What is the significance of the mass protests since Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Gaza following the Hamas strike on October 7, 2023? A truly unprecedented development, the answer is bound to be multifaceted. One is the blow to the idolatry of victimhood, a kind of eternalization of historical tragedy seeking to permanently seal a certain group’s identity with a particular event or prolonged(but far from unending and/or continuous) condition. The mental habit may have origins with the Christians who made a grand fetishization of victimhood/suffering and permanently affixed their faith and community with the suffering of Jesus Christ and the Early Christians. In other words, because the Romans fed the Early Christians to the lions, Christians get to accrue forever interests on noble victimhood regardless of their aggressions, violence, and hypocrisies through the ages.
Over time, it became a kind of passive/aggressive strategy(not always conscious) in dealing with the outside world(and ‘heretical’ sects of Christians). It became a de facto ploy of European Imperialism whereby, oftentimes, the Christian missionaries were among the first ones to make contact with the Other, only to be misunderstood, persecuted, and even killed by the natives. Thus, the Christian West earned Sacred Victim points via the ‘passive’ sacrifices of the missionaries and cashed them in as moral justification to conquer and quell the infidels. “We tried to spread love and faith to your darkies, but you slayed our missionaries with vicious cruelty, thereby leaving us no choice but to set things right by the might of arms.” Send in the missionaries, create saint-martyrs, bleat sanctimoniously about their sacrifice, and then invoke God and Country to wreak vengeance and spread the ‘civilization’.
Still, one saving grace of Christianity, for all its hypocrisies, was the commitment, at least in theory and ideal, to be as hard on oneself and one’s own people(if not more so) as on the Other. After all, whereas the benighted heathens may not have known better in their spiritual darkness, the Christians who’ve accepted the blessings of Jesus the loving and compassionate God should have known better and expected more of themselves. Then, it’s no wonder that, along with the violence and hypocrisy, there were genuine efforts in the Christian West toward social and political reforms based on Christian moral precepts. Also, one useful quality about hypocrisy is it could be pointed to reveal the hypocrisy of those who preach one thing but practice something else. One might say a hypocritical Christian was less dangerous than a consistent Nazi ideologue, Roman soldier, or Mongol barbarian who honestly acknowledged he was invading to conquer, exterminate, and enslave, and that was that. You can’t fault them for hypocrisy as they practiced exactly what they preached.
Christians exploited past suffering to sanctify their present and future, but in their emphasis on victimization and suffering, they were confronted with their own transgressions or trespasses against others. Thus, being a Christian didn’t mean you only got to cry victim; it also meant you had to face up to your own potential for evil unto others. Indeed, a Christian who wraps himself in the banner of Jesus, endlessly bleats ‘Christ Is King’, and acts as if he or his people have nothing to answer for is a pretty useless Christian. (Even more useless are American Christians who really worship the Mammon of power and wealth, which explains why they currently worship Jews above God and Jesus and cackle with hideous glee at the sight of Gazans being butchered by the almighty IDF. Such types have proven that faith in Christianity is no guarantee for moral rectitude. At the other end, you have those insufferable holier-than-thou types who relish wallowing in guilt as a kind of exhibitionism. “Just look at me kiss a Negro’s feet, boo hoo hoo.”)
If there has been a degree of self-reflection among Christians, such has been mostly absent among the three groups that have recently staked claims of permanent tragicism or eternal victimhood. They are Jews, blacks, and homos. It wasn’t always so, however. Post-Holocaust Jews, while hardly critical of Jewish behavior, did believe that Jews, given their own history of suffering, should be more conscientious and compassionate about other groups who’ve experienced similar tragedies or face horrors of the now. It partly explains why many Jews took up the cause of Civil Rights for blacks, pushed for revisionism on the American Indians, and protested the Vietnam War where American militarism was embroiled in neo-imperialist destruction. And the appeal of Michael King(aka Martin L. King) to many whites was the message of reconciliation and understanding, a call to peace as a means to settle the racial divide in America. And before him, plenty of black leaders were critical of blacks and mindful of bettering themselves to show their worthiness of being fully accepted into American Society.
However, Jews and blacks by and large proved to be not as self-reflective as the White Christians. The reasons could be genetic, cultural, historical, and/or political. Blacks, being wilder and more childlike, tend to lack empathy and instead view the world in terms of ‘gots to have me’. Jews being of pushier temperament and wilier mindset, tend toward egocentrism, tribalism, or ‘advantagism’. But aside from genetic and cultural traits, their victim mentality is more ingrained due to prolonged historical conditions. As far as blacks are concerned, at least up to the Sixties, they lived under the white yoke since their forced arrival on American shores as slaves. Their entire memory is that of having been on the bottom. Likewise, the entirety of Jewish existence in the West until relatively recently was under white/Christian power. Thus, Jews always felt their lot was precarious, never certain. Even when times were good, there was always the chance that the winds of fortune may blow the other way, and they’d lose it all or be expelled yet once again. And even privileged Jews felt surrounded by goyim who muttered about ‘Christ Killers’ and ‘stingy Jews’.
In either case, their condition didn’t mean that blacks or Jews were all saints — as surely there were plenty of rotten ones among them as among all other races and tribes — , but it did mean that, saint or sinner, they all lived under the power of another people consistently for a long long time. Unlike Jews in Judea who were sometimes victors and sometimes losers, the Jewish diaspora were always at the mercy of bigger powers. Likewise, blacks felt that they were just a bunch of ‘niggers’ to white people who held almost all the power through most of US history(and American History was the only history that blacks in the US knew).
But the victimhood mentality among Jews and blacks may have grown out of proportion due to the Northern European Protestant factor, the reasons being twofold. (1) Northern Europeans reached the summit of world power, even to the point of feeling invincible, thus allowing them to relax a bit and take their might for granted. Thus, they felt they could afford to be more generous, redemptive, and magnanimous. In contrast, such feelings hardly existed in Southern Europe and Eastern Europe that never felt as powerful or secure; excessive moralism or generosity for the Other was out of the question. Even in the US itself, the richer and more advanced northern elites tended toward greater generosity and moral concern than the poorer and less secure whites in the South who thought more in terms of protection and survival, especially from the wild Negroes. Morality in the South emphasized duty to God and one’s place in the order, not to change society for the betterment of all. It was much the same in Latin America where white minorities ruled over the darker populations of browns and/or blacks. (2) Protestantism made Northern Europeans more personally and individually conscious of their moral choices than leaving it up to an institution to offer them instructions on what’s what. Thereby, whereas doing good work in the Catholic South was a matter of taking cues from above, in the Protestant North it meant taking one’s own initiative and accepting one’s own accountability to improve the world. Perhaps, Northern Europeans, having evolved in colder climes, were more earnest by nature as well. Compare Robert Redford with Joe Pesci. In a way, Martin Scorsese’s films exhibit a kind of Catholic Envy of Protestantism. Despite having remained a Catholic, a film like MEAN STREETS pulsates with Martin-Lutherian impulses of protest against Church teachings. Its (anti)hero Charlie wants to seek ‘redemption’ his own way, find ‘salvation’ in the streets among the hoodlums and the hoors. Anyway, Jews and blacks could have taken Northern Protestant moralism two ways. Adopt it themselves and shape their own morality in a similar manner OR take advantage of White Guilt to favor their own racial or ethnic power; in other words, use the Northern Protestants for the suckers that they could easily be. Needless to say, they opted for the latter.
In a way, the predominance of the Jewish and black victimology makes sense within the American context. The black one is obvious as blacks were imported as slaves and largely lived under bondage until the end of the Civil War; and then, blacks continued to face various legal and social discriminations on racial grounds in a country founded on the principle of equal justice. Not only was it a struggle for blacks to overcome the various obstacles but it was a challenge for whites to overcome their own prejudices. The challenges were difficult but also bracing and redemptive for many whites who, through the black narrative, hoped that a better version of America would emerge with the eventual fulfillment of its founding principles of the republic.
The other great noble victim narrative involved the American Indians, but it never quite caught on like the one involving blacks. Unlike blacks who arrived in chains to serve as slaves, thus were always under white rule, American Indians were free-roaming warriors who fought the white settlers in bloody clashes. Though doomed in numbers and by technology, the frontier war narratives portrayed them as fearsome braves who met a tragic end(like the Japanese in World War II) than as bona fide ‘victim’ groups. (Of course, blacks were fearsome tribal warriors in the Dark Continent as well, but as they arrived on American shores subdued in chains, they were always regarded as little more than slaves, a people completely at the mercy of whites.)
Furthermore, whereas black populations exploded and increasingly poured into influential urban centers(eventually in the North and the West), American Indians faded away in sparsely populated areas of the country, the so-called ‘reservations’. And their stony and stoic demeanor didn’t do much for their expression as a community. And with the popularization of the American Western, it once again became fashionable to depict Indians as Red Savages who had to be rubbed out to make the West a nice decent place for Christian womenfolk and children. Also, for all their legendary prowess as natural warriors and hunters, American Indians hardly turned out to be more athletic than the white man. In contrast, whites would become virtually addicted to the siren song of black sports and music.
If black victimology in the US is understandable given the history, the primacy of Jewish victimology needs some explaining. After all, so-called ‘antisemitism’ in the US was relatively mild compared to what prevailed in Europe, especially parts of Eastern Europe. (Granted, even the slightest hint of ‘antisemitism’ is now regarded as an unpardonable sin, somewhat akin to blasphemy against God in the Middle Ages or using the Lord’s name in vain; but then, if anything has the status of godliness in our times, it is Jewishness, largely thanks to Jewish control of academia, media, and finance. Thus, the slightest infraction against Jewishness is deemed infinitely worse than the most bilious invectives against, say, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Whites, Christians, Arabs, and etc. In other words, a society where Jews have it all but may hear the epithet ‘kike’ on occasion is more alarming than a society where whites/Christians or certain other goyim come under a constant barrage of ideological and racial abuse, not least from none other than Jewish Power.)
Jewish American historiography is rife with narratives about ancestors fleeing from pogroms in the Pale of Settlement(then a part of the Russian Empire) and coming to Edenic America to find hope, freedom, and opportunity. And the great Jewish calamity of the 20th century, the Shoah or Holocaust, didn’t happen in the US but across the Atlantic, and the US expended a great deal of material and human resources in the defeat of Nazi Germany. As horrible as the Shoah was, it happened in Europe, and there is no reason for Americans to make it a centerpiece of collective consciousness. If Americans really want to wax tragic about its own guilt of ‘genocide’, they should fixate on the fate of the American Indians or the millions of victims of American Wars(especially in East Asia and the Middle East). When something close to genocide is happening now in Gaza at the hands of the Likud(ation) government of Israel fully backed by the US, now there is something Americans can get all weepy over.
And yet, the majority support for Israel(that is carrying out mass slaughter), far eclipsing any concern for the Palestinian bodies piling up in Gaza, offers a clear indication as to why Jewish Victimology has become so central to American values and mythos. All said and done, when push comes to shove, the great majority of White Americans are shallow, brown-nosing, and sycophantic dweebs looking to gain approval and status by sucking up to the richest and most powerful people. As Jews are by far the wealthiest and most influential group, whites are naturally most servile to them. But then, Jews don’t want to be seen as the most powerful group being feted by a bunch of toadies, sidekicks, and whores. And whites don’t want to be seen as what they really are: brown-nosing cuck-maggots. And so, the Jewish Victimology turns out to be convenient for both sides. Via the Holocaust Cult, we can keep pretending that Jews are forever the Holy Holocaust People always being hounded by new specters of ‘antisemitism’. Thus, even though cuck-goyim suck up to Jews for shekels, approval, favors, and status, there’s the pretense that it’s all about protecting poor helpless Jews. So, never mind the fact that Jewish Power is built on bribery, blackmail, and gangsterism. Never mind that most white Americans(especially in government and Christian Zionist churches) have the mentality of dogs(at least in relation to Jews). Jewish Victimology allows whites to pretend that they are noble white knights coming to the rescue of a much beleaguered people who are yet once being threatened by new manifestations of ‘nazism’.
Given the kind of lock that Jewish Power has on the American Psyche, many in the dissident sphere came to despair of the pathetic state of affairs in the general discourse, political and moral. Just about everything Americans seem to obsess about in periodic outbursts of moral panic seems to be the brainchild of Jewish Power. Jews push the button, and the machine does as programmed. It’s as if the American Mind is a putty in Jewish Hands. Whether it’s ‘feminist’ panic about ‘date rape’ at white fraternities, ‘hate crime’ hoaxes, yet another iteration of ‘innocent’ or ‘gentle’ black child killed by whites/cops, the supposed persecution of saintly homosexuals or ‘trans-genocide’, Assad gassing his own people, Putin as New Hitler threatening ‘democratic’ Ukraine, the rise of the ‘far right’ and ‘white supremacism’, or ‘systemic racist’ police mowing down random black men in the streets, and etc., it’s difficult to conceive of any victim narrative around the world independent of Jewish-controlled narratives and agendas. It’s as if Jews gained the monopoly on licensing victimology, without whose validation, one’s suffering amounts to a plate of beans(in the eyes of the ‘free world’ or ‘rules-based order’), whereas even a non-event like the death of George Floyd(who most certainly died of self-induced fentanyl poisoning) could be blown up into the greatest tragedy since the crucifixion of Jesus H. Christ. The fact that so many Americans keep falling for such nonsense time and time again indicates that Americans are infantile, close to retarded, trashy and shallow, beyond help.
Then, what a surprise that an outpouring of support for the Palestinians exploded upon the scene as a great black swan moral event. How and why did this happen? What are the lessons to be learned from this? Is it a culmination of certain long suppressed trends or the beginning of something that is likely to grow bigger in the future? One thing for sure, this happened outside the purview and permission of Jewish Power, which, if anything, had been doing everything in its power to prevent something like it, not least in the suppression of the BDS movement. To be sure, Jewish activists did play a key role in pro-Palestinian movement, much like conscientious whites played a significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. But these dissident Jews never had the kind of power that Zion Inc. had built up over the years. Norman Finkelstein admitted that he’d pretty much given up on the movement that hardly went anywhere as the pro-Zionist wing of the Jewish Community seemed so invincible and pervasive at all levels of society. It took him by surprise that the movement exploded into the street and sprouted all over campuses, leading media outlets that had previously ignored him to suddenly appeal to him for analysis and commentary. It’s all the more remarkable given that the current controversy began on Oct 7, 2023 when IDF bases were overrun by Hamas fighters, initially lending Israel the moral advantage as the aggrieved and victimized party. And of course, to this day, there are plenty of US politicians and religious figures who invoke Oct 7 to justify whatever Israel has done since, much like Americans felt justified in everything they did in World War II following Pearl Harbor. But when bombs began to rain down on Gaza and indiscriminately blow things up, the political shift was dramatic.
One thing for sure, the outpouring of sympathy for the Palestinians was not manufactured, making it all the more remarkable. Just about every political agenda or mass passion has been astro-turfed for as long as we can remember. Think of WMD in Iraq or War on Terror. Think of GloboHomo pushed by Hollywood and the courts. Or the ‘date rape’ panic that always focused on White Fratboys. Or the #MeToo hysteria. And of course, Trump as ‘literally Hitler’, Russia Collusion mass paranoia, Covid mania, and BLM-George-Floyd riots. And if anyone paid attention to the idiocy known as ‘American Conservatism’, the biggest alarm bells were about the monopolization of power by the ‘far left’, which would include BlackRock and other super-capitalist oligarchs, LOL. All these political and/or moral panics were manufactured by certain elements of the elites, be they ensconced in government, academia, media, entertainment, or law firms.
But the Pro-Palestinian movement was different. If anything, the elites of both parties have been targeting BDS for destruction. Whether it was Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump, American Politics has mostly been about the biggest names in government rolling over at the feet of Netanyahu and the like. Yet, out of the left field, Pro-Palestinian voices exploded on the scene. Even more remarkably, it happened during Biden’s presidency. The mass outrage of BLM in 2020 could be explained as the Deep State’s coordinated effort to delegitimize Trump’s MAGA-America, one of white supremacism where cops went around hunting down innocent and angelic blacks. Indeed, the Democratic elites(and even some ‘RINO’ ones) poured gasoline on the social unrest, aka ‘mostly peaceful protests’, and the overwhelmingly Jewish-Democratic media played along.
In contrast, the pro-Palestinian protests were bound to hurt the Democrats by exposing them as just as bloodthirsty as the GOP on Zionist issues and just as servile to AIPAC. Thus, one cannot chalk up the angry protests to political opportunism. If anything, many protesters were soon targeted for blacklisting on future job prospects(and some heads rolled in elite academia for having defended the free speech of the protesters). As such, this was possibly the most authentic movement since the Anti-War movement of the Sixties.
Palestinian-Americans have miniscule power and influence compared to the Jewish-Zionists(and their cuck-n-proxy goy allies), so how did this happen? One explanation is Palestinian-Americans(and Arab/Muslim-Americans in general) invested much of their energies on impacting(if not dominating) a key department in academia: Middle East Studies. Unlike conservatives who’ve failed to consolidate control over any single department and whose influence is diffuse across academia, Arab-Americans have worked hard at gaining significant representation in Middle East Studies, a key field considering America’s imperial foreign policy that has often targeted that region of the world. Thus, even though Palestinian/Arab/Muslim Americans have limited power and influence in most sectors, they’ve amassed considerable intellectual/moral arsenal in at least one area of expertise. And even though these individuals are usually ignored by the Jewish-dominated ‘mainstream media’ or MSM, they’ve gained a considerable following through social media. Over time, growing numbers of young people grew up listening to both sides instead of merely the Jewish-Zionist-oriented one.
But there is also the Jewish Factor as many American Jews, especially of the younger generation, have grown disgusted with Israel’s turn to far-right extremism as embodied by Netanyahu and his allies(who have majority support among the Israelis). Ironically, mega-Zionist Trump and MAGA may have hastened Jewish-American disillusionment with Israel and Zionism, indeed far more than the wars of George W. Bush. While some on the (dissident) Right appreciated Trump for standing up to the Neocons and their Wars for Israel, some Jews and influential people on the Left grew even more hostile to Israel when the Trump-Netanyahu pact emboldened Israelis to act even more aggressively and arrogantly in the region. Jewish Power vilified Trump as a white supremacist, hate-monger, xenophobe, literally Hitler, Neo-Nazi, and etc. but there was Netanyahu shaking hands with Trump who gave the green light for Israel to annex more territory and beat up on Palestinians. If Trump is ‘literally Hitler’ and if Israelis prefer him as the leader of America, it implies Israel is a kind of ‘nazi state’.
One thing for sure, if the Pro-Palestinian movement has one decisive advantage over the Alt Right, especially in its incarnation during 2016-2017, it was the themes of nationalism and humanism, as opposed to supremacism and neo-imperialism. While plenty(and probably most) of Alt Right types rejected supremacism and imperialism, the movement got hijacked by Richard Spencer, a neo-imperialist who merely wanted to replace Jewish Supremacist World Hegemony with Anglo-White one. As such, he tended to encourage stuff like Heil-Gate and form alliances with Neo-Nazi types like Mike Enoch, Chris Cantwell, and etc. As such, it was easy for Jews and globalists to paint the Hitler mustache on the Alt Right. A lost opportunity for the Dissident Right. Never let a child lead a movement. Spencer is a spoiled brat.
In contrast, the pro-Palestinian voices merely want the world to recognize the humanity of the Palestinians. Also, unlike 007-Darth-Vader-wanna-be Richard Spencer and other such ilk who speak in global hegemonic or ‘Jupiterian’ terms, pro-Palestinians only demand a rightful homeland for Palestinians in the land of their ancestors. In the US, Jewish Power is actually against equal justice for all peoples and nations. Rather, it insists on special affinity and favoritism for Israel, meaning those at odds with the Zionist agenda must be relegated to enemy-or-less-than-human status. Far from pushing the American System to treat Jews and Palestinians equally(here and abroad), Jewish Power demands that the US always favor Jews and Zion. Jews, blacks, and homos are the holy trinity deserving of ‘more equal than others’ status. Jews slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children is no big deal. But Palestinians calling for their own homeland is twisted into ‘calling for the genocide of Jews’.
There seems to be an overlapping if not a convergence of rightist and leftist strands in regards to the increasingly abusive and corrupt Jewish Power. Many on the Right feel that Jewish-Zionist-centric Neoconservatism is antithetic to American Interests. As the nationalist fervor following 9/11(with its own questionable narrative) fizzled in the morass of the Iraq War(built on a lie that no one could long sustain), the mainstream of the American Right turned against interventionism, which explained the popularity of Donald Trump’s foreign policy platform in 2016(to the chagrin of Jewish Neocons who wanted to keep milking American blood for Jewish Supremacist Wars). Even though the American Left was slower to coalesce into a viable opposition against the establishment, it’s likely that many came to a similar realization as the so-called nationalist-populists on the American Right. Neolibs of the Democratic Party are merely the flipside of the Neocons of the GOP, and most Democratic elites have done little but shill for Zion.
A key difference is this: Whereas many anti-Neocon conservatives don’t care enough about the issue to meet up in fiery rallies — it’s more apathy about Israel First than outright antipathy toward Zionism — , many on the Left, especially the young, relish the romance of protest and activism(and are furthermore concentrated in urban areas whereas the rhetoric and action become most heated). Thus, they are situated to make a bigger impact on the political direction of the country.
Given ways things are going, Ireland is over, no less than Great Britain is. The demographic trends are dire, made all the worse by the Irish ruling elites, intellectual class, and the educated middle class lending their moral support to what is effectively White Nakba and using threats and coercion to discourage any authentic nationalist reawakening and resistance against the demise of the Irish as a people, culture, and territory.
For the longest time, Irish pride of identity derived in large part from the resistance to British Imperialism, but it was a narrative with caveats. Not only did the Irish adopt much of British culture, values, and attitudes but they were genetically indistinguishable from the Britons. In time, English became the language of the Irish, and furthermore, it’s hard to think of another people who were bigger beneficiaries of the empire, other than the British themselves of course. Indeed, one could argue that the Irish came to greatness through the British Empire, directly and indirectly. Not only did countless Irish join in the imperialist ventures and gain political/economic advantages but they benefited immensely from the mass immigration to the United States that, despite its independence from the empire, was a British creation and, in time, the closest ally of the Anglo Empire. (Granted, one could argue that black Africans were even bigger beneficiaries of the empire because contact with the White Man transformed them from jungle primitives and savanna bunnies to citizens, and ultimately sacred cows, of the richest and most powerful country on Earth, the United States. Afro-Anglo interaction made the real difference as blacks in Latin America gained far less.)
So, even though official Irish historiography propped up the image of the plucky underdog Irish standing up to British tyranny, no less true was the fact of tremendous Irish gains under the empire(and its creations). This has led to a certain schizophrenia in the political mindset of the Irish. Are they blood-brothers with the British who recruited the Irish(as their closest racial cousins) in the imperialist ventures or are they soul-brothers with all the peoples, especially nonwhites, who stood up to ‘racist’ British Imperialism and other forms of Western domination?
It was further complicated because the Irish, due to their lower status in the British hierarchy, were often assigned the dirtier work that led to resentments and prejudices(to both uppers and lowers). Indeed, the haughty British often admonished the Irish for being overly crude and bigoted towards the imperial subjects while they themselves affected magnanimous postures. The master hires the overseer to whip the slaves but then lectures the overseer not to be so brutal. It’s like Jews using white goy cucks to destroy Muslim countries and Arab lives but then pontificating about ‘Islamophobia’. Often finding themselves closer to the imperial subjects in the British colonies, the Irish had fewer illusions about the ‘wogs’ and ‘niggers’. But in constantly being given the dirty work, they also grew to resent the British. (And during World War II, the anti-British feelings led to Irish neutrality, which could be spun today as “letting the Nazis kill all those poor innocent Jews.”)
The ethno-dynamic was somewhat similar in the US, despite its independence from the British Empire. The ruling class was mainly composed of Protestant Anglo-Americans while Irish Catholics were lower in class hierarchy. Thus, the Irish came in closer and more troubled contacts with other ethnic groups(such as Jews, Italians, and Polacks) and the blacks. Even though the Anglo-American elites established the socio-economic order, they often talked down to the Irish and other lower-class types as being bigoted in their inter-ethnic relations and racial attitudes. In the film RAGTIME(directed by Milos Forman based on the E.L. Doctorow novel), the tormentor of the fancy Negro looks like a typical drunken Irish-American.
So, over time, the Irish were both more likely to growl about “those damn niggers” AND more likely to identify with groups perceived as exploited or tyrannized by the British or the Anglo-Americans. Not surprisingly, the Irish who turned out to be least prejudicial were in Ireland itself, which was once virtually all Irish and white. If the Irish in the US and various parts of the British Empire at least had an eye-opening first-hand encounters with the ‘natives’ or nonwhites, the Irish in Ireland increasingly came to rely on the Jewish, Liberal, and/or Leftist-dominated media and academia for their worldview.
When Ireland had been fixated on the national obsession for independence and reunion with Northern Ireland, the larger world didn’t matter so much. Also, being one of the poorer nations in Europe with a healthy birth rate, the priority of the Irish was to improve their own lives, not to play the role of the saviors of the world. In this period, the politics of resistance was mostly nationalist, even though some Irish caught the revolutionary bug and conflated the Irish struggle with international movements against imperialism, even participating in rebellions or revolutions in other countries.
At some point, gradually and then suddenly, the mythos of Irish resistance took on a globalist color. It was less about the Irish resisting the empire to restore and secure Irish nationhood than about the Irish joining in(and even leading) the world community or movement against ‘racism’, ‘colonialism’, ‘white supremacism’, ‘apartheid’, and so on. Thus, Ireland as a national entity in and of itself came to matter less as too tribal and petty. The elements of the national struggle were extracted and formulated into a global crusade. It encompassed the entire world, and the Irish were now part of this ‘universal’ movement, and so, it no longer mattered if Ireland was preserved as a nation or culture or land. All that mattered was that the Irish be on the side of the Global Good against the Global Bad. So, if masses of nonwhites arrived in Ireland and became the ‘New Irish’, what did it matter as long as it cemented Ireland’s position as a ‘progressive’ vanguard in the world?
Partly, this owed to the change in the political landscape following World War II, especially in the US, the dominant superpower to emerge(and relatively unscathed) from the ash heap of mid-century. Not only did the US media come to dominate the Free World but the US had a huge contingent of people of Irish stock, indeed even more than Ireland itself. The predominant political narrative of post-war America comprised the Negro Problem, the Civil Rights Movement, the evils of ‘racism’, the commanding oratory of Negroes like MLK, and the magic of black popular music(even as a liberating agent for uptight whites with frozen souls).
If the Irish in America at least had to contend with the black problem first hand in the forms of street crime, school violence, and workplace pathologies, the Irish in Ireland received a filtered reality via the Liberal/Jewish media that presented the problem as wholly one of white ‘racism’ and black ‘victimhood’ and ‘resistance’, i.e. it was the KKK versus MLK, when it was often the case of whiskey-swilling-potato-munchers being terrorized by fried-chicken-watermelon-devouring neo-savages. For the Irish in Ireland, the race problem was so far removed from their immediate lives that they could afford the luxury of their own illusions. For example, if white Americans got both the fun and fright from black-dominated boxing where black pugilists routinely beat up white boxers(that mirrored racial violence in real-life), the Irish and most Europeans of the period tended to interpret black victories in sports as merely a kind of social-racial justice, an expression of black pride, with which they could sympathize given the history of Western Domination over Africa. Also, given the post-war European inferiority complex vis-a-vis the rich and powerful US, the Black Issue was the one area on which Europeans could glibly feel morally superior toward the Americans. “We might have brought about World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, Fascism, Communism, but at least we didn’t have Jim Crow laws in Europe.”
The Irish also fancied themselves as a soulful and musical people, especially in contrast to the uptight and repressed British, even though, ironically enough, Great Britain and Ireland witnessed explosive successes in pop music around the same time inspired by heavily black-inflected American Rock n Roll and Rhythm n Blues. Some Irish even got to thinking that blues and soul music was a kind of black ‘Irish’ music, and there was probably a kernel of truth to this in that American Southern music had roots in the Irish and Scotch-Irish tradition. After all, something like the blues didn’t develop in Latin America or in Africa itself. In the American South, a Negro might have observed some sourpuss Irish bitterly drinking and cussing the night away and mimicked the style in his own manner: “Why massuh done make me pick all dem cotton and shit?”
The Irish conceit assured itself that, whereas the cold-hearted Britons were thawed by the Afro-American soul, the Irish merely connected with their soul-brothers, black counterparts of the soulful Irish. In other words, if British Rockers were merely imitating or drawing inspiration from black music, the Irish were arriving at a singularity with their long-lost soul-cousins: “We Irish and them blacks, we know pain and suffering, we both have deep wounded souls, and etc. and through musical prowess, we’ve maintained our pride and dignity.”
Indeed, it’s telling that U2, the biggest Irish Rock Act, has done more to idolize and champion blacks than its own kind. Their songs about MLK and the Civil Rights Movement are more famous than anything written about the trials and tribulations of the Irish themselves. And, Bono basked in photo opportunities as a kind of Irish-Messiah standing tall among the black children of Africa, apparently dearer to him than the children of Ireland, that is unless Ireland is Africanized. Bono and others like him condemn any attempt to preserve the native racial and cultural roots of Ireland as their vision of the holy is shaped, disseminated, and enforced by anti-white Jews.
Ironically, the divisive internecine crisis of Northern Ireland once had a nationalizing impact on Irish politics. So much energy was invested in reincorporating Northern Ireland that less attention was diverted to global matters. Even though Sinn Fein and other radically-inclined Irish factions forged partnerships with ‘revolutionary’ groups all over the world, the main focus was on Ireland itself, about dealing with the pesky Protestant traitors who’d chosen to collaborate with the British refused to relinquish a vital piece of Ireland even long after the sun had set on the empire.
But once the Northern Ireland issue was more or less resolved, Irish politics drifted increasingly toward the global. The leftist-nationalist parties, in order to remain relevant and secure funding, gravitated to new issues. While the Irish had controlled the national narrative, the global narrative had been taken over by the Jews, and that meant the Irish seeking a place in the global order found themselves adopting the crypto-Jewish talking points on what constitutes ‘progress’.
Furthermore, there was a period of rapid economic growth with massive infusions of capital, as also happened in Poland in the aftermath of the Cold War, and this led to an emergence of a prosperous status-conscious cosmopolitan class, the main ambition of which was to be accepted into the EU club and be treated as one of the ‘equals’ among the advanced Western nations headed by the US. This meant adopting the attitudes and ‘values’ of the West, much like Spain had done since the death of Franco.
Even though Spain and Ireland found themselves, more often than not, at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum through much of the 20th Century — Spain largely associated with rightist Franco and Ireland often associated with leftist or revolutionary sympathies — , the educated elites of both nations came to similar conclusions: Excessive investment in nationalism and reliance on Catholic authority had held society back, thus preventing a more meaningful participation in the Western community of nations. Apparently, whether it was traditional rightism or classic leftism, Spain and Ireland had missed the boat of full prosperity and progress. No wonder then that Spain came fully onboard the EU ship, often trying to outdo other European nations in their ‘progressive’ credentials. Likewise, Ireland was the first European nation to adopt ‘gay marriage’ by majority electoral vote. And of course, there has been a total collapse of Catholic Church authority in both countries as the new messianism revolved around ‘sexual liberation’, GloboHomo, and Tolerance. Ironically however, the very forces that had undermined respect for the Church by exposing the sex scandals(involving minors) later came to champion the sexualization of children, thereby opening the door to future legitimization and legalization of pedophilia.
In a way, despite their conceits, the new elites of Spain and Ireland were little more than slickity hicks. Just like a country bumpkin in the city tries to overcompensate by out-slicking the city slicker, the newly minted globalist cosmopolitan classes in Spain and Ireland(along with their insufferable Polack equivalents) went out on a limb to show that they too are well-showered and perfumed in scent of ‘progress’. Such mindless eagerness to shed their hick odor was actually rather hick-ish as only a hick-at-heart would be so simple-minded and single-minded in his anxiety to win plaudits. We see the same fixations among small town types who make it to a college town or the city. As if ashamed of their ‘humble’ origins, they go out of their way to prove that they are now part of the ‘edgy’ crowd. It also explains why the Southern Elites in the US are such useless and servile dogs, cheering along with the ‘woke’ crowd at the desecration of Southern heritage and history.
Nothing wrong with opening one’s mind to the world and appreciating wider horizons and bigger opportunities of urban life, but only a fool would blindly assume that something is truer or ‘more advanced’ simply because the urban elites happen to fancy it at the moment. Consider the Radical Chic of the Sixties and its delusions. Or the BLM mania of 2020, and the Jewish/white elites propping up Kendi X as a ‘great thinker’. Or, all the lies printed about race, sex, and world affairs in the pages of the New York Times. Contrary to the narcissism of the educated class, much of elite thought is the product of indoctrination than intellect, taboos than thought, and consensus(& status) than contention. The hysterical or ‘triggered’ reaction of the so-called educated elites to unorthodox ideas is ample proof that they fear honest discussion of controversial topics(most of which shouldn’t even be controversial in a society of open debate). In their lack of nerves, they prefer narratives, just like many families now rely on pre-cooked meals than bother to cook on their own with fresh ingredients. The idea is that we shouldn’t look at the ingredients that make up the narratives but just consume them as ‘healthy’ for us.
The Irish dilemma isn’t anything new. At various moments in history, the local, tribal, or national was amplified into the universal. Indeed, that was the beginning of Christianity. The tribal crisis of Jews under the Roman Empire spawned a new spirituality that reformulated elements of tribal Judaism into universal Christianity. If Jews insisted on the Old Testament as a tribal ethno-narrative, Christians(the early members of whom were all Jews) interpreted its events and happenings as preparations for the universal faith of Jesus the Messiah.
In the modern era, certain local or national events were mythologized to have larger meaning and repercussions, not least because most modern movements tended to be fueled by Enlightenment Ideas. Thus, the local events of the American Revolution or ‘1776’ came to reverberate far and wide, a shot heard around the world for liberty. The French Revolution soon became the template for the liberation of all of Europe. And, the Russian Revolution was promoted as epochal and global, its seismic energies meant to rearrange the power structures of the entire world. Even the Mexican Revolution had such an appeal, with non-Mexicans flocking there to take part, as also happened with the Spanish Civil War wherein the international brigades didn’t see it merely as a local Spanish affair but a war for all humanity. And many in the West have been made to feel that way about Ukraine: You see, it’s about ‘democracy’ and ‘Western values’(like celebrating homo-fecal penetration and fisting) against revanchist Russian autocracy and the ambitions of Putin as Putler, or New Hitler.
No doubt the Palestinian Struggle has similar implications around the world. Rather than regarding it as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians, many on the Left see it as a form of Anglo-Zionist neo-imperialism and the insatiable bloodlust of the war industries; and many on the Right see it as yet another manifestation of Jewish Supremacist madness to dominate the world, i.e. all the goyim of the world are figuratively ‘Palestinians’ endangered by Jewish Supremacist power and perfidy. Palestinians themselves understand the global value of their struggle even though the Jews control rules of ‘globalism’. Thus, Palestinians must at once keep the struggle intensely national(ist), as their priority is to reclaim parts of what was once Palestine, and engage with the world community for sympathy and support. But the danger of globalizing or universalizing any local or tribal struggle is that its priorities may be altered, lose sight of the original objectives, and become subsumed into a generic agenda, much of which is at odds with nationalism. It certainly was the case when the Jewish struggle against the Roman Empire turned into Christianity that transcended all tribal loyalties. While your tribal folk may appeal to the world community for support, the world community may expect and even demand your folk to favor its generic global agenda over a ‘narrow’ nationalist one.
Ireland succumbed to the globalization of nationalism, whereby the New Irishness is defined not by Ireland-for-the-Irish and the preservation of Irish history & territory but by national purpose rendered into a universal abstract, one that could apply to just about anyone. In other words, anyone who speaks the words of ‘resistance’ and ‘decolonization’ may be deemed ‘spiritually Irish’ and welcomed to Ireland as its future citizens. Thus, Irishness is no longer about roots and continuum but about trends and fashions, more about attitude and posturing.
In a way, the spread of black music hastened this change in consciousness. If the Irish who imitate blacks see themselves as essentially or soulfully black, who’s to say anyone who adopts an abstract form of Irishness isn’t Irish? Just like Americanism is now shorn of roots and simply means anyone willing to adopt the latest fads in ‘American values’, Irishness is no longer about race, ethnicity, culture, and history but about ‘resistance’ and ‘revolution’, the themes of which are now dictated by the global academia/media that are controlled directly or indirectly by Jews. Thus, Irishness is now indistinguishable from Britishness, German-ness, Spanishness, Swedishness, American-ness, Mexican-ness, and etc. that are all about the same set of idols and narratives: Judeo-Centrism, GloboHomo, and Negrolatry. The Irish may still be pugnacious in their peculiar way, but it’s more like ‘cucknacious’ as their current rages have been predetermined by others, especially the Jews, to ultimately destroy Ireland and turn it into yet another variation of Soros-Land.
It’s all a bit strange as the Irish, more than most Europeans, have been rather resistant to the Judeo-centric view of things, especially as their struggle had long been aligned with those of the Palestinians, black South Africans, and others at odds with the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Even to this day, the type of the Irish who are the most vocal supporters of the Jewish Supremacist globalist agenda may be heard mouthing slogans that are anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian. In most Western countries, the goy-globalist elites are almost entirely pro-Zionist and prone to caricature the Palestinian struggle as little more than ‘Hamas Terrorism’, but the discourse is somewhat different in Ireland, even in high circles(though, to be sure, there are plenty of total cucks of Zion there as well). Perhaps, it’s just lip-service among most Irish political figures, as is the case among most Arab elites in the Middle East: All Talk, No Walk. The political discussion is so often confused. When the Irish condemn the actions of the Zionists against the Palestinians, which side do they associate the Irish with? Are the Irish like the Palestinians, what with their own experience of victimhood under colonization and imperialist tyranny? Or do they feel that the Irish(or at least Irish Nationalists) are akin to the Zionists given their hostility toward the nonwhite newcomers? If Palestine was wiped off the map due to ceaseless Jewish immigration, might not the Irish meet the same fate as the result of mass immigration? Or the Irish being white, do the Irish feel that they too must atone for ‘white privilege’ and open their small nation to the Third World?
But even if sincere on the part of the Irish, it’s indicative of the devious mechanisms of Jewish Power that, when it cannot secure direct support outright, uses proxies to make the defiant entities support Jewish-controlled agendas nevertheless, thereby making them at least partly entangled and indebted to Jewish guidance and largesse. It’s why GloboHomo has been so crucial to Jewish Power. By turning the Irish into a bunch of cucks to Sodomania, Jewish Power weakened Irish national power and unity, rendering them easier to manipulate at the global level. Besides, plenty of Irish surely drank the Kool-Aid that Jewish Israel is preferable to those ‘Muslims’ who don’t celebrate ‘Pride’, which is now more sacred and dear to the majority of the Irish than the Catholic Church ever was.
