Response to "When Hollywood Rode Right: American Western Cinema as an Expression of Older Virtues" by Boyd Cathey — Dilemma of Gun & Morality in the Western — Can the Good Guy be Honorable and Win?

When Hollywood Rode Right:American Western Cinema as an Expression of Older Virtues - https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/when-hollywood-rode-right/

Indeed, most of Hollywood’s leading Western and cowboy actors have been politically conservative, and quite a few have been Southerners.

But actors serve the story, and a good number of writers for Westerns were Liberals and even Leftists. Gary Cooper may have been conservative, but his role in HIGH NOON was written by Liberals. Not uncommonly, the directors were conservative but the writers were leftist. Unless the director is 'auteur' enough to rework the material, he will be realizing the vision of his ideological opposite. Of course, the ideology was only implied in many such Westerns. A story of white injustice against the Indians could be a sly dig at the mistreatment of blacks.

Also, we need to keep in mind that, as Paul Gottfried noted, leftism in them days was not what goes by its name these days. Leftists back then dealt with real issues. Maybe their solutions were misguided or misconceived, but they addressed real world problems faced by real people.

Today, most of what goes by 'leftism' is mindless capitalist celebration of globo-homo vanity, which has NOTHING to do with classic leftism. Globo-Homo, like much of what falls into the category of 'wokeness', is about neo-aristo egomania of narcissistic homos and even trannies. It is also a proxy of ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacism. Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone: Kill both classic leftism and white pride. Jews now hate classic leftism that strove for equal justice for all. Jews don't want equal treatment for Palestinians and white goyim. Jews want to lord over them as cattle. So, Jews have no use for classic leftism, which also happens to be anti-capitalist. Why would Jews want radical socialism when they got the most money?
One may say there's a strain of leftism in BLM & 1619 because blacks are socio-economically poorer, therefore 'equity' is about making things fairer or more equal between blacks and whites(and non-blacks). But this too is bogus. BLM is about ultra-right black supremacism. It's about howling about injustice even when some lowlife black thug is justifiably killed by the police while all the hapless victims of black thugs are totally ignored by the media. There is no equal justice in BLM. It's about blacks being given carte blanche to do as they please. Blacks can carry out massive pogroms and burn down cities and loot, but BLM tells us to pretend it's not happening(or to be justified as 'social revolution'). And even though there's all this hair-pulling about black under-representation in various fields, it's perfectly fine for blacks to be over-represented in pop music, sports, and government jobs.

BLM got so much traction because ultra-right Jewish supremacists find blacks useful to guilt-bait whites. That's it. If Jews really cared about equal justice for all, why do they shut down BDS? If anything, what Palestinians face in West Bank is 1000x worse than what blacks face in the US. If anything, blacks are the one who prey on non-blacks. And, virtually every black killed by the police deserved to die as they not only resisted arrest but did so violently. Like black-on-white violence is tolerated and even justified, US power looks the other way while Zionist settler-invaders continue to take land from Palestinians in West Bank. And IDF, the Israel Death Squad, is given leeway to mow Palestinians down like animals.

So, how about dropping the BS of calling the other side the 'left'? Firstly, today's 'left' isn't the real left. Furthermore, the left did its share of creating the Modern West. After all, the default position of civilizations throughout history was conservatism, i.e. to preserve the existing power system. Then, what set the West apart from the Rest. Unlike the Rest that was mired only in conservatism, the West broke free with a new spirit of progress, change, and even revolution(at times). These energies, growing in the West from the Renaissance onward, culminated in the French Revolution where leftism got overly radical and bloody. The lesson from the whole affair was one cannot change the world overnight, as Edmund Burke explained. Burke, by the way, was a gradualist liberal, not a conservative. He only seemed conservative relative to the hot-blooded French radicals. He was actually on the side of change and progress.
This is what set the West from the Rest that only knew conservatism. Now, there is great value in conservatism because civilization, even in 'liberal democracies', must be 90% conservative in its daily operations. Even if a society is open to new things, most of what it does must be familiar and established. When you order a hamburger, you don't want to be served an experiment every time. Also, there is a great heritage in the conservation of arts, culture, philosophy, history, and spirituality. Non-Western history is proof that the concept of progress and revolution aren't integral to the rise of great civilizations. Persia, India, China, and etc. were great civilizations without the cult of progress or revolutionary fire. But it was Western Modernity that brought mankind to new heights and even sent men to the Moon, and that adventurous spirit of curiosity and daring couldn't have come from conservatism alone.

And the Western genre's appeal is as much liberal as conservative. There is surely the timeless themes of heroism and good vs evil, but there is also the thrill of breaking free, being adventurous, taking risks, and trying new things in a new land. The conservative person is more likely to stick close to home, with familiar sights and sounds. The liberal person is more likely to venture to new places, even if it means never seeing home again, which is largely the story of American Immigration. How many Americans have gone back to visit their ancestral homelands?

The very nature of the Western sub-genre has had a significant influence in attracting certain types of actors to it. Westerns traditionally expressed the purest form of “good vs. evil.” Even in the more conflicted, morally blurred years of the later 1960s and 1970s, the few Westerns that were made seemed to never lose sight of that essential conflict.

Most Westerns are not about good vs evil. That would be THE EXORCIST where noble priests battle the Devil that makes a girl masturbate and puke too much. The Southern is also about good vs evil: Rednecks are totally evil, Negroes are totally good. Certain war movies, especially with Nazis, are about good vs evil. The Germans weren't always featured as monsters in movies like THE YOUNG LIONS, ENEMY BELOW, PATTON, and CROSS OF IRON, but they increasingly became Evil Incarnate as Jewish Power grew more confident in Hollywood.

The Western would lose part of its appeal if it were about Good vs Evil. For the Western to work, the good guys need rough edges, and the bad guys must have some appeal, if only to tempt us — after all, the outlaw embodies the freedom of the Wild West more than the lawman does; indeed, many Westerns are about the lawman figuratively killing himself by killing the outlaw, the death of whom no longer requires the lawman's tough guy ways.
For the Western to really work, good guys mustn't be goody-two-shoes, and bad guys must have a certain 'bad boy' allure — it's like how Leonard DiCaprio's role as heavy in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD spices up the TV Western episode. So, even though Jack Palance casts a dark shadow in SHANE, he sure is magnificent. And James Stewart in Anthony Mann Westerns is a troubled figure. And Budd Boetticher's Westerns have the Randolph Scott character partnering for long stretches with questionable types who we aren't sure will turn out 'good' or 'bad', a kind of existential element to take shape in the journey. Shane is as much fighting his inner demons as the ranchers; he too was a hired killer. And THE SEARCHERS is riveting not only for its action-adventure but the inner turmoil of Ethan(John Wayne).

Still, many Westerns are indeed about Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and it's almost always about the Good prevailing over the Bad. However, this poses a moral dilemma for the genre. The triumph of the Good over the Bad in the Western is decided by a Single Factor: Which side has more guns and/or which side has the quicker draw. It's a matter of skill and luck, but where's the guarantee that the Good will always be better with the gun than the Bad? After all, chance is 50/50, heads half the time, tails half the time. So, logic would dictate that the Bad would win at least half the time in the Western.
But the Good or the Better almost always wins. It's as if the Good plays with a loaded dice or has an Ace up its sleeve. It has to be 'cheating' in the game of chance. We must believe that chance favors the Good like some cosmic force looking out for Forrest Gump(or Simple Jack) because he is so very good.

But, that's a childish fantasy like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If anything, the Bad should have the edge because bad types are more likely to gained experience with guns. Also, the good has more on its mind. It's like conscience sometimes gets in the way of Superman in Part II against the villains who have zero inhibitions in their fight. And, even if the Bad Guy loses, it's not the end of the world for badness because anarchy and chaos are the natural state of the world. Badness will always threaten society. But if the Good Guy loses, it feels like the End of the World because most good folks are rather timid and cowardly; they are more like herbivores than carnivores. So, if the tough Good Guy falls to the tough Bad Guys, most good folks will be like sheep without the sheep dog to protect them from wolves and coyotes. Bad is bold and aggressive. But goodness is mostly peaceable and wimpy, and it is the rare person who is both Good and Tough. So, the loss of the Good Tough guy is incalculable.

And yet, in all these Westerns, the Good almost always wins over the Bad. The Western is about tough guys, wilderness, and frontier, but it pushes a reassuring morality fairytale where
the Good will somehow come out on top because, for reasons unknown, it reliably manages to outdraw the Bad in the final showdown.

But then, how reassuring is a moral universe where good vs bad is decided by trigger fingers? Imagine if the fate of social morality, good or bad, hanged in the balance of who won the football match or boxing match? Sports determines which side is tougher or more skilled; it doesn't say what is good, what is bad, let alone evil. The shoot-out is about the faster gun winning, not about the faster gun being the good guy. While the Good Guy has courage and conviction, the moral outcome is simply a matter of who can shoot faster, which is hardly reassuring. This is why duels were so stupid. While it was ostensibly about honor, it boiled down who was better with pistol or saber. So, plenty of duels were won by people who really deserved to lose. Now, we know this about dueling, and it's one of the reasons for its eventual disrepute.

But, the Western perpetuated the myth that the Good invariably wins over the Bad even though the only determinant is who can shoot faster. When two men face off against one another over honor in a classic due, there's 50/50 chance of either winning, or losing. But when two men face off in the Western, the good almost always wins?
Sure, we get it, people want happy endings where good guys win and ride into the sunset, but it's really a child's fantasy for adults, especially as the quickdraw was the invention of Western as fiction. The real gunslingers approached gunfights more like gangsters, with caution and dread, to come out alive by any means necessary. Gunfights were more like the confrontation in John Sayles' MATEWAN, not a Western but where guns prove decisive between capital and labor. Though set up like a classic showdown, it quickly turns into a bloodbath for both sides.

To the best of my knowledge, the only Western where the good guy loses to the bad guy is in THE BIG SILENCE(aka THE GREAT SILENCE), unsurprisingly a Spaghetti Western by Sergio Corbucci. Italians were far more nihilistic or radical in their treatment of the genre. The last man standing was simply the best shot, not necessarily a 'good' guy. Or the violence was a condemnation of the brutality of the Anglo order.
The ending of THE BIG SILENCE is traumatic precisely because we've grown so accustomed to the Good guy ultimately coming out on top... even if by something akin to a miracle(just like the classic anti-hero of the gangster genre invariably is killed at the end). The upright lawman(Brian Keith) is also felled tragically in CENTENNIAL, but it's a TV mini-series, a pretty good one, than a classic Western. The leftist Corbucci was out to dismantle the myth of the Western. CENTENNIAL strove to be a historically accurate saga of the West in a state of transformation from the world of the Indians & frontiersmen to the Modern World.

At any rate, the Western perpetuated the myth that chance, which is 50/50, will miraculously almost 100/0 favor the Good over the Bad when it comes to a contest of guns. It encouraged fallacious thinking bordering on fairytale. It also explains why John Ford made THE MAN WHO SHOT LIVERTY VALANCE as his last significant statement on the West(ern).
The 'legend' in the movie is that the Good Guy Stoddard(James Stewart) killed the Bad Guy Valance(Lee Marvin), and it went a long way in taming the West. But unbeknownst to the Good Guy on the night of the showdown, the Bad Guy was really felled by John Wayne's character lurking in the shadows. The Good Guy was slipped an Ace. The dice was loaded in his favor. The 'legend' in the movie is especially remarkable because the Good Guy didn't even have a 50/50 chance against the Bad Guy, a natural born killer. All he had was a prayer, a Hail Mary that miraculously became a touchdown. But in fact, an 'angel' was watching over him, much like Tuco has Blondie(Clint Eastwood) to save his neck in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.

In the Western Genre, where good vs bad is decided by gunplay, how could it be that the good almost always wins, especially if the good guy fights honorably without cheating? Under those conditions, the bad guy has the equal chance of winning. For the good to usually or almost always win, it cannot fight fair, but that would mean good cannot be honorable. The Western formula of "Honor + Good Triumphant" simply doesn't compute. It can have one or the other but not both. This is the point of David Mamet's screenplay of THE UNTOUCHABLES. Elliott Ness tries to fight fair, but he simply cannot win that way. Sean Connery's character coaches him that you must not only fight dirty but dirtier. If they bring a knife, you bring a gun. If they beat up one of yours, you kill one of theirs. No wonder Jews won over the Anglos. Ugly Winning beats Beautiful Losing.

Especially if the Western good guy is upright and honorable(which implies he disdains cheating to win and offers an even chance to the bad guy), the main reason he always wins is because the contest is rigged in his favor by none other than the author. Of course, he is unaware of this, like the James Stewart character in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE is unaware, at least initially, that Valance was actually killed by someone else. If a Western author is really fair, he would flip a coin to see who wins at the end, good guy or bad guy? But people like happy endings.

In reality, black boxers beat the white ones, but in ROCKY II and III, the Italian Stallion manages to whup the Negroes in the era of Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. But the implication extends beyond storytelling. It's about history. For all the talk of principles and meritocracy, white Americans rigged things in their favor. At one time, blacks were kept out of sports, which ensured that all the champions were white. Anglo-Americans favored one another over the ethnics. And this has been the case with every society. Jews rigged it for Jews, Italians rigged it for Italians, Japanese rigged it for Japanese.
After all, in a pure meritocracy, your kind has as much chance of losing as winning. So, for your group to win as a whole, the system must be rigged, at least in part. This is why intra-meritocracy makes more sense than inter-meritocracy. Anglo-Americans adopted inter-meritocracy and lost so much. Jews, in contrast, still play the game of intra-meritocracy, i.e. Jews fiercely compete with other Jews, but they also work together to rig the system against non-Jews. Just ask the Palestinians and the BDS movement. Incidentally, Jews use BLM as moral cover against what they do to BDS.

Indeed, the paucity of films in the genre during the last thirty years is the clearest indication that the Western as a clear-sighted vehicle for representing society’s conception of itself and its frontier past has fallen on hard times. Too many heroes in white hats and too strong an identification with a triumphant—and white—country, subduing all before it, doesn’t offer the best medium for representing the morally conflicted and self-loathing America of the 21st century.

I don't think it has much to do with Indians. After all, most Westerns were about lawmen vs outlaws than Cowboys vs Indians. Many more Westerns were like SHANE, HIGH NOON, and BIG COUNTRY than THE SEARCHERS. Even in STAGECOACH, which has a thrilling chase and shootout with the Indians, Ringo's(John Wayne) ultimate enemy is a band of white guys. And MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday vs the Clanton Gang. So, the Western can easily skirt around the Indian issue. I recall there was a popular long-running foul-mouthed TV Western series called DEADWOOD. Its popularity was proof that the Western could be revived with generous servings of violence and vulgarity.

Besides, the 'woke' community could have a field day with the 'genocide' of the Native Americans, and indeed, some anti-Westerns of the late 60s and early 70s ran on that very topic, like SOLDIER BLUE with its over-the-top scene of whites butchering helpless Indians. And there was LITTLE BIG MAN, a much better movie. Oddly enough, it was in this period that JEREMIAH JOHNSON was a pretty big hit. It was made by 'liberal' Jewish Sydney Pollack and starred 'ultra-liberal' Robert Redford, but it's really a celebration of tough white guy battling and whupping Indians. It shows the importance of the writer.

Anyway, 'woke' Hollywood has no problem making these Southerns about white 'racism', evil rednecks, angelic blacks, monstrous KKK, and etc. In a way, DJANGO UNCHAINED was as much a Southern as a Western, somewhat similar to the movies about Jesse James and Younger Gang(and RIDE WITH THE DEVIL). If Jewish Hollywood loves to rub the white nose in Slavery and Jim Crow, why not rub the white nose in the 'genocide' of the so-called 'Native Americans', though 'Pre-Americans' would be more accurate?

The reasons are threefold. Even though Jews in the past did occasionally compare the demise of the Indians with the Jewish Holocaust, it also has similarities with what Jews have done to Palestinians. Some Palestinian-American activist have made that very point. Also, Jews push the pro-immigration line of Great Replacement or White Nakba, and guess which people were 'replaced' first in America? The American Indians, of course, and the whole process was accelerated by mass immigration.
Yes, Indians are bad for the pro-immigration narrative. Plenty of immigrants arrived in the New Land to displace the Indians. Chinese laborers laid down railroad tracks that hastened the total erasure of Plain-Indians-America. Also, Jewish merchants sold guns and ammo to the cowboys to kill the Indians, i.e. Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust', and it is a sign of Jewish obnoxiousness the Holocaust Museum occupies the prominent moral space in Washington D.C. Yes, the Shoah was a horror, but it didn't happen in the US, and Americans didn't do it. In contrast, the destruction of Indians happened HERE IN AMERICA. And yet, Jews hold the vaunted position as the top victimological icons in American Politics. So vile.

A JEW IS ASKED WHY NO REMEMBRANCE OF THE HOLOCAUST OF AMERICAN INDIAN?

At any rate, the Jewish logic of Zionism is now also applied to the US, i.e. while Jewish mass immigration to Palestine to replace the Arabs was a great thing, Israel must now remain a Jewish State and non-Jewish immigration must be prohibited or kept to a bare minimum.
Guess how Jews see white goyim, as akin to Jews in Israel with the right to homeland or akin to Palestinians who deserve to be replaced?
The way Jews see the US, it's one big Palestine, and Jews welcome masses of non-white immigrants whose children are indoctrinated with 'wokeness' to blame everything on whitey and to worship Jews, blacks, and homos(as the Tri-Idolatry) over all else, even their own identities and cultures, and this madness is even exported abroad.

https://twitter.com/fbfsubstack/status/1475855433537662976

Furthermore, Indians simply don't have much market value for current 'wokeness'. While the tragedy of Cowboys-killing-Indians may be morally charged for some, it just doesn't have the kind of power of Southerners-lynching-Negroes. At the very least, the American Indians fought back and did kill and/or torture a fair amount of whites. In contrast, especially because people don't know about black thuggery in the Old South, people have this image of neanderthal rednecks randomly killing helpless angelic Negroes. But there's an even bigger factor, and it's about black stardom in sports and pop music, which makes whites feel more sensitive and sorry for what was done to 'cool' blacks than to 'cold' Indians.
Notice the Noble Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST hardly says anything, whereas mammy in GONE WITH THE WIND is always hollering up a storm. Silence may be golden, but noise takes the cake. It's like Tommy gets more 'respect' than Henry in GOODFELLAS. Tommy never shuts up whereas Henry doesn't say much. Don Rickles certainly didn't get where he did by being a stone-faced Indian.

NICK FUENTES: THE TRUTH ABOUT WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Response to James Lawrence's Nonsensical Piece of Misdirection on the Real Problems of Jewish Power: "AN ANTIDOTE TO THE JEWPILL (PART 2: ANTICHRISTIANITY)"

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/12/an-antidote-to-jewpill-part-2.html

Why would anyone bother to argue with E. Michael Jones' political theology? It is absurd because Jones conflates spirituality with rationalism, i.e. Jesus represents objective truths of the universe. The looniness is right there. If people want to accept religion as faith, prophecy, or imagination, that's fine. But anyone who claims religion = reason has no understanding of either.

Jones is useful to our side because, in his shotgun approach to Jewish Power, he sometimes hits the right targets. Same with Rick Wiles of TruNews. Even Neo-Nazis are useful in this regard. It's like radical leftists got so much of history wrong, but their anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism sometimes hit the right targets, the rottenness of the US empire and globalist-capitalism that needs to be exposed.
Otherwise however, there's no point in addressing E. Michael Jones' worldview. He's essentially a Paleo-Catholic crank who can't tell logos apart from bogus. But then, this 'James Lawrence' sounds rather too much like Nathan Cofnas larping as a 'Christian'. But whereas E. Michael Jones is clearly and sincerely nutty, there's something weasely and disingenuous about Lawrence's piece. It reads like misdirection that boils down to "Don't blame the Jews. Goyim started it, and Jews just followed, rather haplessly."

In Europe, it was the French revolution that emancipated the Jews, not the Jews who unleashed the revolution. In America, it was the Progressive and New Deal movements that raised them into the governing elite, and set the stage for everything that MacDonald describes in The Culture of Critique. Even Zionism, contrary to popular belief on the Dissident Right, was a 19th-century Protestant religious obsession (called ‘restorationism’) before it was taken up by Jewish nationalists like Emma Lazarus and Theodore Herzl.

First of all, only a moron rightist believes that everything revolutionary is bad and caused by Jews. Only a moron rightist thinks that everything leftist is wrong and that everything right is somehow noble. True, there are moron-rightists who still dream of monarchs & aristocracy and feel triggered by anything that hints of 'revolution'. In a way, such position has more to do with the likes of Bill Buckley — National Review ran countless articles on how the French Revolution was a dress rehearsal for 20th century radicalism, not only communism but Fascism — than with Alt-Right or the New Right, many of whom see the value of socialism and the positive role that revolution and social reforms played in the development of the Modern West. After all, what distinguished the West from the Rest? West accepted and even accelerated changes, revolutions in so many areas. This dichotomy also applies to the Christian West and Christian East, especially Byzantium. While the former grew and grew, the latter declined and fell under the Ottoman Muslims. If Christian logos is a sure formula of truth and power, why did Byzantium fail? It was far more 'theocratic' than the Christian West that broke free of Medievalism and gained much from neo-paganism of the Renaissance. What really made the Modern West was the fusion of neo-paganism(that sparked creativity in the arts and Hellenistic approach to logic and science) and Christian prophecy. The 'problem'(if it is a problem) with paganism is it lacks a unified vision of the universe and the future. According to paganism, there are many gods, therefore there is no single direction to history but a contest of competing forces, like with the gods in THE ILIAD. In contrast, Christian monotheism says there is one force, God, that leads history to fulfill a certain prophecy. Thus, the Christian mindset is more committed to a linear theory of progress. Now, Christianity alone could mean Byzantine enervation or Medieval ascetism that hardly moves history forward. But when fused with neo-pagan creativity and spark, the combination could open new horizons.

Anyway, only a fool would argue that the revolutionary spirit was necessarily bad for the West. If anything, it is what made the West, relative to the far more conservative Rest(and Byzantium). Pro-Western people don't have a problem with revolution per se. Rather, the problem has been with impatient radicalism rooted in the cult of rationalism. (Radicalism isn't content with organic pace of change and seeks to bring about utopia in single leaps. Granted, change and progress aren't necessarily organic. Rather, they must be encouraged and pushed. It's like plants need sun and nutrients to grow. Children need to be pressured by parents to study. Coaches must drive athletes hard. Inertia is often the natural state of things. Leftism in sane doses can prod society to move a bit faster, hastening the pace of change. There are limits, of course. A child can learn only so much in a week, and an athlete can improve his ability only so much in a season. Leftism sometimes pushes good ideas too fast, but it is truly fatal when it blindly pushes bad ideas as the answer, like with communism.) While the emergence of rationalism was a great thing for the West(especially in science, technology, medicine, etc), it also led to the hubris that mankind could figure everything out and know, based on 'science', what must be done. The result was Marxism(with its supposed 'scientific materialism') and, more recently, Covid Nuttery.
Science is of immense value, but it also spawned 'scientism', the conceit that one's worldview or ideology is foolproof for being based on 'science'. Such Iron Rationalism actually undermines real rationalism. This usually applies to the human sciences. At one time, the 'scientistic' element favored the 'scientific racists' who were so sure of their theories of race. Today, the 'scientistic' element favors the 'scientific anti-racists' who, based on incomplete evidence or willful self-delusion, insist that race is just a social construct. In both cases, true science is clouded by 'scientism' that really amounts to misuse of science for what are ideological purposes. ('Scientific Anti-Racism' will be far more harmful to the West as it will argue that 500 million black African immigrants won't make any difference to Europe because people are just people. 'Scientific Racism' led Europeans to mistreat or murder some peoples or groups, but 'Scientific Anti-Racism' can only lead to wholesale murder of Europe.)

Maybe some extreme Anti-Jewite or ultra-rightist believes every revolutionary movement was bad(and that we should be living in the Middle Ages) or that Jews were the key players in all these events. But that's mostly a red herring because it misses the essence of the current criticism of Jewish Power among today's white nationalists or white-centrists, most of whom don't care what happened 500 yrs ago, let alone 1000 or 2000 yrs.
Of utmost importance is what is happening NOW, and who can deny that Jewish Supremacism rules the West? Furthermore, who can deny that, what Jews push onto white goyim doesn't apply to Jews themselves. If indeed ideology controls the Jews, they would judge themselves by the same yardstick with which they judge whites. But they don't. A case in point. If the ideology of 'anti-racism' is indeed dominant in the West, Jews would not only be bashing whites for past discrimination against blacks but for white support of Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians. But the very Jews who decry white treatment of blacks insist and demand that whites support whatever Israel does to Palestinians(and Arabs in outlying territories). But 'James Lawrence' is rather like Nathan Cofnas on this issue. He'd rather sweep it under the rug while yammering about some Christian theological controversy from 1000 yrs ago. Like who cares about that crap? Maybe E. Michael Jones cares, but even most people who value Jones' criticism of Jewish Power don't care to read his books or lend any credence to his notion that Logos = Worshiping Jesus. I'd argue that most white nationalists or white-centrists are, at heart, neo-pagan, and good for them!

Also, what do we mean by Jews in the historical sense? Your average Jew throughout history didn't amount to much. The real movers and shakers were elite Jews, often the bankers and others with close ties with European elites. These individuals were most certainly manipulating events for Jewish interests. FDR, for example, had the overwhelming support of Elite Jewry. It's true that Jews were absorbing lots of ideas and attitudes from Anglo-Protestants and even following their lead, but it's also true that Jews were playing a prominent role in steering Anglos toward certain goals, like war with Germany. Sometimes, Anglo and Jewish interests overlapped, but more than any other group, Jews steered events in the interests of their tribal interest. Who can deny this? Jews were pro-Soviet at one time because Jews played a key role in the Russian Revolution and because Soviet Union fought Hitler's Germany. After the war, many Jews spied for the Soviet Union. But as the Soviet Union turned more pro-Arab and anti-Israel, even so-called 'leftist' Jews grew hostile to communism, and Neocons joined and even came to lead the anti-communist crusade in the 1980s. Who doesn't see a tribal angle to this?
And if ideology matters so much to Jews, how come all those 'liberal Jews' don't condemn ultra-rightist Israel? Why are they silent about Jewish oligarchs allied with Naziesque forces in Ukraine? If they're such good 'secular liberals', why do they turn a blind eye to Israel's support of ultra-religious ISIS and other crazy Jihadists working against secular Assad of Syria? Never mind what happened 500 or 1000 yrs ago. Why can't 'James Lawrence' address the world today? Why is he misdirecting our focus from the obvious truths in the here-and-now to some mumbo jumbo theological debates centuries ago?

Alas, this theory contradicts the central dogma of white nationalism: that racial self-interest is primary, and truths, doctrines and ideas are secondary. WNs want to live in a dark fever-dream, where every race except the white one is strategising for its self-interest under a cynical veil of ideals – and we need only become paranoid enough to perceive the hidden strategies, and deceptive enough to conceal our own self-interest in the same way. They do not want to live in the light of consciousness, where ideals really motivate individuals, and solidify the cohesion of groups – because in this reality, their own dream is reduced to a narrow and paltry ideal, a cult of biological race.

What a lying piece of turd. White Nationalists don't say racial self-interest IS primary. They know it from White Decline all around. If racial self-interest were primary, whites wouldn't be in this mess. What they say is that racial self-interest MUST BE primary. In other words, it can't be taken for granted and must be embraced as a consciousness. They say identity must dictate ideology, not vice versa. Why? History shows time and again that identity has greater resilience and longevity than ideas or ideology or whatever. Any people who forget this are fated to fade away and die.
Also, white-centrists don't believe in some 'dark fever dream' where whites must conceal their own self-interests. No, they are for exposing the Jewish self-interest and for OPENLY and HONESTLY exhorting and exercising white self-interest.

Being pro-identity doesn't mean one is anti-ideological. Rather, it means ideology must complement identity. History bears this out. Every religion came to be a tool of power, of a people or an order. Thus, Catholic kingdoms fought other Catholic kingdoms. One Arab tribe, though Muslim, fought another Arab tribe, also Muslim. Russia and China were both communist, but Russian communism served Russia, Chinese communism served China. Russian history is a clear case of identity outlasting ideology, i.e. Russia was Russia before communism, during communism, and after communism. Any people, culture, or civilization can weather the rise and fall of ideologies or political systems AS LONG AS the people remain intact. It is when the people are replaced that it's really game over. The fall of Imperial Tsarist system wasn't the end of Russia. The fall of communism wasn't the end of Russia either. But if Russians were to be replaced by another people, it'd be the end of Russia regardless of ideology. This is why 'muh democracy' is so dumb. "Gee, I don't care if white nations become 90% non-white as long as it still has free markets and elections."

 
The course of current Western History goes to show that racial self-interest doesn't come naturally or first-and-foremost among a people. A people can be brainwashed to welcome their own destruction in the name of false gods of ideology. Or a people can be conditioned to believe their purpose is to serve another people. The lower castes in India were made to feel this way about members of higher caste. In the past, blacks in the South were made to believe their lot was to serve whites because, on their own, they'd just be crazy dumb ni**ers. It's like dogs can be trained to favor the interests of the master over their own dog-hood.
But any people that wants to survive into the future better put race/identity before ideology or make ideology bend to identity. China adopted universal communism but molded it to serve the Chinese people. Iran practices universal Islam, but this doesn't mean it rejects Iranian national interest. Nicaragua practices democracy, but it's a national democracy than one that bends to the US globalist world order.

According to 'James Lawrence', the cult of biological race is a 'paltry ideal'. The white race, or any race, is the product of 100,000s or at least 10,000s of yrs of evolution. White race was forged by survival through all sorts of climates and terrains. It came into existence even before white civilization. Before there was white culture/society, there was the white race. In other words, race came before all else. What we call 'history' is maybe 5,000 yrs, or at most 6,000 yrs. 'History' and high civilization came to Northern Europe much later. Perhaps, Northern European history is 1,500 or 1,200 yrs, much shorter than Egypt's, Persia's, India's, and China's. Long before the rise of European civilization, there was the European race forged by struggle in ice and fire over many eons. This is a rich biological heritage that has value regardless of ideology. After all, a European's primary value is his European being, not whether he's a 'Christian', 'atheist', 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'capitalist', 'libertarian', and etc. This isn't to discount the importance of ideas but to state the obvious: being precedes believing. So, the most valuable ideology is one that places Being before Believing. European race came into existence long before Christianity or any other idea-system. And yet, for 'James Lawrence'(a larping version of Nathan Cofnas?), white consciousness of rich and deep racial history is a 'paltry ideal'. Maybe 'Lawrence' feels this way because he happens to be a paltry specimen of the white race: an ugly stupid dork idiot.

Now, it's true that one can read too much into the supposed Jewish Plan. It can get rather silly, like with Adam Green's theory that Jews cooked up Christianity and spread it to goyim to gain power over them. Green, like E. Michael Jones, is useful as a critic of Jewish Power because he sometimes hits the right targets. But the grand conspiracy theory of Christianity is just ludicrous.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hbt65YdfHwSi/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bAsucAXXFbZM/

According to Green, Jews turned goyim into Christian Anti-Semites who oppressed Jews so that Jews could, 2000 yrs later, guilt-bait goyim into serving Jews. ROTFL and LOL rolled into one. It'd be like saying blacks cooked up the slave trade so that blacks could one day guilt-bait whites into kissing black ass. And maybe Japan actually planned to lose WWII to become an ally of the US and gain access to US markets.

This is where grand-theorizing can easily jump the shark. Now, there is a kernel of truth to Adam Green's view. Jews are big thinkers and tend to be more strategic than other races. Jewish personality can be glimpsed in Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series where some Big Mind prophesies future events and sees what the normal mind doesn't see. Stanley Kubrick's films were also conceived on the Big Think principle. Jews have been obsessed with chess, a game of strategy where the winner is usually the one who computes more moves ahead. Now, some might argue this is merely the result of higher intelligence, but intelligence isn't necessarily interested in Big Ideas or grand concepts. Anglos have been an intelligent people but their mental skills were focused on empiricism, things that could be observed, collected, and studied. Plenty of very smart people are narrowly focused on a single topic or task. Intelligence per se doesn't strive for the grand theory of everything or the grand prophecy of what will be(or what must be). In other words, most intelligent economists weren't like Karl Marx with a grand theory of history, one who tried to tie together all the past with all the future, the science with the theory of justice. So, the Jewish mindset isn't merely the product of high intelligence. Rather, it's part of the Jewish prophetic tradition(which is more accurate than the 'revolutionary spirit'). Now, what came first in a chicken-or-egg way? Jewish personality or Jewish prophecy? Was there something in Jewish personality that favored propheticism? Or did the culture of propheticism favor those Jews who claimed to be farther-seeing and more profounder in reach? I don't know.

Now, does this mean that Jews long ago looked into the future and brought about events that led to the 20th century? No. While Jews are more strategic and farther-seeing than most peoples, no people(however intelligent or strong-willed) can look into the future and plan events that happen centuries, let alone millennia, later. Kubrick's films are about 'perfect plans' that always fail due to some unforeseen X-factor. There are lots of X-factors and/or black swans in history. Karl Marx based his prophecy on economic trends in his time. He failed to see how those trends would change with new developments in science and technology. Also, he underestimated the element of individual will and the power of the irrational. Furthermore, prophecies tend to undermine themselves because they not only serve as vision of the future but alarm that wakes the enemy. Marxist prophecy forced capitalists to wake up and amend their ways and make compromises with moderate socialists lest growing unrest and radicalism lead to real revolution. Thus, most prophecies are self-defeating by alerting the enemy to what's up ahead unless something is done(to suppress the movement or to win over the moderate voices within it).

Jewish History cannot be understood apart from goy history as most of it is about Jews co-existing with the far more numerous and powerful goyim. Thus, Jews lacked the autonomy that the Persians, Hindus, and Chinese had. Persians had their dominant space. Hindus had their own cosmologically ordered society. Chinese had their own Middle Kingdom. In contrast, Jews had to exist alongside goyim, and this meant they could never practice the kind of centrism of the great goy powers.
Now, if Jews were simply aiming to assimilate and do business, this would have been no big deal. Plenty of minority cultures assimilated and became part of larger cultures. Most of the tribes mentioned in the Bible no longer exist. They became part of Persian folks, Arab folks, Turkic folks, European-Christian folks, and etc. It could have been the same with Jews but for the fact that they came up with the most powerful religious concept and the idea of the Covenant that set themselves apart from goyim. So, even as goyim were more numerous and more powerful, Jews held this conviction that, ethno-spiritually at least, they were the best because of the Covenant with the one true God.

But because Jews insisted on serving their own JEWISH interests despite lacking a secure world of their own, they had to be more esoteric, clever, shadowy, and devious in their thinking and approach. They had to latch onto goy systems, values, fashions, and trends while somehow manipulating them to favor Jewish interests. Of course, Jews themselves were profoundly impacted by these goy values and systems(though, with something like Christianity, one could debate til the cows come home as to whether it's 'semitic' or 'aryan' because it's 'semitic' as foundation but 'aryan' as edifice). But no matter how much Jews adopted goy ways and ideas, they eventually made them serve Jewish identity because the very foundation of Jewishness is the ethno-spiritual Covenant; this core concept of Jewishness is so essential that it even defines secular Jews.

In contrast, Christianity is about weakening one's tribal identity in favor of universal values. To become a better Christian, you favor fellow Christians of all color over your own kind on the basis of blood. However, to be a good Jew means to stick with the Covenant and to believe in the fusion of spirit and blood, the Jewish blood. Thus, even if Jews and white Christians adopt the same 'universal' values, they eventually go separate ways. White Christians try to make themselves less white and more universal because the core principle of Christianity is to unite all of humanity as brethren under Jesus. In contrast, given the nature of Judaism, Jews use the same 'liberal' or 'universal' ideals to serve Jewish identity and interests because the core function of Judaism is preservation of the race on account of its sacred blood.

Look at Jewish Liberals and Wasps Liberals from the New Deal era. After WWII, with each passing year, white liberals became less race-centric, less tribal, and less nationalist, whereas Jewish liberals became more race-centric, more tribal, and more nationalist(even to the point of supremacism). If the power of ideology is paramount, white liberals and Jewish liberals would have ended up the same way. But today, white liberals denounce Hungary for trying to preserve itself while Jewish 'liberals' not only support ultra-right Israel but work with neocon Jews to make sure ALL US POLITICIANS totally support Israel while kicking Palestinians into the dirt. What do Jewish 'conservatives' in the US and Jewish 'conservatives' in UK have in common? Do they care about the preservation of the white race or Christian heritage in either country? No, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jewish Power?" The fact that there is far less animus between Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' than between white 'left' and white 'right' goes to show that Jews put identity before ideology, whereas whites put ideology before identity, a fatal development. Now, one could argue that the relative tribal unity among Jews stems from the anxiety of minority status, but it's the same in Israel where Jews are the solid majority.

There are two reasons why Jewish Identity is easier to utilize as the basis of political conviction. Jewish ethnicity has been sacralized via the Covenant. So, according to Judaism, Jewish pride isn't based on tribal arrogance alone but on the very word of God. In contrast, there's nothing in Christianity that bestows specialness on the white race. Thus, while white Christians could feel the glow of sanctity as Christians(though not so much anymore because Jews associated the history of Christianity with 'antisemitism', 'racism', and cultural repression), they can feel no such merely as whites. In contrast, the mere fact of being Jewish means God is watching over you. He chose your kind. (This is why the only solution for whites is to forge their own covenant with the power of the universe. White blood must be sacralized, but this requires the emergence of white prophecy. Christianity, in contrast, means that your blood is hopelessly tainted with sin and can only be cleansed with infusion of Jesus's blood. Covenant binds. Goy way was to divide goyim into aristocrats and subjects. Elites and peons. Because white elites looked down on white peons, Jews could manipulate the division by aiding the goy elites in the exploitation of goy masses. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant says even the blood of the lowliest Jew is equal to that of the richest Jew in the eyes of God. One good thing about National Socialism was it valued every German as part of the national volk.)

The other reason why Jewish Identity is politically justified is ironically due to Christian morality and its emphasis on victimology as basis of virtue. Jews ran with the Holocaust Narrative and made themselves to be the biggest victims in history... at the hands of the Christian West no less. (Some will say the Nazis were neo-pagan, but Jews argue that the entire history of Antisemitism, beginning with the Christian kind, led to the horror in WWII.) Thus, Holocaustianity guilt-baits white Christians with a twist on Christian morality. Jews are suddenly the new jesuses crucified by White Gentiles/Christians as the New Romans.
This guilt-consciousness has been the Achilles Heel of Christianity, at least IF non-Christians were to gain control of the Narrative. In contrast, Muslims are immune to such psycho-emotional manipulation because Muhammad told his followers to do some Jihad, kick butt, never apologize, and convert infidels(or kill them if they get in the way). You don't see Muslims groveling before Jews or bending down to wash stinky Negro feet. Islam can be plenty repressive and dogmatic but it's not sanctimonious like Christianity with 'turn the other cheek' spiel. Muhammad told his followers to kick the other (ass) cheek of the enemy, not turn the other cheek for the enemy to slap. Of course, Christians hardly turned the other cheek and preferred to wage war and kill lots of people, but this could eventually be used to guilt-bait Christian conscience IF the enemy were to gain control of the Narrative. And Jews gained control over the Narrative, which is why the New Western or Schwestern Values are based on a litany of white historical sins, especially to Jews and blacks(as Jews don't want whites to feel sorry for what they did to Arabs and Palestinians).

Now, it's true that what we call Jewish Power is the result of interaction of Jews and goyim. It's like Jews in Italy were different from Jews in France were different from Jews in Britain were different from Jews in Russia were different from Jews in Brazil were different from Jews in America from Jews in Iran and so on. If the Anglo World never existed, Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were super-ambitious and highly talented as world conquerors, and Jews rode on that white horse to world power. Also, even though certain Jewish elites had considerable influence throughout Western history, it's only recently that Jews gained anything like supreme power via the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans who, at some point, decided to get on all fours and play white horsey to the Jewish rider.
So, Jewish worldview always changed and adapted in accordance to shifting historical landscapes. It's not as if a cabal of Jews in the 12th century were planning the Bolshevik revolution of the 20th century or globo-homo parades of the 21st century. Still, whatever Jews were faced with through history, there has been a running thread of bending and twisting things to serve Jewish interests, not least by suppressing criticism of Jews while amplifying criticism of their rivals or enemies.

 
Take Hollywood. One could say Jews didn't invent motion pictures. Jews weren't the first to start the movie business. But once they gained dominance in the industry, they were mindful to make it Jewish-friendly. Of course, Jews had to make compromises. In the early 20th century when Christians and moralists(and anti-Jewish elements) had lots of power, Jews had to agree to stuff like the Hayes Code and appease the Catholic Church. Jews were also mindful not to offend the American South. Still, Jews made sure Hollywood made lots of anti-German movies in the 1930s. And Jews in Hollywood did everything to blacken Joe McCarthy's name because HUAC at one time forced Jewish Hollywood to blacklist certain Jewish writers and directors. And Hollywood also made stuff like EXODUS while not making a single pro-Palestinian movie. So, while, in one way, Hollywood is just another American Capitalist success story, it's also been a Judeo-centric enterprise. Who can deny that Jewish control had a profound impact on how so many Americans(and global audiences) came to see the world? Via Hollywood movies, countless people around the world came to see Islam as synonymous with terrorism. Via Hollywood movies, countless Europeans came to regard white Americans as mindless gun-toting 'racists' who lynch blacks at the drop of a hat.

In a way, Jews are too smart for ideology or fashion trends even as they pretend to go along or get swept up for awhile. In the Sixties, Jews and goyim alike took part in the Counterculture. But whereas many simpleminded white goyim gave themselves fully to the hippie culture and the like, many Jews soon realized how silly it was. And there was too much money to be made than rolling in the hay, wearing flowers in your hair, and searching for Indians to touch. Better to organize rock concerts and rake in the profits than wear tie-dyes and waste your days as a 'deadhead'. Be like David Geffen.

Jewish intelligence can't help but seeing goyim as dumb. Suppose someone with 100 IQ found himself among those with 80 IQ. Would he want to take orders from the dummies? Would he consider them as his equal? He might pretend to because he's outnumbered. It'd sure be dumb for the 100 IQ guy to say to the 80 IQ crowd, "You guys sure are dumb. I'm smarter, I deserve to rule, so do as I say or kiss my ass!" Even dummies will take offense and kick his ass. So, what should he do? He pretends to be for 'equality' and act in interest of the common good while slyly gaining power over them. He may also guilt-bait the 80 IQ crowd by saying they are 'privileged' over the 60 IQ crowd even though he, with 100 IQ, is the most privileged among them all.

Higher IQ simply wants to rule over lower IQ. It's just human nature. It's like blacks, being tougher, want to be the alpha race over others. Blacks will not say it but feel it just the same. Indeed, blacks would be far less anti-white IF whites were equally tough. Suppose whites were just as good at fighting and sports. Suppose NBA and NFL were majority white and blacks made up only 13% of the players. Blacks would actually respect whites and have far less problem with whites having lots of good stuff. But blacks, being obsessed with fighting and sports, look upon whites as inferior wussy fa**oty race of slow white boys. Whites are inferior, so why they gots more than blacks? This infuriates blacks who believe they, as the alpha race, should rule. Jews feel the same way but on the basis of higher intelligence.

But it's not just about brawn or brains. After all, there are big tough guys who are mellow in temperament. And there are smart people who are nice and kind. So, their superiority doesn't make them especially nasty or hostile. But blacks are naturally oogity-boogity due to evolution alongside hippos, hyenas, and lions. They be nasty. And Jews are naturally pushy-wushy due to reasons of evolutions stemming from rabbinical and merchant competition. Thus, there are lots of Jews with personalities of Albert Brooks, Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Silverman, and Howard Stern. No wonder then that black brawn consciousness often leads to jive-ass thuggery, and Jewish brain consciousness often leads to sneering contempt, so evident among the likes of Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin, Rob Reiner(meathead), John Podhoretz, and etc.

This is why Jews and blacks sort of see eye to eye. Being advantaged in different areas, they often fear or resent the other, but they also take pride in having extra juice for causing havoc for the rest of us. Terms of Jew-Black Alliance goes as follows: "Jews will use all their might to browbeat and guilt-bait whites into elevating blacks as the gods and idols of the New US, and blacks in turn will dump on whites and 'white supremacism' but will not call out on Jews and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians."
But then, Jews get away with such anti-white crap because whites worship Jews as either the Chosen(Christian Zionists), Holy Holocaust People, Endearing Comedians, or High IQ Geniuses. Indeed, even HBD-sphere is worshipful of Jews. Why does Jared Taylor remain silent about the very people who've done most to de-platform him? It's because he's so enthralled with Jewish Greatness. People like Taylor and John Derbyshire are not hoping for equal partnership with Jews. Rather, they are willing to be servants and sidekicks of Jews in return for Jewish tolerance of white interests. "We white goyim will serve you superior Jews, the true master race, IF you Jews permit our white interests." But why would Jews agree to that? If Jews are the master race, it's only fitting for Jews to serve their own interests, not allow white interests. Now, what if some whites argue that Jewish interests and white interests are totally aligned... like the notion of Judeo-Christian? But Jews are not stupid. They know Christianity began as an anti-Jewish religion. Also, Jews and Europeans had a long troubled history, and all of sudden, Jews and whites are Best-Friends-Forever? No way. Besides, even if whites turned over a new leaf and are sworn to be nice to Jews henceforth, Jews know it's only a matter of time before 'antisemitism' resurfaces. Why? Because bad Jewish behavior will get out of control again. Jews know this. There are good Jews who prefer to play fair and decent, but there are also bad Jews who use every dirty trick in the book. The problem is, given the nature of Jewish Identity, if good Jews had to choose between good goyim and bad Jews, they will go with the latter. It's just a tribal thing. And so, bad Jews go unchecked and give Jews a bad name, and this leads to 'antisemitism'. Good Jews may not want bad Jews to act so badly, but they just can't make themselves side with good goyim against bad Jews. So, Jews have decided to destroy every last vestige of white identity and unity because, then, there won't be any white resistance no matter how badly the bad Jews act and how much the good Jews cover for bad Jews. (Of course, if good Jews aid bad Jews, they too become bad Jews.) Besides, good Jews figure, as nasty as bad Jews are, they(the bad ones) got bigger cojones to do what good Jews wouldn't dare do. Thus, sometimes, it's the bad Jews who really make things happen, from which even good Jews can profit... like the spread of gambling and Zionic scramble for world domination.

 
It's like good Anglos often relied on the ambition and adventurousness of bad Anglos to gain more territory and loot. But whereas whites reached a point where good ones called out on bad ones, good Jews dare not call out on bad Jews. Same with blacks. There are some good blacks, but in the name of 'brotherhood', they stick together and the good ones don't call out on bad ones... which makes black behavior worse, which can lead to more 'racism'. Even though good whites are far more likely to call out on bad whites, there's a limit to white conscience(as it lacks agency). In their worship of Jews and blacks, good whites dare not call out on bad Jews or bad blacks. Why, that'd be 'antisemitic' or 'racist'. It's a vile and vicious cycle of moral blindness and hypocrisy that the West has fallen into.

THE END OF TWITTER?, MAXWELL FIX IS IN, HANUKKAH CELEBRATION, JEWS SAY SANTA IS TOO WHITE - Know More News - Adam Green