What CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND(dir. Steven Spielberg) tells us about the Trajectory of Jewish American Experience from Leaders of People Power to Hoarders of Elite Power — HoloCovenant as the New Definition of Jewishness

Even though Jews have produced many influential thinkers in the 20th century, we can learn as much or even more about them through their use of popular culture. Granted, some degree of esotericism is necessary to decode the message. In other words, just like adults and children see things differently and laugh for different reasons when watching TV, it's likewise between Jews and Goyim when watching, say, a Steven Spielberg movie. For the goyim, it's just a big thrill ride. To Jews, it's a game of 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge, get it?'

Take CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, the only movie that contended with STAR WARS for box office in 1977, the year following the Bicentennial. For most people, it was a grand sci-fi fairytale, like a Disney Movie for adults. And in many ways, the spirit of the movie seemed 'as American as apple pie'. But if ever there was a statement of 'We Jews Shall Inherit the Earth', it's this movie. The movie is at once mainstream-populist and Jewish tribal-elitist. It depends on who is doing the watching with which set of cultural references. A goy might go around saying "Did-you see it?", but for the Jew, it's a case of "Jew see it?" Jew know? It came out in the year of ANNIE HALL that won Best Picture Oscar.

The core source of Jewish Power is the force of prophecy. This potential is latent in all groups but failed to come to full fruition among most. Jews attained it to the furthest degree. (One might say Arabs did too with Islam, but Muhammad mostly copied and revised Jewish prophecies.) In the movie, the space aliens as cosmic power reach out to all humanity. They send signals even to Mexicans(who are mostly drunk), Mongols(in the middle of nowhere), and Hindus(who think Vishnu sang to them). (But apparently not to Negroes, thank Todd.) And among the called are white goyim as well. But the one who is mostly burning-bushed is none other than the Richard Dreyfuss character Roy Neary. Roy is like a Jew-Toy, and he's Neary to God. (As Pinocchio goes from puppet to a real boy, Roy goes from ersatz goy to a true 'Jew'.) So, even though there are two modes to its aura — nationalistic as space aliens choose America among all nations, especially the famed Devil's Tower(though not Mt. Rushmore), and internationalist as space aliens shine their rays and send signals to all peoples of the world — , the real blessing or cosmo-covenant is with Roy who, though not spelled out as JEW, is clearly Jewishy with Dreyfuss's physiognomy and pushy over-the-top performance. Roy stands for Jew as impassioned seeker, climber, and ultimate victor, the heartbreak kid. The two other notable Jewish or Jewishy characters are Lacombe by Francois Truffaut and Laughlin by Bob Balaban. Balaban represents Neo-Talmudism. His expertise is cartography, making and reading of maps, modern version of Jewish numerology. (Upon his realization that the space aliens' signals are coordinates, his colleagues roll a giant globe into a room to pinpoint the whereabouts. It's as if the world is being prepared for Jewish Possession: The World is Ours because the hidden covenantial code can be cracked and revealed only by us Jews.) Truffaut had his own awakening of identity — he grew up thinking he's entirely French but later discovered through a private eye that his father is a Jewish dentist. So, even though the grand ending is ostensibly about space aliens meeting with humanity, it becomes almost like a tribal Bar Mitzvah or Jewish Wedding where space aliens as cosmo-gods choose Jews Uber Alles. It's very much a closed affair, a Closed Encounter as well as a close one.

In preparation for the Encounter, the scientific community, the US government, and the military conspire to keep the public away. One military commander says: "What I need is something so scary it'll clear three hundred square miles of every living Christian soul." Now, there are two ways of making sense of the statement. It's just a figure of speech and has nothing to do with Christians — just scare the population away so that serious people can pull off a diplomatic coup with the aliens, a kind of like Olympics for the scientific community. And yet, even as the movie panders to goy audiences, including lots of Christians, it is indeed about excluding Christians and goyim from the blessed communion between cosmic power and the chosen. Of course, there are plenty of goyim, from top scientist to technician, present at the Encounter, but most serve as background to the Jews who command the center stage; someone even remarks that Albert Einstein wasn't only right but 'probably one of them(the superior aliens)'. Also, on the ground is some piece of metal that looks like a fallen crucifix, as if to imply Christianity is over and to be replaced by the new faith beamed across movie and tv screens dominated by Jews.

There are certain allusions to Jewish culture and history, some more obvious than others, like the broadcast of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS on TV. But some are easy to miss, like the difficulty Roy Neary's son has with fractions in math. For advice, Neary talks about fractions of the number 60. The six figure is likely a reference to the Shoah where supposedly 6 million died. Neary asks his son what one third of 60 is and demonstrates the lesson with a toy train set: One third of the train is exposed on the intersection, so how much would the train have to be moved to avoid a collision with an oncoming train? The son fails to answer fast enough, and the trains collide. It seems Spielberg was suggesting the Jews(and the world) didn't react fast enough in WWII, and many Jews got destroyed. The train itself is of course an allusion to the Shoah as many Jews were sent to the camps on rail.

While Roy and his son discuss fractions, another son in the background stands inside a baby playpen and fiercely attacks a blonde doll, smashing it to pieces. Spielberg uses the kid in child-play to channel his rage at the blond Aryan race. In a way, it sums up the essence of Spielbergism: Jewish Rage masked as child's play. Indeed, the kid's antics seem funny, even cute. Boys will be boys, right? But the scene is also disturbing as the boy keeps smashing the denuded doll until it's head comes off. It anticipates the murder of the nude pro-Palestinian German woman in MUNICH, not to mention all the anti-Nazi bloodbaths in Indiana Jones movies.
No movie director in movie history has been as violent and family-friendly at the same time. The fun-quality of Spielberg's movies(akin to amusement park rides), starting with JAWS(or THE DUEL), makes people forget how aggressive, destructive, and even blood-thirsty they are. Incidentally, the fact that the boy is inside a baby playpen could suggest that the Aryan Race must be snuffed out in the cradle. Or maybe it's a dig at Christianity, a subconscious wish to kill Jesus as baby, fantasy-accomplishment of what Herod failed to do.

Roy insists that the family should go see PINOCCHIO than go for Goofy Golf. Given golf's association with Wasp country clubs, Spielberg could have been suggesting that Jews should focus on taking over the mythic narrative(as Walt Disney did) than waste time with useless recreational activities. Golf is only for the players, whereas entertainment is for everyone. In golf, a player wins over other players, whereas in entertainment the creators of fantasies come to conquer all the souls of the world. They get to mess with the world like space aliens mess with humanity in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS.

Later, there maybe another allusion to the Shoah in the UFO conference. A government official asks just how is it that, what with all the many millions of cameras in the world, not a single irrefutable image of space ships/aliens has been produced? The figures given by the official is that 7 billion photos are taken each year in the US at the cost of 6.6 billion dollars of equipment and processing. Again, we have the figure of the SIX. It could be Spielberg is suggesting that not a single photo of a Jew being gassed by the Nazis exists, but the gassings took place. So, in a way, Roy's pursuit of the truth about UFO could be Spielberg's sublimated obsession about the hidden truths about the Holocaust, and of course, the HoloCovenant is what defines most Jews today.

But the most dramatic allusion to the Jewish Experience is the 'tower' as metaphor for circumcision. After the burning-bush encounter with a space ship, Roy Neary kept envisioning mountain-like figures and turned to crude sculpting to erect the shape of these visions. The result is something like a towering boner, but it's not quite right. Something is a bit off. And then, just when he's frustrated and about to give up, he goes about pulling at the 'tower' mound of his making, and the top comes off, and finally, the vision is complete. It's like the Covenant between Jews is about removal of the foreskin on the penis. That COMPLETES the Jew. Jewishness isn't just about the towering erection of man-meat but the sacrificial offering of the foreskin to God. And then, when Roy watches TV and makes the connection between the circum-tower and Devil's Tower(in Wyoming), he has to go to the American Sinai to realize the fullness of himself as the Chosen, the special one.

The TV is instrumental because it signifies the Jewish control of the Media. Once, the Jewish Book was the source of Western Spiritual and Moral Imagination. Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism. However, it turned against Jews and made them out to be Christ-killers. One way for Jews to cope with this problem was insularity, but they would always be seen as outsiders, the Other. Another way was to assimilate into the goy world, but (1) it meant loss of rich identity & culture (2) there were sufficient differences between Jews and Whites(or Aryans) that made smooth assimilation impossible. In Germany, even assimilated Jews were targeted as subversive Semites. In the US, whites were happy to welcome and accept Jews as fellow whites, but Jewish supremacism didn't want to become one with sappy bland white culture, and furthermore, Jews became contemptuous of white weakness.

So, the third option was a new universalism, this time controlled by Jews. Marxism had appealed to many Jews as the new universalism that could overcome antisemitism — Karl Marx thought antisemitism would never go away as long as there was capitalism as Jews were the greediest and most compulsive practitioners of it. But as communism came to favor mediocrity and statist stasis over meritocracy and individual enterprise, Jews came to see it as chain-and-ball around their legs.

In the US, Jews favored Marx-Brothersism over Marxism. Make the goy laugh. Make the goy laugh so hard at Jewish wit and humor that they will see Jews as entertaining and endearing(even though much of Jewish American Humor was along the lines of Dumb Polack Jokes, i.e. at the expense of dimwit or bland white goyim, especially Wasps). Jews gained tremendous leverage as comedians. Woody Allen and Mel Brooks became household names. Jerry Seinfeld entered every living room and became like member of the family or personal friend. But the problem with humor is it favors irony, sarcasm, and mockery. Jews can make people laugh but can also be laughed at, and being laughed at isn't far from being ridiculed. Notice how many people soured on Woody Allen after a series of scandals. He became the joke than the joker. Also, as Jews gained in influence and privilege, they became more anxious about humor as edgy satire of power. Notice Jews don't care for the humor of 4Chan types, not even Babylon Bee that pokes fun at Jewish-led agendas like globo-homo and tranny-wanny.

This is where Spielberg has been so valuable in scripting and evangelizing a special brand of Jewish Power. He understood and mastered the power of myth at the psycho-popular level. Richard Dreyfuss's character goes from funny and ridiculous(often associated with Jewish Comedy) to impassioned, heroic, and ultimately quasi-spiritual. As Pinocchio turns from wood to flesh, Roy goes from an ordinary American terrestrial to a Cosmic Jewish prophet on the precipice of divinity. He becomes pop-Moses. In THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, the Aryan Charlton Heston took on the role of the great Jew, as he would once again in BEN-HUR, the ultimate message of which is Jews should accept Christ. But in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, it is really the Jewish-looking Jewish personality of Richard Dreyfuss who takes center stage.
At once, he becomes both More Jewish and More American as the story moves along. How could this be? How could someone become more tribal and more Jewishy in a white Christian majority America and still come across as All-American? This is where Spielberg's genius pulls off the magic. The movie is such a visual-aural treat, like a biggest Christmas Tree ever, that the awed audience just swoons along(especially aided by John Williams' all-encompassing and all-embracing music) and fails to sense that something isn't quite right in the equation. The music and circus-like effects cast their spell on everyone, but what is really happening is the crowning of the Neo-Mosaic Jew as the new christ.

In JAWS, Dreyfuss played a side character. Roy Scheider who took the main role is also Jewish but didn't play the role Jewishy, whereas Dreyfuss did. In CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the Jewish Dreyfuss takes center stage. He begins more or less as typically American but then becomes ever more Jewishy in his feverish search for his personal 'lost ark'. (Something similar happens to the Jewish character of David Mamet's HOMICIDE. Initially, he thinks little of his Jewishness but becomes more aware, more angry, even to the point of vengeful paranoia. He goes from cultural amnesia in all-embracing America to tribal awakening as a member of the Tragic Tribe.)

In earlier times, many Jews sought to prove their American-ness by trying to act white(and look white, especially the women with nose-jobs). Many altered the names to sound more Anglo. Many repressed their Jewish personality and tried to act genteel like Wasps. Being American meant having to suppress some of that Jewishness which came to be equated with uncouth vulgarity. Of course, some Jews played up their Jewishness to the hilt, but this was mainly in comedy. For many Jews, the social ideal was embodied by Kirk Douglas who didn't even look all that Jewish. For some Jews who couldn't repress their Jewish idiosyncrasies but didn't want to be identified as Jewish, radicalism was the solution. That way, they could act pushy and neurotic in the name of some Social Justice cause, thus creating the false impression that their difficult personalities had more to do with ideology than identity. Take Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, archetypal problematic Jews in roles as anarchists or socialists.

But as time passed, there was too big a gap between the real Jew and the idealized Jew. Most Jews didn't look like Kirk Douglas. If they resembled certain European types, it was more the Southern European. Many Jews looked more like Joe Pesci than Clint Eastwood. Also, the personality traits of Jews really came alive when unfettered from pressures to act 'wasp'. If Dustin Hoffman's character in THE GRADUATE exhibited some of these Jewish anxieties, FUNNY GIRL that came out a year later was like a declaration of Jewish Personality Emancipation. The first Jewish Emancipation was about laws and rights. In contrast, the Jewish Personality Emancipation was about the right, indeed the necessity, for Jews to FEEL and ACT Jewish. If Marx Brothers' Jewishness was obviously caricatures, the New Jewish Comedians were meant to be genuine Jewish personalities than mere cartoons. So, Barbra Streisand was about how the Jewess could be totally Jewish and be sexy. And Woody Allen was about how a Jewish comic could also be a serious artist and 'thinker'. Still, if Streisand and Allen remained unmistakably Jewish, distinct from goyim, the strange thing about Roy Neary of Spielberg's imagination is he is so indelibly Jewish and yet also vividly American. In a way, his apotheosis lends the impression that the Jew is more American than American because, all said and done, the true fulfilment of the American Dream came with the Passion(or the Obsession) of the Jew. And this minority-centric view of America eventually led to globo-homo as the New Normal, i.e. homo minority is more the true exemplar of Americanism than anything associated with straightness. And notice how globo-homo celebration and symbolism are as outlandish, ostentatious, and obnoxious as anything by Spielberg.

What is most instructive about CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is it provides us with an arc of Jewish History from Jews-as-social-climbers to Jews-as-kings-of-the-hill. Roy Neary's adventure and transformation from Ordinary Joe Populist to Extraordinary Jew Elitist reflects the trajectory of Jews from challengers of American Power to champions of it(in their own image... or shadow).

Like Roy Neary, so many Jews in the 60s claimed to be for the Little Guy, the small fish. They were for the workers. They were for the downtrodden. Their radicalism had an element of populism. Jews would stand and march with the have-lesses against the Power Structure of Wasp elites and the Military Industrial Complex. Jews attacked the FBI and CIA. Jews subverted trust in institutions and authority. Jewish activism back then was ostensibly for the little guy, the ordinary joes of America of all color. Some Jews even took up farming or opted to work in factories(at least for awhile to prove their bona fides). Jews demanded answers from the Power. Jewish assault on Wasp privilege was supposedly for all Americans. Not just for equal opportunity for Jews but for ethnic whites, Catholics, blacks, browns, and etc. Jews even made a big fuss about the poor American Indians. Jews made documentaries like HARLAN COUNTRY USA and movies like NORMA RAE in the 1970s.
So, even though Jews, as radicals, subversives, or climbers, were clearly distinct from other groups(who were less intelligent, capable, and driven with ambition), they operated in the clothing of Everyman. Saul Alinsky is a good example. And the ACLU claimed to protect the free speech rights and civil liberties of ALL AMERICANS, yes even for Neo-Nazis and KKK. Jews put on a big show of WE THE PEOPLE against Wasp-ruled America and the Military-Industrial Complex that was said to be perpetuating the Cold War and killing many innocents in Vietnam and Latin America. (But, of course, mum about the Palestinians.)

Through much of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, Roy Neary is like a combination of Jewish radicalism and Ordinary Americanism(or the populism of the Ordinary Joe). He joins with other Americans(who look goy) against the government establishment that isn't telling the whole truth and carrying out a secret project(one that makes the Manhattan Project seem like an open house). Roy demands to know the truth. He serves as spokesman for other Americans at the UFO conference. He is with the People against the Government. There are times when the US government seem almost crypto-fascist Nazi-like, an American Gothic take on Leni Riefenstahlism. And there were reasons for Jews to be worried about statism. After all, the National Socialists weren't a bunch of libertarians. And the Soviet Union, which eventually became an enemy of Zionism and an ally of anti-Israeli Arab nations, was about state power also. And in the Sixties, Jewish radicals denounced Amerika as a police state.

Of course, during World War II, Jews couldn't get enough of FDR's warmongering statism to destroy Germany and Japan, but because many Jews were on the left, the Cold War not only brought the Republicans back to power but began to prosecute people suspected of pro-Soviet sympathies, especially in the aftermath of revelations about the Jewish Rosenbergs(who gave Stalin the Bomb), the 'loss' of China to Mao, and the Korean War. This set the grounds for Jewish trepidations about state power, and in the Sixties many Jews took to styles of neo-anarcho-syndicalism that fused with chaotic youth-pop-culture. Jews, who'd been pro-statist during WWII, became anti-statist during the Vietnam War. It was partly out of sympathy for the communist Viet Cong but also because it's deemed anathema for Jews to die for goyim. Jews hated being drafted to fight wars on behalf of non-Jews. Of course, Jews couldn't say, "We don't want to serve in the military because Jewish lives are too precious to waste on saving goy lives from communism", and so, they made a big fuss about how they supported the Anti-War movement to end the war and its slaughter of civilians.
In the early 70s, New Hollywood put out a bunch of paranoid movies. Partly, it was a reflection of Jewish Anti-Nixon-ism, but it was also part of the Zeitgeist as the Sixties had done much to shake confidence in US institutions. And CLOSE ENCOUNTERS reflects some of the paranoia in movies like PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF CONDOR. Roy Neary is positive that the government is lying and treating people like stupid children. He demands an answer and takes the law into his own hands. He goes rogue vigilante, smashing through barriers erected by the government to get nearer to Devil's Tower.

It's Roy as People's Hero against the State. He seems to embody the populist spirit. But there's a difference. Whereas the essence of populism is 'leave us alone'(as in "Don't Tread on Me" on the Gadsden Flag), the essence of Jewish Nature is to intrude into the power center. Whereas most populists don't care what the state does AS LONG AS it leaves them alone, Jews want to peer inside and see what's really happening inside the power. Their motto might as well be, "Let Me Tread on You." This is why Roy goes further than the Goy in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Though plenty of goyim have also been beckoned by the space aliens, most of them don't make the connections or give up half-way. But Roy pushes all the way. Like the Negro staring into Harry Callahan's barrel of Magnum 44, Roy gots to know. Throughout the adventure, Roy suspects the government is up to something sinister. And Spielberg even includes a train scene as if to suggest the US government could be like the Nazis rounding up Jews. It's Spielberg's way of saying a country is all about WHO HAS THE POWER. Is the power pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish? Roy the populist hero acts against the state through most of the movie, and Spielberg was surely channeling Jewish paranoia that goes back to the so-called McCarthy Era and re-emerged during the Nixon presidency. Could America really be Amerika?

And yet, Spielberg offers a revision to the paranoia. What if the government, though far from perfect, is mostly good and has reasons to keep the project a secret? What if the superior space aliens wanted it that way, i.e. to meet with the best and the brightest than with the unwashed idiotic hoi polloi among the human species? Also, what if Roy and others chosen by the space aliens had to undergo a trial to prove their worthiness? It's like the race of life itself from the beginning. Every human life is the product of a single sperm winning the race over all the other sperms. And Roy is the winning sperm who makes it through Devil's Tower(as the giant circumcised Jewish Penis) and enters the space ship as cosmic womb. If Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY had a Wasp being reborn as Star Child, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS alters the vision with a Jewish Guy as Spacenik. Even though the goy-controlled state once placed obstacles against the Jew, it was ultimately meaningful as the obstacles demonstrated the superiority of Jews who won the struggle to overcome them. Thus, Jewish challenge to the Power didn't so much prove Jewish commitment to equality as Jewish Superiority as the only people who could topple and gain mastery over the Wasps. Unlike National Socialist Germans who were determined to keep the Jews down at all costs, Wasps had a 'good sport' culture and welcomed Jews as the rightful winners and owners of America.

Roy, who'd been so anti-government and anti-authority through much of the movie, comes to feel that the state had been right all along. This special moment cannot be for all the world. Too many people are idiots, boors, retards, undeserving of the cosmic-covenant. No, this encounter with cosmic gods must be for the best of the best among mankind. The brilliant scientists and the like. And even though he was an ordinary joe, just another working man, he too deserves to be there because he's proven his resolve and mettle through trial by fire, by running roughshod over all obstacles. He earned his marks, and he belongs among the best-and-the-brightest. In their company, he is no longer complaining about the government, the secretiveness, and the deception to the public. He comes to understand the need for secrecy and even duplicity by the powerful, at least if the powerful isn't nazi-like or anti-Jewish. As it turns out, state power in the US isn't filled with anti-Jewish Nazi-types but many Jews and Jew-friendly goyim. Also, as the superior space aliens choose him, a Jew or crypto-Jew, over all others, we must trust in the power because its ultimate manifestation is about the Covenant of the Jew and Cosmic Power. Roy's example suggests that Jewishness is so special that even a seemingly Ordinary Joe/Jew is among the very best, part of the natural elite favored by cosmic power.

Roy's transformation from Ordinary Joe populist to Extraordinary Jew elitist is illustrative of the change in Jewish attitudes, outlook, and values over the years. Jews, who used to challenge deep state institutions, are now their biggest defenders. Jews, who used to speak of civil liberties and free speech for all Americans, are now the biggest agents of censorship or censchwarzship. Jews who used to decry the warfare state are now the biggest warmongering imperialists on the basis that the 'adults in the room' know what they're doing. Jews who used to challenge the official narratives are now the biggest pushers of officialdom. Many Jews know the narratives are bogus but push them anyway because the dimwit goyim simply cannot handle the truth, or so they believe. It's like Roy becomes part of the powerful crew once he makes it over the mountain and is accepted by the best and the brightest.

Most Jews arrived poor to America in the late 19th century and early 20th century. They had no choice but to struggle alongside the working class and white ethnics. So, many Jews back then believed in the shared struggle alongside poor white goyim against the Wasp Establishment. Jews and the People vs the Power. But Jews were different from other groups. They were smarter and savvier than the Dumb Polacks, Greasy Italians, Drunken Irish, and the like. Indeed, they were even smarter than the ruling Wasp class. So, it was only a matter of time before Jews would not only outpace the white ethnics but wrest power from the Wasps. They had no choice then to shed their Ordinary Joe clothing and put on cloak of Extraordinary Jew. It's like Roy goes Royal.

And so, we are now in the age of Covid. When Covid Hysteria broke out, the first image that came to my mind was the scene in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS where Roy figures the government is practicing psychological warfare to fool the public. Whatever threat Covid poses, what honest person can deny it's been vastly exaggerated and manipulated as political tool to hoodwink and control the dimwit multitudes(and even alter and pervert political processes, not to mention used for raking in massive profits).

Now, given that Steven Spielberg made CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, do you think he would side with the Covid Skeptics who are like Roy as Ordinary Joe? NO, because Spielberg is Roy-gone-Royal. He knows his Tribe has the power. His Tribe is smarter, superior, and wiser. His Tribe is more deserving of more money and more power. And so, just like Roy learns to stop worrying and love the power(that finally aids him in the fulfilment of destiny), people like Spielberg have stopped worrying about the power because they got all of it and intend to control us as dimwit hoi polloi who should just yammer about Big Foot and leave important matters to the Power, the adults in the room... the Jews.

Roy Neary from Ordinary Joe to Extraordinary Jew to New Christ

The Key Advantage that Jewishness Has over Christianity — Jewish Body-plus-Spirit versus Christian Spirit-minus-Body — Hick Pride of Jews vs Hick Shame of Whites — Need for White Covenant and The Book

When Blessings Become Curses

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/04/27/review-of-david-skirbinas-the-jesus-hoax-how-st-pauls-cabal-fooled-the-world-for-two-thousand-years/

Does it make sense to discuss Jewish matters 2000 yrs ago in relation to Jewish realities today? Sure, there is a connective thread and common themes that have continued through the ages. Still, 2000 yrs ago Jews were under Imperialist Occupation and were in a state of resistance(or collaboration). Today, Jews are the New Romans(or New Pharaohs) though still clinging to the shtetl-shtick, as if they just got off the boat as helpless refugees in search of sanctuary.

One thing for sure, there are only two ways Christianity can deal with Jewishness. 'Pristianity' or 'Hypochristianity'. 'Pristianity' or Pristine Christianity would be sincere in its utter devotion to Christian teachings. Of course, this would mean white people would lose nationalism, identity, and unity BUT they would at least be good Christians living in accordance to the Creed. As such, 'pristinians' could judge and condemn the Jews as a people who continue to reject Christ and the true faith. 'Pristianity' would inherently be anti-Jewish. Indeed, true Christianity must be so. After all, if there's nothing wrong with Judaism or the Jews, there would be no need or justification for Christianity, which began as a heresy. Christianity justified itself on grounds that Judaism had gone wrong or served its purpose, whereby it must make way for the emergence of the new Faith, akin to the spiritual evolution from man as hairless ape to star-child. If Christianity admits there's nothing wrong with Jews or Judaism, it has undermined its own rationale for existence. Christianity began as Critical Spiritual Theory against Judaism. Jews hunted down early Christians, and these renegades, mostly Jews, railed against the obstinacy of the Old Faith. So, 'Pristianity' could resurrect the proudly anti-Jewish element of Christianity. Also, in its universality, it could condemn Jewish tribalism, nationalism, particularism, and supremacism. And as a pacifistic religion, it could harshly judge the aggressive and destructive policies of the warlike World Jewry. 'Pristianity' would rob whites of their own particularism but would also attack Jewish particularism. So, even if whites lose their identity, they could pressure Jews to do likewise. Both whites and Jews would lose out in terms of unique-identity-power. Pristine-Christians would no longer lend support to Zionists.
Jeremy Corbyn practiced a secular version of 'pristianity', and notice how Jews were triggered, alarmed, and threatened. Jewish Way has been 'leftism' for the White World, but white 'leftists' must support Zionism, aka Jewish ultra-rightism. Contra such demands, Corbyn condemned Jewish tribalism(at least against Palestinians) as he'd done with British nationalism. The way of 'Pristianity' in relation to Jews is comes down to "We die, but you also die." Whites lose identity but also attack Jewish identity and no longer support Zionism.

The other way Christians can combat Jewish Power is through 'Hypochristianity' or hypocritical-Christianity, and of course, that was how things used to be. Ever since Early Christianity, a resistance faith against empire, merged with Roman Power, it became a hypocritical racket. It preached peace and forgiveness while blessing the Roman legions marching off to war. It resorted to extreme violence to destroy other cults and religions. Christianity preached virtuous poverty, but its churches were erected with donations from the rich. Its armies conquered and plundered other parts of the world, but the violence was shrouded with sanctimony and token 'good works'. Hypocrisy is ignoble but intrinsic to the human condition, and Christians were hardly the only hypocrites around. And, for a long spell Hypochristianity worked like a charm. Europeans were motivated by ambition and greed but veiled them with piety, much like today's globalist scum imperialists invade and destroy other parts of the world but go on and on about 'muh democracy', 'human rights', and 'western values'. Hypochristians didn't act very Christian, but the Faith was an effective moral cover for their aggressions and material avarice. Thus, Hypochristians could rob Jews(just as Jews exploited goyim) but justify their deeds with prayers to Christ.

With control of academia and media, Jews pretty much blew Hypochristianity out of the water. Jewish-dominated Narrative detailed the many ways by which the so-called Christian Civilization betrayed its own creed. Jewish Power rubbed the white Christian nose in all the evils committed by the West. Therefore, it's difficult for white Hypochristianity to make a comeback as too many whites are now 'guilt-ridden' about their hypocrisy-riddled history. Given this fact, one would think the only way left for white Christians is 'Pristianity', i.e. the abandonment of white power/interests and total commitment toward universal peace and justice. And yet, that hasn't been the result. The current Christianity is a weird and perverse blend of 'Pristianity' and 'Hypochristianity', the common denominator of which is "Is it good for Jews?" So, white Christians are now pristine-Christians when it comes to their own historical sins, at least in regard to Jews and blacks, and feel they must atone and seek redemption, especially by rejecting any vestige of white identity, white pride, white unity, and white power. As GOOD CHRISTIANS, they must embrace nonwhites as fellow brethren and sistren. But then, oddly enough, this seeming 'pristianity'(or 'semi-pristianity') doesn't go very far. Why not? Because it is premised more on idolatry than ideology. 'Semi-pristianity' isn't about white folks making equal peace and love with ALL of humanity. Such notion would be ideological, universally applicable by way of moral and spiritual logic. Rather, 'semi-pristianity' is locked in the idolatrous reverence especially for Jews, Negroes, and even homos, which is why homo-flags have sprung up in so many churches. So, never mind what the Christian World may have done to South American natives, Arabs & Muslims, and the Asiatics. What really matters is what white folks owe to Jews and blacks. And homos. So, there is virtually zero American Christian concern over the fate of Christian Arabs whose lives were utterly destroyed by Wars for Israel.

While churches blabber on and on about BLM, there is no compassion for the various victims of black crime and thuggery. Idolatry deems that blacks are always holy victims no matter what they do. (Also, the church of 'white guilt' overlooks one of the most important aspects of the Faith. For Jesus, victimhood per se wasn't nearer to holiness. After all, anyone can be victimized. A good person can be oppressed, a bad person can be oppressed. A bully can be bullied. A greedy man can be cheated and victimized by a greedy man. So, mere victimhood doesn't make one good, let alone saintly. Goodness is a matter of the heart. Whether one is a free man or a slave, one can have a wicked heart. If Jesus really believed that victimhood = virtue, His message would have been wholly different. After all, why not just say all the peoples under Roman Imperial Domination are good-and-holy since they are victims of Roman Power? But even as Jews lived under Roman heel, Jesus didn't believe they were automatically good or justified. For them to be good, they had to change their hearts on an individual basis. But in our materialist age, historical morality is often a matter of who-did-what-to-whom than what-is-in-your-heart. So, blacks can have the dumbest ideas, spew the filthiest nonsense, and wallow in hatred, but that's okay because their historical victimhood in America makes them somehow 'saintly'.) Thus, 'semi-pristianity' is also a form of 'semi-hypochristianity'. The difference is that, whereas the original 'hypochristianity' was cleverly constructed to serve white power and interests, the new 'hypochristianity', or 'semi-hypochristianity', is geared to serve Jewish Power. Among some whites, the reasons are sincere. They are either dumb or naive enough to fall for the Jewish BS. Among other whites, it's a matter of fear and/or craven opportunism. They fear Jewish Power(especially if they got skeletons in their closets) and/or are shameless scavengers hankering for crumbs falling from the Jewish table.

Perhaps, there is a third way, one that might be called Critical-Christianity or Christo-Realism, that can effectively combat Jewish Power. This form of Christianity would be very honest about what Christianity is really about. It's there in the New Testament, especially in the four Gospels. However, it would also be honest about the way of the world and how Christianity can serve as guide and inspiration but an iron rulebook. Unlike the age-old Hypochristianity that acted one way while pretending to do another, Christo-Realism would be upfront about the need to reject Christian purism. Thus, it could not be charged of hypocrisy. (Christianity is especially vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy because of what Jesus preached: Love, Forgiveness, Poverty, Peace, and leaving vengeance up to the Lord.)
Also, Christo-Realism would be in tune with science & rationalism and admit that there is no factual basis for the myths underlying Christianity, or any religion for that matter. (Come to think of it, the Enlightenment Principles of Equality of Man is also a fiction. The European thinkers who came up with that idea only knew European folks and projected European attributes onto the rest of humanity as a universal ideal and potential. Alas, races are different in ability, personality, and temperament. Enlightenment would have done better as a rationalism of limited idealism than universalist dogma.) But it would also acknowledge the essentially mythic nature of human psychology; indeed, ridding the modern world of religion has only led to new idols and cults for people to worship. If people MUST worship, God(and Jesus) is surely better than George Floyd, Jewish wealth, pop star's vanity, or a homo's anus. Also, it would seriously consider why the story of Jesus has had such power over humanity from a psychological vantage point.
The problem of Christo-Realism is it might seem too cerebral to those desiring totality of faith and too principled for those desiring convenience above all else. The true-faithers, even if hardly consistent with the creed in their daily lives, want to believe 'Jesus is King' and that's that, and there's nothing to think about and no room for doubt. For such people, thinking leads to anxiety, and while they can tolerate anxiety about lesser matters, they hanker for some fundamental truth that cannot be questioned. If their minds work as sails, their faith serves as the anchor.

As for the 'conveniencers', the main utility of christianity is to serve as addendum to their pet agendas or causes. It's a way of adding a bit of sanctimonious spice or razzle-dazzle to whatever they're really dazed-and-crazed about at the moment: Globo-Homo, mass-immigration, drug legalization, or some latest fad. These people don't want to be reminded of what Christianity is really about at its core as revealed in the New Testament. They might be called 'creative christians' or 'creatians', i.e. christianity is a matter of their 'creative' need at the moment. They might also be called 'cretin-christians'.
Not that the more fundamentalist types are much better, especially the so-called Christian Zionists who come in two flavors. One wants Jews to return to the Holy Land because they believe Jesus will return and kill most of them. The other is so enamored of Jews as the Chosen Tribe and smart/rich people that its members cuck to Jews as the superior race. They exhibit the side of conservatism that is submissive to authority and power. Of course, there is another factor, and it has to do with the Shoah. By hailing Jews to high heaven and convincing themselves that Jews and Christians are natural pals and allies, they seek to deny that Christianity had anything to do with the Third Reich and its crimes. But then, this special guilt about dead Jews is yet another manifestation of conservatism's excessive concern for those deemed superior in wealth and power. The Holocaust would barely show up on the cultural radar if Jews were mostly poor and low IQ.

One way of understanding Judaism and Christianity is by comparing them to chess and checkers. Judaism is more like chess, Christianity is more like checkers. The latter religion is more Manichean in its morality. It's about good vs evil. God is good and wants us to be good. And this goodness is independent of any tribalism, nationality, or cultural affiliation. It's a matter of the heart. Indeed, the appeal of Jesus Christ is He represents the heart of God. Prior to Christianity, the Old Testament told stories where God was featured as the mind(thinker and dreamer), the hands(creator and builder), the stomach(ambition, dominance), the feet(traveler and stomper), the nose(the critic sniffing for the good vs the bad), the mouth(big talker), and etc. But the heart-element was smaller compared to others. God could show compassion toward Jews at times, but mostly He was hard to please, even for Jews. But then, Jesus came along as served as the warm-beating heart of God. Christianity said God is full of love and therefore offers salvation to all of mankind. But as He sacrificed His Son(or part of Himself) for humanity, mankind must accept Jesus as savior and teacher. This powerful moral element of Christianity makes it a religion about good vs evil. It's about God's profound love for humanity and humanity's need to accept this love and be saved from evils and their temptations. Thus, above all, Christianity is about God is good, and this goodness is equally accessible to all of mankind that would accept Jesus. Yes, even to ghastly Negroes.

Jewishness is appalled by the Jesus Story not only for its blasphemy, the stuff about Jesus being the Son of God. If anything, Jews are more appalled by Christianity than by Christ. They hated Jesus as the living embodiment of blasphemy. To Jews, it seemed there was a simple solution to such a Man and His ideas. Have Him killed. But what followed was even worse to the Jewish Mind. The Christian mythology said Jesus died for all of humanity, aka goyim as well as for Jews. Imagine that, Jewish body sacrificed to save the dubious souls of filthy goyim. Jews could countenance the sacrifice of limitless goy lives for the good of Jews. The Moses story has tons of dead goyim in Egypt and in Canaan for the sake of Jewish interests. Jews are worth dying ONLY WHEN they offend the Covenant between God and the Tribe, and it is the Jew who must kill the bad Jew. Ideally, goyim should not kill a Jew, even a bad one, except under extraordinary circumstances, as when Jews needed Roman permission and power to deal with Jesus.
In worldly affairs of Jews and/versus goyim, it's the goy bodies(filled with weak, demonic, or dubious souls) that must be sacrificed for the good of Jews. And as every Jew was part of the Covenant, a poor Jew in rags was regarded as higher in Jewish eyes than the richest and mightiest goyim. It's like the caste-centric noblemen regarded a poor nobleman as higher than a rich merchant(or peasant if such thing even existed). So, the idea that Jesus, born a Jew with a Jewish body, would have His body and blood sacrificed to save the souls of filthy goyim was downright sickening to Jews. When Jesus was alive, they hated Him for what He said and did. After He died, they hated even more the Myth around Him that a Jewish Messiah arrived not to help the Jews but to sacrifice His sacred Jewish body for the sake of the souls of goyim. Jews could tolerate, indeed demand, the destruction of a Jewish body that blasphemed against the Covenant, and so, the killing of Jesus was fine by them. But just when they thought the business was finished and over, a bunch of renegade Jews argued that Jesus didn't just die but sacrificed His Jewish body for the souls of goyim whom He dearly loved. No wonder Jews over the ages have hated the Jesus Myth. Whatever Jews can accept, one thing they can't is the notion that Jews should surrender their lives for goyim. So, Madeleine Albright and fellow Jews can say without regret or reflection that it was 'worth it' to sacrifice 500,000 Arab children to create the New World Order. But no Jew would ever say it's worth sacrificing 500, 50, or even 5, let alone 500,000, Jewish kids for some grand project favored by goyim. It seems one of the main reasons why Jews opposed the Vietnam War was because of the Draft. It meant Jewish bodies would be sent into the jungles and be sacrificed for the US empire that was then still controlled by Anglo-Christian elites. Of course, Jews framed their anti-war stance in terms of saving the lives of Vietnamese and white working class & poor blacks who made the bulk of the fighting force. But what they really hated was the idea that Jewish kids would be sent to battle and possibly die for the interests of others. It's likely Milton Friedman and others like him called for an all-voluntary force because they knew that most Jews would NOT volunteer for the military. Most Jews would attend good schools and get white collar jobs. An all-voluntary force would be made up almost entirely of goyim. And as lower-class whites would be more likely to join, the upper-class whites, whose own children won't serve in the military, would be less likely to oppose what would become Wars for Israel after the end of the Cold War. The very Jews who were so weepy-poo about dead Vietnamese and American soldiers returning in body bags in the 1960s and early 70s are now utterly indifferent to the countless dead Arab/Muslims and oblivious to all the American soldiers who either died, were horribly maimed, or committed suicide from trauma. How is it that Jews who cared so much about goyim in the Vietnam Era feel almost nothing for goyim in the Wars-for-Israel or Zionic Era? In a way, nothing really changed. While there were some genuine Jewish leftists in the 60s, many were always Jewish-first and whatever-ideology-second. They opposed the Vietnam War because they didn't want Jewish bodies to be sacrificed for empire, but they don't oppose Wars for Israel because it's goy lives that are being sacrificed. If the Draft were still on today and a good number of young Jewish men had to see combat, Jewish Power would think twice about more of these wars. The likes of Max Boot, Ben Shapiro, Thomas Friedman, Jake Tapper, and Victoria Nuland know that it's about goyim dying for Jewish interests while Jewish bodies remain safe.

Ideally, Christianity is meant to be a religion without a body, though it doesn't go as far as Buddhism. It's about the spirit. Christianity sees the world as fallen and the flesh as sinful. Therefore, the only true salvation is through the spirit. It is one's spirit, not the body, that is saved, and it enters Heaven to be with God. A diabolical and perhaps satirical twist on this can be found in Jonathan Glazer's UNDER THE SKIN where higher beings(space aliens) lure men and suck their bloods, leaving only the skin behind. One might say Christianity is about the spiritual juicing of mankind. People are admonished to reject their sinful bodies and cleanse/prepare their souls for salvation. Thus, the body is left behind and the soul is 'juiced' to enter the realm of the Divine. In UNDER THE SKIN, the higher beings lure men only to suck out their inner essence as cosmic cuisine.
While Judaism also sees mankind as sinful and the world as fallen, there is the hope for Jews under the Covenant. And Jews are defined not only by their souls but their bodies. Thus, Judaism is about both the spirit and the body. If Christianity preaches upon the faithful to reject their bodies and distill their spirits for the hereafter, Judaism teaches its members to preserve their bodies for future generations. Just as living Jews have a long line of ancestors, they should ideally have long line of descendants. A link of bodies. This is why Jewish men are bigger pudkins than Christian men. Because of the practice of conversion, a Christian doesn't need to have kids to produce more Christians. Non-Christians can be converted to the Faith. In contrast, in order for there to be more Jews, they must be birthed by Jewish parents. Therefore, sex matters far more to Jews whose consciousness is about spirit + body as opposed to the Christian formula which is about the salvation of the spirit from the body. Without Jewish bodies, there is no Judaism, no Jewishness. In contrast, even if all Christians were to die in body, the faith can survive as long as the New Testament exists to spread the ideas to convert non-Christians. According to Christianity, sex and marriage are necessary evils. The Christian ideal is to forgo such and fixate on the spirit, which is the basis for why Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry and have kids. In contrast, the duty of Jews is to produce more Jews as Judaism isn't about the spirit vs the body but the spirit within the Jewish body. If the Abrahamic Covenant was about circumcision, the (Ron)Jeremic covenant is to suck one's own pud. (Some Jews go so far as to believe that only Jews have souls, or at least higher souls, whereas goyim have beastly souls or no souls at all. But then, Jews believe their God is the only true God and all other gods are bogus. In secular-modern terms, the Jewish Mind is the only true mind and the Jewish Body is the only true body, and all goyim must bow down before the Jewish khans.) Because Judaism is about body + spirit, it is better grounded. Sure, it suffers vis-a-vis Christianity in that the latter, being a conversion-religion, has infinitely more members. On the other hand, because Christians are made up of diverse peoples, they can never come together on much of anything. Diverse Christians may believe themselves to be united in spirit, but it just so happens to be that the body trumps the spirit. Take communism. Even though Russia and China were 'spiritually' united by Marxism, they split apart along racial-ethnic-national lines. Same with the tensions between China and Vietnam. And between Russia and Tito's Yugoslavia. In contrast, because the body is so crucial to being Jewish, even secular Jews and religious Jews tend to see more eye-to-eye on the basis of shared blood.

It is no wonder that Jews have such power over Christians(and post-Christians). Jews feel the power of both the Jewish spirit and Jewish body. And the Jewish spirit feels stronger with the empowerment of the Jewish body. It's like hair and power went together in Samson. In contrast, the Christian ideally rises higher with the negation of the body. It's not about the union of the spirit and body but the transcendence of the spirit from the body. And this body can mean the sins associated with individual pride/vanity, personal ambition, kinship, tribalism, and nationalism. Ideally at least, all such must be rejected by Christians. Of course, Christian history is rife with counter-examples, those of Christians being familial, racial, territorial, and/or nationalist, as well as narcissistic, vain, and hedonistic. However, given the core tenets of Christianity, those could be critiqued as betrayal of Christianity's spiritual ideal. In contrast, one cannot fault a Jew for being body-centered in terms of individuality, family, tribality, and/or nationality because the Jewish Covenant is about the indivisible union of the Jewish body with the Jewish spirit. Jews don't need the bodily sacrifice of Jesus Christ to have bodily pride and worth. The Covenant blessed the Jewish pud and what comes out of it. In contrast, because Christianity abhors the sinful body, Christians must rely on the divine body of Christ. Why do Catholics eat Jesus crackers? Because their own bodies have no intrinsic value, they rely on the succor provided by the flesh and blood of Jesus in the form of wafers and wine. They must partake of the body of God because their own bodies are mere vessels of their spirits that really matter. In contrast, a Jew has pride in his body because of the Covenant that goes back to Abraham's penis.

It's no wonder then that whites in elite colleges are so easily manipulated by Jews. Unlike Jews whose souls are one with their bodies, Christian and Post-Christian whites strive for the separation and purification of their souls/spirits from their own sinful bodies, made all the more 'sinful' by association with 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. (Post-Christian whites have inherited the Christian mindset despite their secular outlooks.) But it's simply unnatural for people to reject the body. Whether it's E = MC2 or S(spirit) = B(body)C2, energy/spirit wants to be grounded in matter/body. Jews don't have this problem as the Covenant unites body and soul. Both the Jewish body and soul are holy. In contrast, the body is sinful and only the spirit can be good in Christianity. Christians must outsource their longing for the body to Jesus whose body is the true body for all Christians. Only Jesus's body is pure because it is divine, and it was sacrificed for the salvation of mankind. So, man must partake of Jesus's flesh and blood via wafers and wine in communion rituals. In secular terms, it means whites must be pure in their abstract-universal principles at the expense of tribal interests(tarnished with sinful 'racism').
Ideally speaking, Christians should make peace with their rejection of the body, BUT human nature being what it is, Christians nevertheless hanker for the body. As their own bodies must be rejected, they satisfy their body-hunger two ways. They seek out new bodies for conversion to Christ. Even though the converted bodies must also reject the Body in favor of the Spirit, there is the excitement of the 'hunt' for new bodies. Conversion turns into a kind of spiritual hunting trip, a head count. Christian true-believers seek out new converts. In contrast, neo-christians(those who use the religion as tool for secular agendas) and post-christians satiate their body-craving by fixating on bodies of the Other that has been sanctified by the Jews who control the gods. Jews say Jewish bodies are sacred, black bodies are sacred, and homo bodies are sacred; and to a lesser extent but still far more so than white bodies, the nonwhite immigrant-diverse-bodies have some sanctity. So, the body-deprived whites seek body-meaning and body-significance by attaching themselves to the Bodies of Others.
In the past, as good Christians, their body-craving was relieved via Communion rituals involving the flesh and blood of Jesus. Today, as neo-christians and post-christians, their sense of sanctity depends on Jews who control the media and academia. So, Jews get to say what is godly and what is demonic. White bodies and souls are demonic, whereas Jews, blacks, and homos are divine in body and soul. This emphasis on the body(as wedded to the soul) as opposed to the primacy of the independent soul is a sign of how much Western culture has gone from Christian to Judaic. Christianity sought to separate the spirit from the body whereas Judaism says the Jewish body and soul are inseparable and indivisible. Christianity is like the Jedi Order. Even after the body is gone, the soul lives on as when Ben Kenobi outlived his body and advised Luke Skywalker. To Jews, the Shoah is especially horrific because they hold their bodies sacred. A Christian believes that, even if destroyed in body, he can be triumphant in spirit. Jew thinks his soul is gone along with the spirit when killed by lowly goyim. Of course, Jews suffer from a certain complex about the body. Jews value their bodies far more than Christian whites do, but the 'Aryans' are more proud of their looks than Jews are. Indeed, Jewish men like Woody Allen, Philip Roth, and Harvey Weinstein have been lusting after 'Aryan' bodies. So, it's as if... Christo-Aryans, despite their anti-body beliefs, have bodies worthy of pride, whereas Judeo-Semites, despite their pro-body convictions, feel a lot of negativity about their bodies(except in puddishness, as with Ron Jeremy who could suck his own thing.) In a way, blacks have moved from being Christo-Blacks to Judeo-Blacks. If, under white Protestant influence, they sought to separate the body from the soul, over time the black soul and black body re-merged because the black soul is inseparable from the jungle jive of the black body. Also, their physical success in sports and music have made blacks far more proud and conscious of their bodies as the definitive markers of blackness. Besides, while the 'body' can mean face-and-body, blacks tend to be more literally body-centric because their faces and hair are deemed less attractive. Black girls feel, "I's make pretty white bitch ugly with my fist."

Anyway, the Jewish Way is more like chess because the Jewish Worldview isn't as simple as the Christian Worldview, which is more like checkers, black pieces vs red pieces. Christianity sees the world in terms of Good vs Evil, and this goodness is a matter of the spirit. Thus, it doesn't favor any individual(except Jesus and to a lesser extent the Apostles), dynasty, tribe, or nation. It's a matter of the heart, and ANYONE ANYWHERE ANYTIME can be part of this goodness. And this goodness must be about his or her individual adherence to what is spiritually good and pure. In checkers, all pieces are equal in value, and the game is simply of matter of red pieces vs black pieces. There is no hierarchy among the pieces, and the objective is merely to win with no thought of the special value of any particular piece. Christianity is like that. There is no individual or family or tribe or nation that has special value. The objective is for the Good to triumph over Evil. This makes Christianity far more Manichean than Judaism but for the fact that its message of love, forgiveness, and compassion softens the hostile judgmentalism so intrinsic to Christianity.
Chess is different. Not all pieces are equal in value, and the ultimate objective is to protect the king(as you try to trap the opponent's king). So, even though chess is also about two opposing sides, it's not as simple as checkers in its objective and strategy. In checkers, all pieces have equal value and play according to the same rules to beat the other side. In chess, some pieces are lower in value while some others are higher in value, and the king is most important. And yet, the king hardly plays the game. Other pieces are more 'powerful' in terms of movement and attack, and yet they are expendable, even the queen, whereas the king must be protected to the very end. (And even when the game is over, the king on the loser side isn't killed but only 'checkmated'. So, both kings make it out alive no matter which side wins. It's like Neocon Kings remain on the board even when Liberal Zionist Kings win. In chess, white king uses his white pieces against the black king, and the black king uses his black pieces against the white king, but regardless of what happens, both kings remain on the board when the game is over. This is why Jews fare differently than other groups in the 'left' vs 'right' conflict. While goy 'left' really hates and wants to demolish the goy 'right' and vice versa, the Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' are like kings on the chessboard who, when the dust settles, will make it out alive as fellow kings.)
Ideally speaking, Christianity seeks to convert all of humanity and deems each and every Christian to be equal in value, and their mission is to fight Evil, which could be just as much among their own families, tribes, and families as elsewhere. The Jewish Way stands in contrast with a profoundly different worldview. Jewish Power is the King on the chessboard that must be protected at all times whereas the other pieces are projected to attack the other side. Those pieces, even the valuable queen, are expendable, sometimes in spectacular gambits. What matters in the end is that the King is protected and safe. In the Jewish Mind, the Jews are the King, never ever expendable. All other pieces are expendable. Jews are to be protected, goyim are to be projected. It's like neocons strategize Wars for Israel that are fought by goyim who do the killing and the dying. In checkers, all pieces are both equally valuable and equally expendable. In chess, the King is totally precious whereas all other pieces are expendable. While the queen is many times more valuable than a pawn, it too is sacrificed when necessary. (This is why Anglos are dumb to ally with Jews. No matter how much Jews appreciate Anglo power as partner, it can be, at best, the queen and never a fellow-king. However close the alliance, Anglos regard Jews as indispensable whereas Jews regard Anglos as dispensable. In the UK, Anglos go out on a limb to defend Jewishness and Israel whereas Jews, both 'left' and 'right', do everything to undermine Anglo identity and pride. Anglos can only feel the pride of servility to the King Jew.) The highest objective in Christianity is the triumph of the good(of the spirit) against evil, whereas the highest objective in Judaism is Jewish dominion over goyim. Even though Christian history has been compromised and hypocritical, true-blue Christians are supposed to choose spirit over body and join with the Good against what is deemed Evil. In contrast, Jewishness prioritizes the unique and special role of Jews in the world. They must be ABOVE the filthy goyim. Jews, in body and soul, are the Chosen of God(and/or History or Evolution)and, as the superior race, must have mastery and supremacy over the lesser races and groups. Thus, the Jewish concept of the highest good isn't some abstract notion of Good at war with Evil but the specific conviction that there is no higher good in the world than the elevated status. And to procure the highest good of Jewish supremacism, the Tribe is allowed, indeed compelled, to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to protect the King(the Jews) while projecting the goyim as the tools and weapons of Jews. Indeed, in the Old Testament, there are moments when the Jewish God seems to make a pact with Satan, just like the 'good' brother in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS calls on the 'bad' brother, the gangster, to carry out the dirty work to protect the 'good' brother's good name. (Interestingly enough, Jerry Orbach who played the gangster-brother had a similar role in PRINCE OF THE CITY. While the young Christian cop wants to be soul-cleansed of his guilt, the seasoned Jewish cop is above all about protecting his own skin. A Christian, to save the soul, will betray his partners-in-crime. A Jew, to protect the body, will not betray his tribal partners.)

This is why quasi-satanism among Jews isn't really satanism, the stupid kind where people really worship the Devil or Satan as the highest being. Rather, Jews regard Satan as the necessary fixer, bouncer, gangster, and etc. who does the dirty but necessary work. Thus, even as Jews regard the satanic as dark and troubling, they see it is useful and valuable. Of course, Christians have done plenty of satanic things and have made quasi-satanic pacts of their own, but this reflects far worse on them because the highest good according to Christianity is the purity of the spirit at war with Evil. There can be no compromise with Evil in Ideal Christianity. Therefore, Christianity comes off far more hypocritical and tarnished in its failings. In contrast, as the highest good according to Jews is the Covenant that places Jews higher than all other races, whatever they do is deemed at least halfway justified IF it serves to protect Jewish body-and-soul as the King. It's like how the Corleones use the buffers. Some are more valued than others but they are all expendable. What really matters is The Family. Losing Luca Brasi or Rocco was unfortunate but part of doing business. But losing Sonny was deeply tragic. And it was the near-loss of his father that led Michael back into The Family. And even though Michael had several people killed, what he can't get over is the fact that he killed his brother Fredo; of course, Fredo was part of a plot that nearly had Michael killed. Even though Michael has a general sense of good and bad, his concept of the highest good is The Family. What's good for The Family is the highest good, something that cannot be understood by Kay, who is especially unforgivable in Michael's eyes because she killed his son(because in her post/neo-Christian mentality, the 2,000 yr Sicilian Thing had to end; not only Fredo, his own brother, but Kay, his own wife, was plotting against The Family, and Kay was the only one who was really successful).
Jews feel the same way. For all their pretense of 'liberalism' and 'cosmopolitanism', their highest and deepest sense of good is the protection of the Jewish body-and-soul as the King of the world-as-chessboard. It's not that Jews don't see real value in liberalism, cosmopolitanism, and a host of other -isms they are associated with, but they don't see any of them as the highest good. As the preservation of Jewish body-and-soul and Jewish Power is deemed the highest good, whatever -ism or agenda must be made to suit Jewish Interests. This is what white-cucks don't understand. They think, "We played the role of Queen and acted as the most powerful and effective enforcer of the Jewish King's will. Therefore, Jews surely value us the most." Yes, Jews value whites the most but not as a fellow-king but as an instrument. Paradoxically, precisely because Jews value whites as the best tool, they are most hostile to any sign of white pride and independence. Even though the Queen is the most powerful piece in the game of chess, it is not the most important piece. Its role is to serve the King. Jews see whites this way. They value white powerfulness as utility but they abhor white power as agency. Jews berate whites about 'white supremacism' because they want to maintain control over whites as the supreme tool of Jewish Power.
This is why everything Jews do must be taken with a grain of salt. Take globo-homo. Do Jews really worship the homo anus? No. Rather, it's that they value globo-homo as a useful tool to penetrate, subvert, and weaken goy societies. So, when Jews celebrate globo-homo, it's different from the goy celebration of it. In effect, Jews celebrate their power over goyim, whereas goyim unwittingly celebrate their servility under Jews. To Jews, globo-homo is merely one more of their tools of power. To childlike Christians, globo-homo might as well be the highest good, higher than god and jesus who, in the neo/post-christian mind, exist only to serve the latest fads and fashions televangelized by the Jewish-run media and entertainment complex. Because they live inside the Jewish Technicolor Dream, they haven't awakened to the truth of how so much they see and hear are figments of the Jewish Power Game and how they are little more than pawns. Jews are not only pawnbrokers but pawn-makers. Of course, Jews cleverly labeled the state of goy hypnosis under the Jewish Spell as being 'woke'. In effect, 'woke' goyim think they are 'awake' but it's only within the Jewish dream.

In the Christian concept of God, there can be no compromise with Satan. There is Good, there is Evil, and the church must be on the side of the Good. If it failed at that, it must atone and seek redemption. In the Jewish concept of God, what really matters is the Covenant between God and the Jews. As that is most important, a pact with Satan or satanic forces is deemed justifiable and/or necessary IF it serves the higher good of the Covenant. Anything to protect the King because as Mel Brooks said in THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1, "It's good to be the King."

It is no wonder white goyim are more childlike in both their goodness and evil. When they want to be good, they really get goody-goody. When they want to be evil, they really give themselves to the Devil. For white goyim, goodness is the purity of the spirit(or ideology), and evil is the total surrender to the flesh, desire, and beastliness. In contrast, the highest concept of good in Jewishness isn't some abstract-universal principle, spiritual or ideological, but the fusion of the Jewish spirit and body with God, Destiny, or History. As white goyim believe the ultimate good is higher than white folks(or any folks), they feel compelled to choose the good over their own kind IF the triumph of goodness demands the demise of white folks. When confronted with having to choose between (1) triumph of goodness and demise of white folks AND (2) the fall of goodness and preservation of the white race, they feel compelled to go with (1). Jews need not worry about this problem because their highest concept of goodness is the union of Jewish bodies and souls as the rulers of destiny under the protection of God or by the trajectory of History. Because Jewish bodies are holy and glow with the spirit(which is never entirely separate from the body in the Christian Way), Jews need not choose between spirit(good) and body(bad). For Jews, the highest concept of the good cannot exclude the preservation and triumph of the Jewish Tribe.
But because that potential does exist in Christianity in which the highest good is separate from the body(of the individual, family, tribe, nation, etc), Jews figured out a way to exploit it by persuading whites that the ultimate good(at least for white goyim) can be achieved ONLY BY the way of white demise via 'white guilt', miscegenation(especially with blacks), Diversity, Afromania, and cuckery to Jews who feel extreme possessive-hostility toward the white race. (Possessive-hostility is more problematic than repulsive-hostility. When Japan forbade foreigners, they were hostile to foreigners encroaching on their land. Their hostility was about wanting to be left alone. They neither wanted to be controlled by foreigners or control the foreigners. It was the sort of hostility where Japanese would have their own world, and non-Japanese would have their own. In contrast, Jews practice a possessive-hostility whereby they feel extreme levels of fear, paranoia, resentment, contempt, and hatred for goyim BUT seek to possess and control them as human canines-and-cattle for Jews. Whereas Japanese hostility was about "Leave us alone", Jewish hostility is about "We won't leave you alone.")
Because the way Jews think and how they see the world and themselves, they are never into being totally good or totally evil in the abstract moral sense 'spiritually' severed from the material world. Just like Karl Marx thought Ideas only mattered in relation to Material Reality, Jews believe matters of the soul make sense only in relation to the matters of the body. So, if Christian spirit seeks to rise above the body — indeed, Christianity was about distilling and separating the spirituality inherent in Judaism from its tribal body — , the Jewish spirit seeks the most perfect union with the Jewish body. If Chinese came to regard their domain as the Middle Kingdom, Jews regard their Tribe as the Middle People. No matter where Jews are, they are the center of the universe due to the Covenant. In this sense, the Jewish Way is far more powerful than the Chinese Way. The latter is territorial-bound(meaning Chinese-ness means little or nothing outside China), whereas Jewishness is front-and-center for Jews no matter where they are because what-they-are always trumps where-they-are. Take Henry Kissinger. He was willing to shake hands with everyone and cut any deal. A mere satanic nihilist or gangster-thug? He could act in such manner, but all said and done, his ultimate goal was in service of Jewish Power. So, if a goy satanist serves the Devil, the Jewish satanist makes the Devil serve the Covenant. In the Faustian pact, the goy surrenders his soul to the Devil for momentary triumph. In the Talmudic pact, the Jew shakes hands with the Devil to secure Jewish power for the long haul.

Paradoxically, white Christians, Post-Christians, and Neo-Christians, whose mental habits and outlooks are far more moralistic than that of Jews, are morally enthralled with Jews whose way is far more opportunistic and strategic, shamelessly shaking hands with both angels and demons, both ultimately in service of Tribal Power. Why would this be? Wouldn't the morally purist feel judgmental toward the morally pragmatic or compromised? It's like the judge looks down on the gangster. But the drawback of being a purist is being prone to feel more sensitive about one's own shortcomings and failings(regarded as betrayals). A gangster is shameless in his criminality, whereas a judge charged of accepting bribes becomes a figure of disgrace. In THE GODFATHER PART 2, Kay is judgmental toward Michael, and she can get away with it because she herself is without guilt. She plays no part in the family enterprise, and her hands are clean. Even the aborting/killing of her own son was to end the sinister 2,000 yr Sicilian Thing. So, she doesn't feel bad about judging Michael, and he has no moral defenses against her. The purist has the advantage as long as he/she has clean hands. If indeed the history of Christianity had been pristine in its spirituality and morality, Christians could easily judge and condemn Jews. But imagine if Kay herself had taken part in the family business and got blood on her hands as well, like Lady Macbeth. Then, her purism would seem worse in reeking of hypocrisy. One thing for sure, Christian History has been a bloody, corrupt, and monstrous affair(like all other histories), but it's much easier to bait Christian Guilt because Christianity is far more moralistic and purist than either Judaism and Islam. Judaism always maintained, "Do whatever is good for Jews", and Islam always maintained, "Kick lots of butt to spread Islam." In contrast, the religion of 'Turn the Other Cheeks' piled up dead bodies like any other. Because of this discrepancy between Christian purism and Western gangsterism, the Christian mind is likely to feel more self-loathing precisely because it's more self-righteous. This is quite evident among the post-Christian 'woke' whites who are so utterly self-righteous and self-loathing at the same time.
Other than the fact that Judaism is as morally shameless(at least vis-a-vis goyim) as Christianity is shameful(of its failings), the Jewish control of media and key institutions has allowed Jews to concoct a new cult around Shoah, aka Holocaustianity, that would have us believe that the entire history of Jews and white goyim has been one of innocent and wise Jews having been set upon by white Christians burning with utterly irrational fantasies about Jews, and this eventually led to the mass-crucifixion of Jews in the Holocaust as new christs. Initially, the victorious Allied powers readily accepted the New Narrative as it seemed mainly anti-German. As Germany had been seen as the main threat to the European Order dominated by UK, France, and Russia, it seemed like a good idea to use the Shoah to guilt-bait the Germans and keep them weak militarily forever. But these victor-goyim didn't know what the Jews really had in store for them. Initially, the Germans would be blamed but then the blame would spread like a forest fire and accuse ALL Europeans of either collaboration, cowardice, or apathy. In time, all the West came to share in the guilt, and they felt compelled to showcase their philosemitic bona-fides in ever more delirious ways to prove that, at they very least, they were better than the Germans. In time, France and UK went from pride of having defeated evil Nazi Germany to the shame of not having done enough to prevent Hitler and contain Germany.

It's far easier for a chess player to master checkers than a checkers player to master chess. It's no wonder the Jewish chess-mind easily understands and toys with the white goy mind, whereas the white checkers-mind doesn't seem able to grasp the essence of the Jewish Mind. In a nutshell, body-and-soul folks will win over body-vs-soul people. Jews seek "body + soul = covenant", whereas Christians seek "soul - body = salvation". Jewish Way is more in tune with nature and culture, whereas the Christian way is ultimately negating of life and worldly power. For those who say, "But Christian World once produced lots of babies and grew in power," it was due to Hypochristianity that took some moral/spiritual guidance from the Faith but hardly heeded it in worldly affairs.
The Christian mind thinks in binaries of Good vs Evil, and of course 'good' and 'evil' are defined and determined not by the ranks of the Faithful(as most of them are either dumb or anemic) but by the controllers of the institutions that decide on the Narratives, Icons, and Idols. So, the content can change even as the mindset remains intact. Christians used to believe homosexuality was devilish and evil. Today, most Mainline types believe homosexuality is divine whereas 'homophobia' is evil. Jews figure, "Why alter the Christian mental structure when WE Jews control the contents?" It's like, given the dog's mentality, it can be made to hunt the rabbit or hug it. Dog 'thinks' in terms of 'affection' or 'attack'. It is the master who decides whether a dog should be nice to something or bite it to death. For most of Christian history, anti-Jewish Christian elites dominated the content of Christianity. They told their flock, "Jews killed Jesus, Jews must convert." So, the Christian community was united against Jewish power. Today, Jews control the content of Western Thought, of which Christianity is a part(and no longer the dominant one but one that follows the media and academia controlled by Jews). Thus, Christian mindset has been turned against itself. The purist witch-hunting mentality still exists among Christians, neo-christians, and post-christians, but it's been turned against 'anti-semites', 'homophobes', 'xenophobes', and the like. Jews can get away with stuff like this because the white mentality, shaped for so long by Christianity, sees the world in terms of binaries, or like a game of checkers.
In contrast, the Jewish chess-like mentality thinks along the lines of 'triangulation', which was Henry Kissinger's favorite way of manipulating world affairs and events. Of course, goy elites were well-aware of the 'triangulation' strategy and used it themselves, but it went against the Christian ethos of straight Good vs Evil. Also, as the goy elites were kings and noblemen rooted in warrior code, there was the matter of honor, a straight face-to-face battle against the enemy. Though foot-soldiers bore the brunt as cannon fodder in wars, the fact is many officers died in World War I. They didn't just send men into battle but led the charge. Thus, many upper-class folks also lost their sons in the war. It was about honor, a notion that is laughable to Jews. In the game of checkers, all pieces are equal and take part in the fight. In chess, some pieces are more expendable. Pawns are the most expendable and moved first on the board. The more powerful pieces remain behind and are mobilized later. And the King rarely joins the battle and is mostly protected. Unlike English officers who believed it was their duty to die with their men(or go down with the ship), Jews think, "Let the idiot goyim fight and die as pawns, knights, bishops, rooks, and even the queen. We Jews are the king and protect ourselves and persuade idiot goyim to fight for us." It's been said Israel has one of the best militaries in the world, but notice how Jews rarely employ it in battle and instead urge US to expend its goy military to fight the 'enemies' of Israel. Jews are the masters of 'leading from behind', and goy idiots are all enthused about 'following at the front'. Ideally, Christianity wants to turn everyone into a good Christian. Everyone is to be of One Mind and, as an equal among equals with the blessings of Jesus, he is to join forces with fellow Christians to convert the whole world. It's sort of like INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, and who knows, perhaps Jews see the BODYSNATCHERS as an allegory of Christians trying to rob Jews of what makes them unique, eccentric, and different. Christianity is about creating a world of spiritual equality where all have been converted to Christ. Thus, no person or no group is higher than any other. In contrast, Jewishness is about the hierarchy of spirituality where the Jewish soul(and body) is the highest whereas goyim either have lesser souls or no souls at all. No wonder Stanley Kubrick was interested in military affairs with its ranks and hierarchy. At the bottom are the expendable soldiers, like the ones in FULL METAL JACKET. Higher up, there are the officers, and at the top are the generals. But even higher than the generals are the strategists, like the devious figure in PATHS OF GLORY who plays everyone like pieces on a chessboard. He is rather like Henry Kissinger who could seem like an ally, friend, or confidante to anyone who would listen to him but who, in his innermost core, was a Jewish Supremacist. In the end, Nixon was far more expendable than him. Most of so-called 'woke' idiots are just pawns. Bob Dylan and many Jewish leftists in the early 60s sang anti-war songs and warned regular Americans that they were just 'a pawn in the game'. Back then, many Jews felt an affinity with the USSR(where Jewish Bolsheviks had come to some prominence) and regarded the US military & deep state to be dominated by right-wing 'antisemitic' reactionary types. But today, Jews control the deep state, and the last thing they want goyim to think is that they are mere pawns in the mind-game and power-game played by Jews. Jews want goy pawns to remain stupid pawns.

It's been said Jews are parasitic, but white goyim have also been parasitic in their own way. Goy noblemen weren't forced to recruit Jews to serve as 'money-changers'. They outsourced the 'dirty work' to others because they preferred to hunt and attend dance parties. Jews exploited this, but the goy elites used the Jews to exploit their own subjects.
But goyim are vampiric in another way. The denial of one's own body in Christianity made Christians hungry for The Body. But body-centrism was associated with sinful paganism, especially with Greeks and Romans with their nude figures(and activities). Pagans proudly flashed their private parts, even if flaccid in most sculptures. In contrast, images of Jesus were associated with the torment of the body. Jesus didn't take pride in the body but rose above its fall. And unlike with pagan gods, Jesus images didn't feature His pud or buns. Despite the Scriptures recalling how the Romans stripped Him naked, the paintings show the private parts covered.
The Christian hankering for the body led them back to paganism via the Renaissance, but because Christianity had a troubled relation to paganism as mythos and practices, the neo-paganist expression was justified by emphasizing the figures in the Bible. Thus, the Jewish Body was 'paganized' and revered as objects of quasi-idol-worship. Or, more precisely, the 'Aryan' body was labeled as Jewish. Take the statue by Michelangelo of David. It's clearly an 'Aryan' figure(much like Charlton Heston's Moses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) but the features are ascribed to a Jewish figure who probably looked more like Adam Sandler or Bob Dylan. Renaissance artists brought back the idolization of Aryan features but 'redeemed' as reverent depictions of Semites in the Holy Scriptures.
Unable to take pride in their own bodies, the Christians outsourced the pride of body to a combination of Semitism and Aryanism. Old Testament made for better subject material for heroic representation because it was about kings and warriors as well as about prophets and wise-men. Moses was like a general who led an army of Hebrews. Samson was a tough guy. David was a warrior-king. There was some fight in the Old Testament, the power of muscle. In contrast, the New Testament is ultimately about the destruction of Jesus's body at the hands of Jews and Romans. It's tragic but not heroic.
As a result, Christians became vampiric toward Jews in a way. In the Old Testament, the body still mattered as a force of power, justice, and good. Ideally, Christianity was about 'turn the other cheek' and rejection of flesh in search of spiritual truth. But human nature within Christians made them crave the body just the same. It's like the Apathetics in ZARDOZ are vampiric toward Zed's virile body. And today, whites are vampiric toward Jews and blacks. Whites, deprived of pride of tribal/racial identity, leech off on Jewish nationalism for vitality. (But then, it's mutual vampirism as Jews exploit the white thirst for Jewish nationalism and turn it into unconditional support for Israel and praise for Jews. A kind of symbio-vampirism.) Whites, denied of triumph in sports by black dominance, get their kicks by cheering for black athletes and identify with bad-boy rappers. (Again, it's mutually vampiric as whites leech off black victories while blacks leech off white money.)

Well, what is to be done about all this? Who knows as to where to begin? But we can make a few observations and pose a few questions that may lead us in the right path.

For example, consider the pride of the Hick Jew and compare it with the shame of the Hick Goy. One reason for the White Demise is putting class/status above identity-individuality. So, when small town 'hick' whites get some higher education and spend time in the big city, they soon turn against their small town background and folks, dismissing them as small-minded, bigoted, and ignorant. Now, given that there's much to learn in college and to experience in the big city, this is understandable. Still, if white folks had a powerful sense of identity and individuality, they would retain a pride of self, memory, and community. But as they don't, they are eager to abandon all vestiges of their hick-ness and be accepted into respectable community. This is why so many Southern elites became such worthless cuck maggots. They got some fancy education at an Ivy League college and spent time in affluent and 'sophisticated' cities and feel they are above Southern small-town hicks who are still into the Confederate flag and folk culture. This is what National Socialism understood. Even as modernity was inevitable and unstoppable in the 20th century, a people mustn't forget their volkish roots. Modern educated folks gravitate to cities of glass and steel, but they mustn't forget their origins in blood and soil, the volkish thing. Jews spit on such notions, but they are hypocrites because they have long understood and appreciated the power of volkish culture among themselves. Indeed, what did the Bible do but anchor Jews in volkish culture of their ancestors? And what is THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF about but Jewish sense of volk? Jews in the Pale of Settlement emigrated to the US and became affluent urban folks, BUT the musical reminds Jews, "This is our roots, don't be ashamed of it, and never forget where you came from." Pauline Kael said it's one of the most powerful movies ever made despite trying to downplay its Jewishism and pretending the message is essentially 'American', but who was she kidding? If it has any power, it derives from the unmistakably volkish expression of Jewishness.

And given her family business of chicken-farming, she probably identified on some level with its rural setting. But the Jew isn't only grounded in the soil(and he better not be as he lives in exile in goy lands) but connected to the Heaven. The fiddler who follows the Jewish milkman around is like a conduit to God. The archetype resurfaces in Coen Brothers' A SERIOUS MAN with the antennae on the roof. An antennae that picks up neo-divine signals beamed all across America. Its power is both threatening and empowering to Jews. Threatening because Jewish households will also become addicted to TV with its generic deracinating fare, and yet empowering because Jews control the media and get to pick the idols, images, and narratives of Good vs Evil. Indeed, mass media have been mostly deracinating for whites but often 'racinating' for Jews as news and entertainment usually demean any expression of white identity as 'white supremacism' while consecrating any expression of Jewishness as holy, wise, wonderful, ennobling, and/or endearing.

https://www.haaretz.com/life/television/.premium-why-topol-is-winning-the-israel-prize-1.5349601

https://forward.com/culture/145862/pauline-kael-left-jewish-imprint-on-criticism/

Because of the volkish hick pride among Jews, they are stronger than white goyim who so easily succumb to anxiety of status-deficiency. It's so often the case that a small town white goy totally abandons his roots and background after getting his college degree and living in some globo-homo town. His main desire is to be accepted and approved by the 'better kind of people'. No hick pride among goyim. THE GREAT GATSBY offers a glimpse of the goy mentality. There is nothing there in Gatsby except the dream of belonging, being accepted, being loved. Everything he does is on the basis of how Daisy and her better-kind-of-people will think of him.
In contrast, consider figures such as Ayn Rand, Pauline Kael, Bob Dylan, the Coen Brothers, and etc. Now, these folks aren't exactly hicks in the literal sense. They were of middle class or upper-middle class background and were pretty learned(or at least well-educated by the standards of the time). But relatively speaking, they were 'hick' Jews compared to those already well-established in the financial/cultural capitals of the world. And yet, Dylan had all the pride in the world. He didn't look up to NY-ers as his superior. He thought HE knew best and toyed with them. Kael's chicken-farming background didn't make her feel inferior to New York elites with far more illustrious backgrounds. She wrote her heart out and never for approval. And Ayn Rand, though from Russia, thought she knew America better than Americans did and began to berate them on what's what. Coens, like Dylan, came from some town in Minneapolis but never felt any inferiority toward those in NY, LA, or any bigger city. Deep down inside, they got some of that volkish 'hick' pride.
Even though everyone is mindful of class, status, and such things to an extent, some have a sense of worth and pride that is independent of social rank. Whites need to regain this hick-ish sense of volkish pride. This pride is a combination of both individuality and identity. Jews are both more individualist and more identitarian than whites. Unlike whites who tend to see the world in binaric terms of 'individuality' vs 'identity', Jews think in terms of 'individual' and 'identity', just like Jews fuse body and soul together in the Covenant. Some whites think that because Jews are big on identity, they must be weak on individuality. But this isn't so. Figures like Bob Dylan and Philip Roth showed one could be big on identity and individuality. (Even when Jews say they are proud Americans, they really mean, "We Jews are proud of having taken over America and using it for our tribal ends." It isn't so much a pride of belonging to America as of America belonging to the Tribe.) The problem with National Socialism was it sacrificed individuality on the altar of identity. Thus, all those Germans, robbed of their individuality, became mindless minions of Hitler who led them to war. Had they retained their individuality within an order dedicated to identity, they would have told Hitler to bugger off when the Fuhrer got too itchy for war and aggression.

Consider the Eastern European Jews in relation to the Anglo-Germanic Jews who'd arrived in the US earlier and were well-established in their own right. One would think the later-arriving Eastern European Jews would have been obsequious to the richer and better established Anglo-German Jews, but the hickish Eastern European Jews were full of chutzpah and, if anything, often ridiculed the fancy-pants Jews for their aspirational pretensions. They retained hick pride. Compare that to German-Americans who totally cucked and abandoned all their Germanness to be accepted into Anglo-America. Even though UK had no good reason to enter WWI and US even less so, the Anglo World declared war on Germany in World War I. And what did German-Americans do? Most of them cucked like maggots and sucked up to Anglos. Had they retained their hick-volkish pride, they would have done everything to prevent the insane war between Anglos and Germans. They would have done everything to bring the Anglo world and Germanic world closer together as equal partners. But they chose to be subordinate to the Anglos. It goes to show that Germans, when push comes to shove, care more about status and class than blood and soil. The good thing about National Socialism was it understood the worth of blood and soil, but its suppression of individuality meant lack of criticism of Der Fuhrer who in time turned the movement into a personality cult. Eastern European Jews didn't suck up to Anglo-German Jews, but German-Americans sucked up to Anglo-Americans(who in time sucked up to Jewish-Americans). Now, one might defend status-and-class in terms of meritocracy. After all, the more talented rise higher in society, and if one prioritizes class/status over tribe/race, it translates into ability > identity. And favoring ability over identity means less corruption as rewards are based on skill and achievement. So far so good. But what if the most capable group not only wins via meritocracy but uses identity as a focal point to expand their power? While Jews certainly gained much via real ability and achievement, they also use their great wealth to pull all manner of dirty tricks and profit from corruption. But in the minds of whites, the mental picture of 'Jewish Ability = Jewish Power' has led to an idolization of Jews to the point where they cannot be criticized for anything. So, in the end, Anglo rejection of identity didn't lead to abandonment of identity in favor of ability among all groups but to the protection of corruption and abuse of Jewish Power. Also, racial differences are bound to lead to the breakdown of meritocracy in a diverse society. On meritocratic grounds, blacks cannot compete well with Jews, whites, and Asians in the more cerebral fields. So, blacks resort to identity politics to get their 'share of the pie', and since non-blacks are either too 'nice' or too afraid to point out that blacks lag behind due to innate inferiorities in brain power, elaborate excuses are cooked up to excuse black failure. This is useful to Jews in promoting 'white guilt', which Jews manipulate to make whites support Jewish tyranny in the Middle East.

Now, I'm not saying being an ignorant-hick-bumpkin is a good idea. No need for white folks to be like the backwoods backdoor homos in DELIVERANCE. Still, the sight of status-anxious white people sucking up to whatever is deemed 'socially acceptable' or 'culturally trendy' is sickening. It's the same with the Japanese and other East Asians who, upon separation from their roorts and/or cultures, only show eagerness to gain the acceptance of the Prevailing Power and Narrative. It goes to show that most goyim have weak identities. (Perhaps Hindus are different in that Hinduism is an ethno-religion like Judaism though it's about Karma-and-Dharma than about the Covenant.) Jews have hick pride because even a Jew from the relative 'backwoods'(Minnesota than L.A., Russia or Poland than UK or US, etc.) has the pride of heritage and identity. Even if he or she is less learned, less well-read, less sophisticated, and less-whatever, he or she feels equal to the fancy Jew because his/her identity as a Jew is equal to any Jew. In GREAT EXPECTATIONS, Pip is so eager to be a gentleman and accepted by good society. He feels inferior as a lad from a poor family and later superior as a gentleman with high expectations. His sense of worth is based on prestige of class and station. Contrast the hick-shame of Pip with the hick-pride of Harpo.

Even though Jews were also eager to rise up class ranks, their core sense of worth was based on something else. Even the milkman in THE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF is a proud Jew. This goes to show that the class-centric analysis of Karl Marx didn't really apply to Jews. Whether rich or poor, Jewish Consciousness was always Tribe-first, Class-second. Thus, Jewish hickery has a hardy pole to wrap itself around. In contrast, because whites have a weaker core identity, their hickery is just attitude and habits, easily abandoned once whites get some fancy learning and sophistication. Consider how weak all the white national identities turned out to be in the US. What happened to the Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Swedes, and etc? They are now just generic 'white'. If certain white identities continue to retain a certain distinction, it's more about food or behavior than heritage. Italians, for instance, are associated with the mafia. Poles with 'dumb polack jokes'. Germans with bratwurst and beer. Swedes with toothless do-goodiness. (Besides, does class have any real value other than wealth and privilege nowadays? There was a time when the upper classes held prestige because of their engagement with important ideas, high art, and serious culture. They were well-read in philosophy, appreciative of great works of literature-music-arts, and had a wider & deeper understanding of culture from its ancient roots to modern times. But what is the Big Idea among the educated elites in our time? There are 50 genders, Bruce Jenner with penis-and-balls is a 'woman', George Floyd is St. George, homo fecal-penetration is like the rainbow, diversity-inclusion-equity is holy mantra, a newly arrived Negro from Africa is an Irishman or Swede, Russia is evil because it builds churches than celebrates homos & trannies, purple hair & tattoos are 'cool', and BLACK PANTHER is the greatest movie ever made. How can anyone take this seriously? How can anyone feel culturally or intellectually inferior to such lunacy?)

So, what is to be done? One promising idea is something like the Bar Mitzvah for white goyim. The bogus-logus man E. Michael Jones simply doesn't understand the meaning of A SERIOUS MAN by the Coen Brothers. Coens are not nihilists, and their portrayal of the Jewish community in Minnesota is affectionate and endearing, not damning and contemptuous, as Jones argues.

DECAMERON | E. MICHAEL JONES: A SERIOUS MAN

The Jewish folks in the movie are distinct from goyim in certain ways, but they are also very much like other Americans. They keep up with the Joneses, and their kids are also into youth culture and even counterculture. And yet, despite all that, what sets the Jews apart from others? It's the Covenant passed down via rituals such as Bar Mitzvah. So, while the Asian student and his father are into passing exams and careerism(aka status) and the white father and his kid are into guns and hunting(like lumpen variation of noblemen or adventurers), the Jewish father and his son are into the continuity of the fusion of identity, culture, and heritage. The First Emotion of whites is the action, the fight, the hunt, the adventure, the conquest. Without action, whites sink like a shark, and become pale, anemic, and conformist. It's about the pride of initiating the son toward the first kill(or toward high school sports). The First Emotion of Asians is prestige, acceptance, and status. Everything else is secondary. It's about 'my son became a doctor.' While some Jews relish adventure and plenty of Jews prize prestige & status, their First Emotion is centered around the Covenant, and even many Jews who, in their youth, gave up identity and heritage, eventually return to them. When wayward whites finally return to Jesus, their white identity grows ever weaker. But when wayward Jews return to the Covenant, their identity gains in power.
Deracination is something faced by all peoples in the modern world. Consider the character Enid in GHOST WORLD. Her father is a deracinated Jew who eats bagels with grape jelly. He's a weak beta male with no will or control over her daughter who is lost and confused and seeks meaning from various forms of pop culture and sub-cultures. Some Jews do fall by the wayside and never find their way back. But for Jews who do choose to find a way back, there is a sense of heritage and home. In contrast, while Christianity offers a community, it doesn't provide a sense of home and heritage as it's a Faith for all peopled for all places. One has to know one's own history and heritage to be Jewish. In contrast, an Irishman doesn't have to know or feel anything Irish to be a good Christian. Catholics may point to the Communion and such rituals as a form of acculturation for their children, but what does a Catholic gain in terms of identity and heritage via religious rituals? Nothing, Zilch, Nada. After all, whereas Bar Mitzvah is only for people of Jewish ethnicity(and Hindu rituals are for those born Hindu), Catholic rituals aren't unique to any tribe, nationality, or race. They are performed for and practiced by anyone who is a Catholic, and it could be an Irishman, Italian, Nigerian, Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, or etc.

So, it is about time white folks bid farewell to Christianity(unless they can formulate a clever and useful kind of Christo-Realism). White folks must understand that the so-called New Covenant of Christianity isn't a Covenant at all. It is a contract and applies only to individuals. It doesn't apply to a people, ethnicity, or race. All Jews are part of the Covenant because of their ancestry, culture, and understanding of their duties & destiny. In contrast, even if one' is born of Christian parents, one isn't part of the Christian 'covenant' until one, as an individual, seeks out God, is baptized, and goes through such-and-such rituals. The contract doesn't pass from parents to children by blood as Christianity is about the spirit, not the body. Jewish Covenant is passed down and inherited. The Christian contract must be 'renewed' by every newborn individual. Also, as this contract is available to anyone who would accept Christ, it has no value in strengthening one's own people against others. After all, if your side is for Christ and the other side is also for Christ, which side does Christ favor? Christianity was never about choosing sides. Jesus appealed to individuals. Each individual must seek salvation, and success or failure depends on his individual effort. So, the Christian message is a heart-to-heart thing between God/Jesus and man-as-individual. So, if there's people A and people B, Jesus would never choose people A over people B or vice versa. Even if there were more Christians among people A than among people B, Jesus wouldn't favor people A against people B. Rather, he would favor the individuals among people A and people B who've signed His contract.
In contrast, the Jewish Covenant is about God favoring Jews as a people. It's also about Jews having to favor fellow Jews over goyim. According to the Covenant, God favors deeply flawed Jews over very nice goyim. And Jews feel obligated to favor not-so-good Jews over very good goyim. Notice how Jews even got Jonathan Pollard sprung from jail. They stick together. Indeed, the practice of pardoning prisoners in the US has turned into rich Jews using money to make whore politicians release Jewish crooks. Jews are so tribal-protective of Jewish bodies that they pulled all the stops to save Leo Frank even though he raped and murdered a child. In the Jewish Mind, the life of a Jewish murderer has more value than the life of a good goy, just like humans treat a bad human better than a good animal. Jews also did everything to prevent the executions of Leopold and Loeb. In a way, what Jews find intolerable is not so much the death of a Jew as the death of a Jew by goy hands. After all, Leopold and Loeb killed a Jewish child, and they would have been stoned to death by fellow Jews in earlier times. But Jews didn't want to see Jews killed by goyim. That's why Jews were livid with rage over the deaths of the Rosenbergs. Sure, the Rosenbergs were spies for the USSR, but how dare the filthy lowly goyim snuff out Jewish lives? If Jews must die, let it be Jews who do the killing. It's like blacks don't mind blacks killing blacks but get deeply offended when whites kill blacks. They react like aristocrats to the death of a nobleman at the hands of a peasant.

Christianity offers no higher vision than salvation of the individual. Consider BEST INTENTIONS, the film based on Ingmar Bergman's script. Bergman hated his father, a cruel and hypocritical Lutheran minister. Bergman identified Christianity with the failure of his father as individual. He didn't think of Christianity as a link between his father and all his ancestors. His father's spiritual failure made Bergman hostile to Christianity. In contrast, because Judaism is about a history and a people, a Jewish son is far less likely to be condemnatory and dismissive of the whole culture on the basis of his father's failure as a Jew. Jewishness is about history than biography. So, if a Jewish father was a bad Rabbi, that was his personal failing and doesn't reflect on the deep and rich history of Rabbis and the Jewish tradition. In contrast, salvation in Christianity depends entirely on an individual's virtue and piety before God and Jesus. Thus, his failure is total, and salvation is denied. Though Bergman's father remained a man of God all his life, he was a wretched failure in his son's eyes because of the cruelty, sadism, and overall hypocrisy. Had Bergman been Jewish and grown up under a nasty Rabbi, he could have hated his father but still honored the tradition of Rabbis. But as Christianity is about the salvation of individual or individuated souls, Bergman came to see his father's failure as abject and absolute, badly reflecting on the entire faith.

Because Christianity is about individual contracts, it can never bring the race together. It can even set people of the same race against one another through sectarian differences: Catholics vs Protestants, Protestant sect vs Protestant sect. Also, in these secular times, Christianity only applies to white Christians than to the white race(unlike in the past when Christianity was almost synonymous with white identity, power, and prestige). In contrast, because Jewishness is as ethnic as spiritual, even secular Jews are welcomed into the Tribe. But, no matter how white you are, white Christians won't welcome you unless you follow Christ(who doesn't favor any race or group).

This is why white folks need to embark on a prophetic search to seek a covenant for the white race. A unique covenant like what the Jews have. Those who speak of the Old Covenant(Jews) and the New Covenant(Christians) are missing the point. Jewish Covenant is a real covenant, and it is about the Jewish People and God. The so-called Christian Covenant is really just a series of individual contracts with God. This contract doesn't apply to the entire race, not even to the entire family. Jesus picks winners on an individual basis regardless of race, creed, or color. So, Judaism vs Christianity is really one between collective covenant vs individual contract. And the former is bound to be much more powerful and resilient. What whites folks need is to seek out the Ultimate Power(Biblical or otherwise) and receive the covenant(or make it up in an inspired manner). This covenant would be between only the Ultimate Power and the white race. (If other races want their own covenant, let them find it in their own fashion with the Ultimate Power. One Ultimate Power but many covenants. Why not? There is only one sun but each piece of land has a unique relation to it based on the angle of light.) And each white ethnicity could have a sub-covenant within the larger white covenant. Just like there were Twelve Tribes of Israel, each white ethnicity could count as a tribe within the Larger Tribe of European-ness.

Once this is established and secured, then comes the methodology of acculturating young whites into the Race. In other words, it isn't enough to be born white; one must 'become' white with the true understanding of what it means to be white. It's like it isn't enough to be born Jewish or Hindu; children must undergo the stages of understanding and appreciating their identities and its traditions and obligations. And whites can come up with something even better than Bar Mitzvah, which is a one-time thing where the Jewish boy becomes a Jewish man.
Instead of a single ritual, the white covenant could encompass three rites of passage. When the child is 10, when he is 14, and when he is 18. Three ritualistic reminders of what he is and where he came from. And instead of just celebrating the birthday for the child, celebrate conception day as well. Then, you have two days a year to remind him of his origins. Sex should also be ritualized as a form of becoming. A white person comes to full spiritual-and-physical whiteness when he or she performs reproductive sex with another white person in wedlock. Of course, it is also time to come up with a new institution binding man and woman together. Jews killed the concept of marriage by associating it with homo fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. If white folks or goyim have any inspiration and imagination, they should let the homos and trannies have the soiled and befouled institution of marriage and come up with a new concept that only applies to unions in accordance and harmony with nature and morality among white folks. An institution in tune with nature & morality and meant only for the white race.

Another key to white survival and revival needs to be a book or The Book. The Bible is a great book and part of world literature and all that, but no matter how one slices and dices it, it is the story of the Jews. So, even though all peoples should read it and learn from it, it's rather ridiculous for Europeans to refer to the Bible as if it's their history. The way so many Christian folks talk, you'd think they are the descendants of Abraham, Moses, David, and etc. They are not. European folks have roots in paganism. So, the White Book has yet to be written. But imagine such a book existing and imagine every true white family owning one and using it as source of reference and guide. Imagine white kids being raised and acculturated through such a book. This book wouldn't merely be an anthology of great Western literature and ideas as such are dime-a-dozen and easy to find. Anthologies are useful but hardly works of inspiration. Jews created the Bible by adopting influences from other culture and re-imagining their narratives. The Bible is much more than compendium of whatever Jews found worthy. It is the product of a creative project. Muhammad took elements of Judaism, Christianity, and elements of Arab culture and reimagined them in the creation of the Koran. Bob Dylan took various themes and threads of American musical culture, high literature, and Jewish sensibility when he created BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME. One can easily assemble yet another anthology of great works of Western literature and philosophy, but it would be just one more of the same old same old. But what if someone or a group of men(and women) can come together and interweave various the European threads together into an flowing narrative? Show how the 'twelve tribes' of whites differ and yet share a common destiny, from Odysseus to Arthur to the unsung Common Man. If such a work could be created and utilized as spiritual-cultural-moral-historical-mythic reference and guide in every true-blue white home, things could really change.
But what do white people have these days? Some still cling to the Bible, but it's really Jewish history and Jewish imagination. Even the New Testament is the work of Jewish vision and genius. Everyone should read it and appreciate it, but white people need to think twice before accepting it as their history or guide. The Torah or Old Testament is Jewish history. As for the New Testament, it's Jewish vision and furthermore meant for all mankind. Therefore, whites have no special claim to Christianity despite the rich historical ties between the Faith and Europe. But that owes to the accident of history than the will of Jesus and the Apostles.
So, as long as white folks cling to the Bible, they are enslaved or at the very least subordinate to the imagination of another people. It also makes them vampiric as their reliance on Jewish Imagination suggests they are incapable of comparable imagination. But if an Arab like Muhammad could do it, why can't whites?
People like Andrew Torba and Nick Fuentes seek unity between white identity and Christianity, but those can at best be mixtures, not compounds. At the core, they repel one another because Christianity has no favorites in terms of race or tribe whereas white identity is rooted in evolution, biology, and history.
As for people like Ryan Dawson and Adam Green, they attack Jewishness and Zionism for the tribalism and nationalism, but if such are wrong for Jews, the implication is it's morally wrong for all other groups as well. But all cultures are largely the product of myths and lore. They aren't rational. So, an attack on the irrationality of Judaism or Jewishness is tantamount to an attack on all cultures which are equally irrational at their roots. Furthermore, the moral failure of Zionism owes to hubris, imperialism, and contempt than its tribal content. Zionists could have chosen the nationalist model and could have sought to live peacefully with their neighbors. But they embarked on the hegemonic path like the Nazis.

Not that neo-pagans are much better. Too many of them have a childish take on paganism. They think it's about fun with witchcraft or dancing around campfires butt-naked. Or, they are fans of pagan gods revived as superhero comic characters. And some have gone neo-nazi. Now, one remarkable thing about Adolf Hitler was he had mega-chutzpah, the kind to match that of any Jew. And the National Socialists must be credited with an attempt to re-imagine the Western Vision for the modern world. But all said and done, they failed not only in war but in the field of imagination.
Then, the proper thing is to do it the right way with fresh imagination. But neo-nazi types have no ideas or visions of their own and just repeat the tired and/or discredited views of the Nazis. If one must take inspiration from Hitler, the lesson is "Do your own thing." Hitler did his own thing. He did it his way. So, if there is something to take from him, the new white identitarians must learn to do their own thing and imagine their own future than copying the homework from the Nazis that, in the end, despite some notable successes, got a big fat F in the History Book.

WHY ISRAEL IS THE JEWISH ISIS - Syrian Girl