. There’s no getting around the fact that Hitler’s fascism took an evil turn(and had an evil foundation in radical racism), but it needn’t have been so. Had fascism survived(and thrived) as the third option, those rejecting communism could have chosen between national fascism and global capitalism. Eastern Europeans under communism wanted free markets but also to preserve their nations and cultures. Current capitalist ‘liberal democratic’ globalism, or Imperial Democracy, doesn’t allow for such a combo. Those adopting Western-style capitalism must reject nationalism and accept globalism, open borders, cultural degeneracy, GloboHomo, and Negrolatry. In other words, capitalism comes bundled with civilization-destroying cultural viruses, and you must accept the whole package.
This madness isn’t founded on warped principles, however misguided they may be, but on Jewish Supremacism, as the very Jewish forces, which demand that Hungary and Poland open up their borders and denounce their national integrity, also insist on their total support of Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Jewish-Zionist nationalism, and even Jewish-supremacist imperialism(in the form of the endless wars instigated by World Jewry).
We can’t blame Russians for destroying German fascism as it chose evil and invaded the Soviet Union to lay it to waste and reduce its population to slaves or corpses. (Today, the Jewish-run West is hard at work in replacing and erasing whites in their homelands. It is gradually but steadily doing to Europeans and whites around the world what the Nazis sought to do, brutally and rapidly, in Russia. Jewish globalist-supremacists carry out their plan in a more cunning and deceptive way, invoking ‘human rights’ and ‘inclusion’, but the end result for Europe and the white world will be racial and cultural doom.) But, in the defeat of fascism, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. A more humanist form of fascism could have allowed for nationalism, capitalism, and socialism. Fascism should have evolved as a nationalism, not an imperialism, but fascism emerged when imperialism was still in vogue(and the basis of Britain and France being great powers). Fascism was defeated in the game of empires, and the world was left with only two options: The capitalist world and the communist world.
Granted, the capitalist world might not have turned out the way it did without the Judeo-Negro factor that profoundly altered America. Under continued White-Christian dominant rule, the West might well have upheld nationalism, as well as the pride of identity and heritage of the various white folks. But as the American scene was custom-made for Jewish success and empowerment, Jews took control of the system and subverted all the essential and healthy race-ist impulses of whites. Jews went from an American success story to an American supremacist saga, whereby the primary focus of Americanism was to worship, praise, and serve the Jews.
And with black domination in sports, white pride of manhood went down the drain. White males became ‘white boys’ in cuck-worship of the Negro hero-athletes. And as whites took inspiration from black music, they began to feel that the black soul is the truest and deepest well of human inspiration. The British, having lost their empire, regained a sense of importance with popular music inspired by American black music, and the result was Negrolatry.
The achievements in these fields were real and worthy of appreciation, but the racial idolization of the Negro blinded whites to the darker and dangerous aspects of blackness. Sure, Motown sprang from Detroit, but what did blacks do to Detroit? Whites were blindsided into believing that blacks were happily dancing in the streets when blacks made the streets unsafe.
Also, the sheer intensity and immediacy of this music made whites impatient and bored with much of white/Western culture that came to be regarded as ‘lame’. As capitalism became increasingly shaped by Jewish agencies and black urges, its version of Western Civilization increasingly became less European, even anti-European. Also, the vanity and narcissism inherent in the cult of celebrity of popular culture made the West increasingly nihilistic and anti-humanist. If you aren’t ‘cool’, you’re a ‘fool’.
It didn’t have to be this way, but it ended up that way given that ‘liberal democratic’ capitalism provided the opportunity for Jews and blacks to gain dominance respectively in brainy fields and brawny fields. Had Jews not been smarter than whites and had blacks not been stronger than whites, whites might have retained dominance as the ruling elites and the idols/icons of manhood. But whites lost the keys to the Jews and the championship belts to the blacks.
Thus, ‘liberal democratic’ capitalism led to the cuckery of the white race. Meritocracy favored the Jews, and libertine hedonics favored the blacks, and whites under ‘liberal democratic’ capitalism fell under their sway, not least because ‘liberal democracy’ generally lacks a powerful thematic and unifying core. Its tendency is to favor individualism, consumerism, and fashion.
As communism increasingly fell out of favor even in the communist world, with its peoples eyeing the West enviously, it would have been helpful if the third option, fascism, was on offer. Unlike communism, fascism allowed for economic freedom(like the capitalist system) but also emphasized a set of core themes above all else. Thus, while a fascist system could appreciate the musical contribution of blacks and the Jewish input in various fields, there would be greater emphasis on the national obligation to uphold a core set of priorities, values, and symbols. Thus, appreciation of black contribution would not lead to Negrolatry. Admiration for things Jews would not lead to Jew-Worship, or the favoring of Jewish interests over the national interest. And homos would have their place and be acknowledged for their contribution to culture, but GloboHomo wouldn’t be permitted to become a quasi-mass-cult, as happened with dire results in the ‘liberal democratic’ West.
Indeed, the very emergence of Jew-Worship, Negrolatry, and GloboHomo as the neo-spiritual trinity of the West has exposed the ultimate hollowness of the liberal democratic model. In the end, all those free individuals grew lonely, lost, & disoriented and found themselves craving some deeper meaning… and it was supplied to them by the Jews in the form of cult worship if Jews, blacks, and homos as the new gods.
Because of the negative, indeed evil, connotations of fascism, no nation has dared to adopt it at the official level, but a kind of ersatz fascism, silent fascism, or stealth fascism has been taking shape. When Hungary adopts free markets and liberality but also insists on Hungarian nationhood, cultural heritage, and pride of identity, it is favoring something closer to the fascist model. When Russia allows for free markets and legality of homosexuality but doesn’t allow gangster capitalism to loot everything and forbids the cult of ‘LGBTQ’ to spread like cancer, it too favors something closer to the fascist model. Russia is saying that it ensures freedom for individuals, but there are themes and values central to Russian Civilization as a whole that shall not be desecrated by rampant promotions of degeneracy. If you want to be buggered in the arse, go do it somewhere, but do not make your deviant lifestyle an official article of celebration with the backing of World Jewry.
Unlike ‘liberal democracy’, fascism affirms and reiterates the most essential themes of a particular civilization, deemed inviolable if it is to survive into the future. In contrast, ‘liberal democracy’, in absence of such, allows for marginal, peripheral, decadent, insipid, and even ridiculous ideas to come to the fore to dominate the polity and culture. Ultimately, however, ‘liberal democracies’ betray even their conceit of individuality and vibrancy because the oligarchs eventually take over and shove their favored agendas and anti-values down everyone’s throat(or up everyone’s arse).
For example, Jewish Americans, who had initially subverted any unifying idea or permanent vision of the US as a white, Christian, Western, or pan-Europeanist entity, putatively in favor of each individual finding his or her own place and meaning, later decided to institute their favored themes — Jew-Worship, Negrolatry, and GloboHomo — as permanent fixtures of America’s main concerns.
In other words, Americans, every single one of them, have no choice but to bow down at the altar of the Jew-Negro-Homo, the veneration of which trumps any consideration of individual freedom and liberty.
The main difference between Russia and America isn’t about the autocratic promotion of National Christianity(in Russia) versus the individual choice of meaning(in the US) but about Russian National Christianity versus American Global Neo-Trinity of Jew-Worship, Negrolatry, & GloboHomo. As such, the US is no less theocratic than Iran, except that Iran emphasizes Islam as the unifying theme whereas the US insists on the adoration of Jews-blacks-homos.
