Idolatry Is the Flipside of Bigotry: Consider the Case of the Jews and Blacks - Excessive idolization of one group may lead to blind hatred for whatever groups hated by the idolized group.

 

There are two ways to promote or authorize prejudice, the negative and the positive. The negative way is brutally simple. Pick any group and tar them, defame them, or dehumanize them. It could be a racial group, ethnic entity, religious community, or ideological camp. For example, consider all those Hollywood movies where Arabs/Muslims were rarely little more than Jihadis or terrorists. Present them as a bunch of ‘ragheads’, barely human ‘muzzies’ to mow down when necessary, like in William Friedkin’s adaptation of Jim Webb’s RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. (Webb, who opposed George W. Bush’s Iraq War, should have known better than to produce such a pernicious work, especially because it feigns balance before finally concluding ALL Arabs to be a bunch of towel-head scum deserving to be mowed down from old man to young girl.)
Negative prejudice is, of course, common during war-time, even though current conventions decry overt caricaturing of the enemy, as happened in World War I and World War II: The evil ‘Huns’ depicted as rapacious gorillas or the vicious ‘Japs’ as rabid rodents. Granted, there’s still a lot of fulminating about barbaric Iranians and cruel Russians, but it’s hardly up to the levels of wars of yesteryear(except when depicting ‘white supremacists’).

However, there is another(and more insidious) way to normalize and enforce official prejudice: The excessive positive elevation of a certain group to the point of quasi-idolatry. Why would this be? A mindless promotion of A doesn’t necessarily demean B, C, or D. Just because A is made more popular or special doesn’t mean others are robbed of their basic dignity and rights of humanity.
But this is true only insofar as A has no hostile agendas against B, C, D, E, F, and/or etc. If indeed A does mean harm to, say, B and C, our obsessive devotion to A inevitably blinds us to the interests, rationales, and worthiness of B and C, because all we’d ever want to care about is A-ALL-THE-WAY.

That is why idolizing certain groups is dangerous, indeed far more than certain individuals. We know from celebrity culture that idolatry turns certain figures into ‘stars’, ‘heroes’, and ‘icons’. The fans, who could number in the millions or even hundreds of millions, are so taken with their idols that they often turn a blind eye to the dark side of their demigods or, worse, even justify it as ‘cool’ or ‘badass’.
The dark side of populism was admitted when Donald Trump said that his most devoted followers will vote for him even if he murdered someone in cold blood. So many movie stars, rockers, rappers, and athletes have gotten away with murder(figuratively speaking but literally in some cases) simply because of widespread adoration. Oftentimes, bad behavior, rotten values, and stupid attitudes were normalized simply because many people tend to imitate their ‘heroes’. The weaponization of Taylor Swift was on the assumption that the Swifties will do as their goddess-princess decrees.

Idolization goes way beyond favoring something. Rather, it favors something at the expense of others, even oneself. If Bob, Bill, Peter, Jim, and Nicolas each favor the self, that’d be the most natural thing. Each individual understandably prioritizes what is essential and necessary for himself. There is fairness and balance in each of the men favoring his own interest, of course within the rule of law and principles of fair play.
The problem of idolatry arises when one of the guys, say Jim, is accorded special status and fawned over by the others to the extent that his interests, feelings, and well-being take precedence even over the self among the others. So, Bob, Bill, Peter, and Nicolas will happily sacrifice their own self-interest in order to favor Jim. But it can even get worse if Jim harbors hostility toward, say, Nicolas. Suppose Jim wants Nicholas’ house and car. Bob, Bill, and Peter’s devotion to Jim would be such that they will berate Nicholas for protesting Jim’s hostile moves against him.
Idolizing Jim didn’t necessarily dehumanize the others, but if Jim were to turn hostile against anyone, idolatry translates into a bigotry toward the target of his ire on the logic that, Jim being so awesome, he must always be right, and whatever or whomever he hates must be in the wrong, therefore even worthy of destruction. Thus, idolatry could easily be the flipside of bigotry.

If we expand the example of individuals to ethnic and racial groups in the US, there’s nothing untoward about various groups favoring their own interests. It’s hardly surprising that the Armenian-American community would be more fixated on what goes on in Armenia and its diaspora. Same goes for Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Burmese-Americans, and etc. Each group favoring its own kind isn’t idolatry but merely natural self-interest. After all, if Irish-Americans don’t prioritize Irishness and their culture and people, who will?

There is a kind of equality and mutuality of respect when each group emphasizes what is most important to its people and culture. Your people respect the other people’s priorities, and vice versa. Your people don’t claim that their interests are first and foremost for the entire country and neither do the peoples of other ethnic groups. The varying interests may be unrelated — it’s doubtful if anything meaning to a Pakistani-American community has any bearing on the Cuban-American community and vice versa — , divergent, or in conflict, but even if tensions arise, there is no danger of idolatry if both contentious groups acknowledge that the entirety of the country doesn’t exist to prioritize one ethnic interests or agendas uber alles. For example, the Turkish-American community and the Greek-American community may not see eye-to-eye on the issue of Cyprus, but both are sensible enough to know that the US doesn’t exist to place Greek or Turkish gripes on the front burner. Thus, both groups lobby for their own ethnic or national interests, as do all the other groups.

But what if one group is elevated to the point of idolatry? Not only does it serve its own interests(like all the others do) but insists upon other groups to shower it with special attention, then favors, then respect, then reverence, then obedience, then worship. Suppose every group is pressed upon to praise and serve this particular group, indeed care more about it than care about itself. While each group’s ethnic interests are to remain mostly a ‘petty’ or ‘private’ affair, the interests of this particularly vaunted group is mandated as a public ritual and spectacle. All must openly profess unconditional support, devotion, and loyalty to this group.
So, while Greek-Americans must go through the usual channels(mostly hidden from view) to pursue their own ethnic interests, their support for this special group must be vocal and visible, loud and unambiguous. In other words, Greek-American interests are merely ‘your business’, but the interests of this special group are ‘OUR BUSINESS’, indeed duty and mission.
Of course, the group we’re talking about is Jewish. The two other groups with similar status(though largely owing to Jewish power of selection and promotion) are the blacks and the homos.

Now, if the specially favored group only craves hugs and kisses, it wouldn’t be so bad. While undue attention showered upon it robs other groups of their own concerns, at least it won’t generate hostility and hatred for other groups. But suppose the special group not only hogs most of the positive attention but insists, indeed demands, that all the other groups direct negative rage against whatever groups it has a vendetta against. Not only must we kiss its feet but we must kick the butts of its designated enemies, even if they’ve done us no harm or harbored ill will towards us. Thus, the idolatry for the special group can easily turn into a kind of bigotry, spawning a whole bunch of Idolatrous-Bigots or Idolots.

Idolatry for the Jews have turned many Americans into idolots, often unsuspectingly so. Whereas bigots are easy to recognize, not so with the idolots whose mindless hatred are usually shrouded in words of love. In the 1980s, plenty of bigoted movies featuring ‘raghead’ Muslim terrorists were common, but such blatant propaganda have fallen out of fashion. Yet, the great majority of Americans, even those who are critical of Israel, still favor Jews/Zionists over Arabs/Muslims. It owes to the continuing idolatry of the Jews.
So, it’s no longer about hating Palestinians, Arabs, or Muslims as natural-born terrorists but emphasizing the Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, the God’s Chosen, the high IQ genius folks, or funny fellas(via comedy). If someone says, “Muzzies suck and let’s nuke them all”, that’s obvious bigotry, and everyone would notice and condemn it(except for some Republicans who hardly batted an eye when Sheldon Adelson said Iran should be nuked). But if someone says, “We love Israel so much, and Jews are so special, and we must do everything for them”, people often forget that such favoring of one group often leads to a policy of dehumanization toward any group that happens to be in the crosshairs of Jewish Power.

So much of the US foreign policy woes can be traced back to Judeolatry. Why did so many Americans become rabidly and virulently hateful toward Russians, Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians? Why did so many people become anti-white, demeaning any expression of white identity and interests as ‘white supremacist’? Why do so many white people hate themselves, their own race, ethnicity, roots, and culture? More often than not, it’s because they put Judeolatry at the center of their lives. You see, Jews are so great, special, wonderful, wise, and awesome that whatever or whomever Jews denounce(via academia, media, and government) surely deserves all the antipathy that humanity can muster.

This is plainly evident among what still remains of the Christian community in the West, especially America. As Christians, you’d think they care about the well-being of fellow Christians in the Arab World, but they’d rather cheer on the Zionist violence against the Arabs on grounds that Jews are so special that they’re justified even in bombing and slaughtering scores of Christians on the other side of the world. And, if any Christian, white or Arab, draws attention to this madness, he or she is immediately derided as an ‘Anti-Semite’ and ‘canceled’ by the so-called Christian or Conservative community. Consider the time when Christian Arab-Americans called upon Senator Ted Cruz to address the issue of Israel’s attack on Christians in Syria. The cuck-faced turd-maggot of Texas growled and brushed them off as possible ‘Anti-Semites’. Some Christian!

It’s the truth. The main reason why so many Americans hate Russia and Iran is simply sue to Jewish animus, i.e. Russia and Iran are relatively free of World Jewry, at least by the totally cucked standards of the West.
Often, the true rationale for hatred is subconscious because no one wants to admit that he or she is a mental stooge or cuck-puppet of the Jews, but deep in their corrupted hearts is the wish to appease Jews and win their approval. So, as Jews hate Russia, we must hate it too and convince ourselves that the reason why Russia opted for military solution in Ukraine is because barbaric Slavs are hot-blooded, even though it’s more than evident that Russia has been maddeningly patient over the years despite the series of provocations by the Jewish-run West.

Judeolatry always prioritizes Jews among the non-Jews. Thus, a common question is whether one acknowledges that “Israel has a right to exist” while conveniently forgetting or ignoring the fact that Israel was created by denying the right of Palestine’s existence. The positive sympathy bordering on worship for the Jews has turned into contemptuous dismissal of all claims by peoples who were wronged by Jews.
It’s why white so-called ‘conservatives’ always turn a blind eye to those at odds with Israel, characterizing them as ‘terrorists’ or ‘Jew-haters’ simply because they resist the injustice done to them by Jewish Power.

Take Iran and the Jews. Israel has been provoking Iran to no end, even using outright terrorism to murder Iranian scientists, engineers, and diplomats. But, not only do Jewish Zionists at the NYT place quotes around ‘terrorist’(as, when Jews do it, it’s not quite terror) but the pro-Zionist goy idolots always blame Iran despite the slings and arrows hurled at it by World Jewry. If goy idolots watched a Jew strike an Iranian, they’d pretend not to notice. If the Jew then spat on and kicked the Iranian, the goy idolots would look the other way or take sick pleasure in the rightful Jewish Master meting out punishment upon the lowly ‘Muzzie’ slave. But, suppose the Iranian finally had enough and pushed back at the Jew. The goy idolots will predictably scream ‘foul’ and express outrage at such ‘brutality’.
But then, it’s the same dynamic over Jews and whites. Jews attack and defame whites constantly, but most ‘conservatives’ either pretend not to notice or blame the ‘left'(or surreally invoke ‘China’); but then, the minute a white or conservative notices what’s happening and raises the JQ, the ‘conservative’ community goes into hyper-overdrive of howling about ‘Anti-Semitism’.

Consider what Israel’s been doing to Syria and Iran forever. World Jewry and their brownnosing goy puppets pulled every trick in the book to turn Syria into a neo-Medieval ash heap nearly overrun by crazed Jihadis, but Syria was saved at the last minute by Russia and Iran. And for that reason, all Americans are obligated to hate Russia and Iran. (The very people who don’t care about and even cheer on Jews slaughtering Arabs/Muslims will then suddenly say ‘Assad must go’ for ‘gassing’ his people, which turned out to be yet another Jewish lie.) Israel can lob any number of missiles into Syria and use terror on Iran, and the goy idolots will either ignore or defend such transgressions, but the moment Iran strikes back after every last ounce of patience has run dry, the West will throw tantrums about Iranian ‘aggression’.

Likewise, Jews are allowed to spew any amount of abuse at whites, demeaning and defaming them as ‘white supremacists’ and ‘nazis’ and etc. If Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians who resist World Jewry are ‘terrorists’ and ‘radicals’, whites who want to restore their identity and agency are ‘white supremacists’ or the ‘far right’ even though they harbor no desire to rule the world. Viktor Orban, for example, is deemed as ‘far right’ for the moderate desire to preserve his nation’s people and culture. How dare whites have an identity and agenda independent of the decrees of World Jewry.

Sadly, so many white people, in their blind worship of Jews, have internalized anti-white passions(that sometimes border on pathological hysteria whenever Jews sound the alarm bell of ‘nazi’ or ‘white supremacist’ or ‘far right’). Such white people have been conditioned to believe that whites exist to serve the Other, especially the Jew, because apparently whites serving whites is ‘supremacist’.

Now, if whites insisted not only on whites serving whites but nonwhites serving whites as well(as was the case during the Age of Western Empires), one could raise the issue of ‘white supremacy’. But most whites on the Right believe that every people should guard their own identity, preserve their own culture, and serve their own interests, e.g. whites serving whites, browns serving browns, yellows serving yellows, blacks serving blacks.
If anything, it’s the Jews who insist that all non-Jewish groups prioritize what’s-good-for-Jews over any other consideration. So, if a goy is faced with the choice of doing something that is better for his kind at the expense of Jews and doing something that is better for the Jews at his own kind’s expense, he’s obligated to choose the latter.

It’s no wonder that so many whites do things that are obviously detrimental to their own kind, often on grounds that nothing is worthier than appeasing and pleasing the awesome Jews who, being so smart and special and/or chosen, deserve to have everything on a silver platter.
Indeed, even those who defy World Jewry feel obligated to support Israel or, at the very least, not name the Jew. So, Viktor Orban and other ‘far right’ politicians in Europe support Israel, even though most Jews want to do to their nations what was done to the Palestinians. What is the ‘Great Replacement’ but White Nakba orchestrated by Jews via the migration-invasion of the West by the Third World?
And in the case of Putin and his cohorts, they dare not Name the Power that’s been most instrumental in instigating the war in Ukraine. The world seems unperturbed by countless Ukrainian Slavs having been sacrificed on the battlefield in a conflict that was really about Jews using Ukraine as their gangster headquarters in Europe and as a ramming rod against Russia. When idolatry of a group runs so deep, even its targeted enemies are afraid to spell out the plain truth and expose its evil core.

While Jews are the tops when it comes to idolatry, blacks and homos also enjoy the special group privilege of unconditional adoration and celebration. They are usually discussed in terms of tragic victimhood and/or triumphant victory, and of course, the two modes go together as people tend to feel the most sorrow for the most special. With the Jewish media having elevated homos to angel status, an average American is more likely to be triggered by some homo being called ‘fag’ than about the Zionist-led US dropping bombs and killing civilians in the Middle East. And while we hear about the persecution of homosexuals around the world, what goes undiscussed is the role of homosexuals in the US deep state to further Zionist-US aggression and mass mayhem. Homos are the main co-imperialists alongside the genocidal and supremacist Zionists.

With the worldwide goy fascination with blacks ranging from Michael Jackson to Michael Jordan, it’s easy to understand the appeal of MLK and Mandela(and now even George Floyd). Jews have played on this psychological feature of humanity to promote idolatry of blacks, especially among whites whose submission to Jewry is the indispensable foundation of Zionic hegemony. Jews must sit atop the White Horse that is robbed of agency.

Now, if blacks were mostly nice, Negro-Idolatry or Negrolatry might only have limited impact. It would draw excessive attention to stuff like the Super Bowl, college basketball, or popular entertainment at the expense of other matters, but it wouldn’t break a society.
But, in fact, blacks are the most aggressive, pathological, wild, savage, and destructive race on the planet. They’ve already leveled entire cities(like Detroit) and entire parts of cities in Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Oakland, and so on. If not for the ‘gibs’ provided by whites(and others) to the blacks in the US, most black communities would soon regress to the state of Haiti or, at best, Jamaica.

Yet, the idolatry of blacks means either turning a blind eye to the victims of blacks or even blaming them(or blaming others for what blacks do). So, even though the idolatry of blacks didn’t begin as hostility or hatred toward other groups, it de facto turns into that very thing because the pro-black idolots(or idolatrous-bigots) are inconvenienced by non-white victimhood that upsets the cart of Negrolatry.
The preponderance of victimhood at the hands of blacks undermines the faith in black wonderfulness, black nobility, black sanctity, black wisdom, and etc.
So, whenever blacks act badly, the Jewish-run media and their cuck consumers pretend the perpetrators are ‘youths’ or ‘lunch-time rowdies’. If a crazed Negro in an SUV rams into white people, blame the car, not the Negro. If Negroes steal too many cars, blame the car company for not making the cars more secure. There was the case of Asian-Americans blaming black-on-yellow violence on ‘white supremacists’ and MAGA. And there’s the Jewish Media’s constant reminder of Emmett Till to convey the message that, regardless of current black crime rates, the problem is all due to past ‘racism’, thereby implicitly justifying black behavior as unfortunate but all-too-understandable rebellion against a ‘systemic racism’.
Thus, the many victims of blacks are thrown under the bus, much like how the victims of Jews are ignored as either nonexistent or deserving of whatever violence meted out to them by Jews or their proxies, usually the shabbos goy US military and NATO.

 Video Link

Perversely enough, blacks sometimes sympathize with Palestinians as fellow victims and vice versa, but what would have made sense in the past no longer does today. When indeed blacks were second-class citizens in the US, one could reasonably draw parallels between the black experience and the Palestinian experience. But today, blacks are venerated in the US, innumerable programs exist to favor less-qualified blacks, tons of money are showered on the black community(much like tons of aid sent to Israel), and furthermore, most blacks in key institutions and industries are happy co-partners and co-imperialists with the US empire. Lloyd Austin, that fat fried-chicken and watermelon munching Negro, is a happy ‘Cogro’, or Co-Imperialist Negro, who is more than happy to do the bidding of Jews, of course alongside the white shabbos goy cucks, in instigating war in Ukraine, raining bombs on the Middle East, occupying one-third of Syria, and supplying Israel with more bombs to mass-slaughter women and children in Gaza and Lebanon. For every prominent Negro who sticks his head out for the Palestinians, ten other Negroes are happy to cheer on Zion and cuck to Jews to serve as Cogros for World Jewry. Most prominent blacks are more like Oprah, Obama, Lloyd Austin, Condolezza Rice, and etc. than Cornel West. And when a Negro like Ta-Nehisi Coates wanders off the plantation and talks about Jewish Evil, most prominent Negroes lend no support because their priority is to preserve their own statuses and privileges as Cogros.

Also, the US, far from being a land where rednecks round-up innocent Negroes and hang them from trees while guzzling moonshine, is now a place where most of the racial violence is black-on-white and black-on-non-white(and of course black-on-black). Thus, comparing blacks with Palestinians is now passe. Blacks in the US today are more like Jewish ‘settlers’ in the West who feel emboldened in attacking Palestinians, terrorizing Arabs, and gobbling up more and more land. Just like black violence led to White Flight(and non-white flight), Jewish-Zionist violence leads to Palestinian flight toward ever dwindling territories in the West Bank. And of course, in current South Africa, blacks act much like Jewish ‘settlers’ in Palestine. They attack white farmers, often murdering them in the cruelest ways. But if blacks at least have the right of indigenousness in South Africa, the Jews doing the terror in the West Bank are relatively recent arrivals from Europe(and America).

Because so many blacks are such ill-behaved louts in a world where so many people are invested in Negrolatry(the false fixation of blacks as holy and noble), the idolatry of blacks can only lead to the bigotry against their victims. We now live in a world that turns a blind eye to the victims of black violence(as if they don’t exist or matter) or berates them if they dare to complain. Either get brutalized and keep your mouth shut or shut the f*** up if you dare to name the problem.
And it’s not just the ‘liberals’. Remember that Mike Johnson, the GOP shabbos goy Congressman, told the country that we must understand and forgive black violence in BLM 2020. Not one word about the victims of black brutality. Predictably, he soon shilled for indiscriminate Jewish-Zionist terror against the Palestinians following Oct 7. You see, both blacks and Jews are so holy and noble that they always have reason to mete out violence to whomever, and we must comply with the way-it-is or cheer on the violence in ‘burn baby burn’ manner. Or pretend it is ‘mostly peaceful protest’. Maybe Jews and cucks will tell us the Gaza Horror is ‘mostly peaceful genocide’.

Many on the ‘Right’ have long assumed that the problem of Political Correctness and its more virulent form, ‘Wokeness’, is the Cult of Equality, but if indeed the new order was about equal justice for all, things would not be so bad because Jews, blacks, and homos would face the same standards. Some draw the distinction between ‘equality’ and ‘equity’, with the former meaning equal opportunity and the latter meaning equality of outcome, but even equity isn’t the main culprit in the current order.
After all, if equity were indeed enforced, the higher institutions would make sure that the various groups of goyim would be equally represented alongside the Jews. Or it could ensure that ‘conservatives’ are just as represented in the academia and media as the ‘liberals’ are. Or that Arab-Americans are given the same voice and representation as the Zionists. But where does anyone see ‘equity’?

No, the central theme of ‘wokeness’ isn’t equality or equity but idolatry of certain groups, mainly Jews, Blacks, and Homos. But then, most ‘right-wing’ types being brown-nosing shabbos goy cucks, they want to pretend otherwise because their strategy of ‘winning’ is always to play the dog to the Jews as masters. “Gee, maybe if we indulge Jewish Power with boundless talent and money, maybe the Tribe will choose us as the top dog.” So, as Glenn Greenwald said, the very ‘conservatives’ who decry censorship in defense of free speech will turn on a dime and call for clamping down on ‘Anti-Semitic’ speech. The very white conzos(conservative-bozos) who bitch and whine about racial preferences and the like will go out and out to demand that Jews and Israel be treated as special and sacred. And in so doing, the peoples, cultures, and nations hated by Jews get no respect.

Ironically, of course, the people most hated by Jews are the White Conservatives themselves, whose only purpose from the Zionist perspective is to serve Israel and fight & die in its wars. The likes of Ben Shapiro and useless cuck Christopher Rufo exist to shepherd the ‘conservative’ movement to uphold ‘colorblind’ values(meaning whites should reject any white identity, agency, and unity) while, at the same time, making an exception for Jews and Israel. In other words, “I see no color but the technicolor of the Jewish dreamcoat.”

https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1846947229778805209

Nick Fuentes explains how the entire right-wing is fake and controlled
 Video Link

The Militarism Canard... or the 'Civilian' Actors Have Been More Dangerous

 

One thing for sure, one needn’t be of the military to be militarist as, often is the case in the West, the civilian leadership(or puppetry of the oligarchy) tend to be more militarist, whereas a considerable number of military men often warn against excess adventurism. It goes against the grain of the popular narrative(via academia and mass media/entertainment) that the warmongers are embedded in the military. How often have we heard about the role of Japanese MILITARISM in the series of impossible wars that brought death and destruction upon mainland Asia and finally upon Japan itself?
The early Cold War Narrative often pits relative peace-seekers like John F. Kennedy against the War State, which some have suspected in the assassination of the former. Films like FAIL SAFE, DR. STRANGELOVE, and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY have military men plotting to bring about World War III in the name of defeating communism. And of course, the great bogeymen of World War I(or the Great War) have long been the German MILITARISTS.

But, some of the biggest warmongers have been in the civilian sectors of government, business(like William Randolph Hearst who beat the drums for what came to be the Spanish-American War), and the intellectual class(later to set up their various think-tanks). Most Jewish-Zionist Neocons, including women like Victoria Nuland the Cookie Monster of Maidan, never served a day in the military. (Tulsi Gabbard did and is less enthused for endless wars.) The near-epithet of ‘isolationism’ was cooked up by the intellectual class to shame and/or purge those calling against aggression or conflict via interfering in foreign affairs. Oftentimes, it was the civilian types blaming the military types for an unwillingness to engage the world in a warlike manner.

The Jewish, as well as the homo, angle is rather interesting in the phenomenon of civilian-militarism, or ‘civilitarism’. Many peoples/cultures throughout history have been depicted as warlike: Macedonians, Romans, Germanics, Mongols, the Turks, and etc. But not the Jews, renowned more for spiritual pursuits and aptitude for business. Of course, one could argue that the art of prophecy, of which Jews became masters, is a kind of spiritual declaration of war on the souls of humanity, its modern variant being the radical-secular ideology, such as Marxism that inevitably instigated wars and counter-wars.
In a sense, Jesus and Muhammad were the biggest warmongers of history even if by accident. So many wars in their name. And of course, one could argue that business, driven by ruthless competition, fuels aggression and expansion that could opt to resolve matters by war, or war as a continuation of business by other means.

At any rate, we’ve often been fed the impression that Jews, who tend to be cerebral, found themselves surrounded by warlike goyim. Even Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, has been characterized as a man of peace at odds with the militarists who want to blow up the world.
To be sure, there’s been the figure of the Jewish radical or revolutionary, one committed to violent means, but the distinction(convincing or not) is nevertheless made in his favor as someone who uses violence as a means of idealism, whereas militarists supposedly love war for war’s sake(as in the case of PATTON the movie). Revolutionaries supposedly fight wars to save the world, whereas militarists fight wars to beat the world up.
In lobbing bombs, anarchists believed themselves to be working for justice/peace, i.e. the institutions are oppressive and tyrannical, and one must dismantle their structures to bring forth a world of everlasting peace and justice.

Of course, the revolutionary is the inheritor of the prophetic mindset, what E. Michael Jones calls the ‘Jewish Revolutionary Mindset’, and it has obscured the warlike nature of the Jewish Way. No matter how many bodies pile up, the Jewish narrative speaks of ‘tikkun olam’ or ‘healing the world’. Some trace the warmongering of the Neocons to their Trotskyite origins, and perhaps there is something to that, but given the near-universal support of the Wars for Zion among the entire spectrum of Jewish elites from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, the Trotskyite origins are probably more a footnote than the main thesis of the Jewish Worldview.

A key difference between the Jewish radicals/revolutionaries of old and the Jewish-Zionists Neocons/Neolibs of today is that a good many of the former were willing to join in the fight. They were true believers in the new prophecy(such as Marxism), for which they were willing to give their lives. It was a redeeming facet to their fanaticism, whereas the current hegemonists of World Jewry have no concept of the Good other than Jewish Supremacist Power, i.e. they are too good to expend their own precious lives.
As such, they prefer to expend any number of subhuman inferior goy lives to realize their own agendas. What do Zelensky of Ukraine and Netanyahu of Israel have in common? Their reckless provocations seek to draw the US into a wider war. Make goyim fight goyim. Make Slav fight Slav, make Western Europeans fight Eastern Europeans, make American goyim fight Russian goyim. And Netanyahu’s wet dream is to make the US take on Iran and the rest loathed by Israel.

Even the sheen of Jewish warrior spirit and courage has gone from Zionism. One appeal of Zionism to the Jewish(and sympathetic goy) imagination was that, unlike the stereotypical Jew of yesteryear who cowered before their tormentors(and were herded into trains to the camps during World War II), the founders and defenders of Israel stood firm and fight like lions and hyenas, the mythos behind EXODUS the novel and movie. The Six Day War narrative had little Israel besieged by hostile Arabs preparing for The Holocaust the Next Chapter, but proud and heroic Israeli Davids, all on their own, smote the Arab Goliaths in a mere six days. Jews sure could take care of their own!

But with the grueling quagmire in Gaza and given that Israel’s neighbors aren’t quite the pushovers they used to be, Zionism is less about Jewish Spartanism that Smartanism, or how to cleverly manipulate the US to enter the war and fight Israel’s enemies so that precious Jewish lives don’t have to be sacrificed.
Amusingly enough, Jewish feelings about whites aren’t all that different from their feelings about the Palestinians — they are all inferior subhuman goyim — , but various goyim are under the delusion of being favored by the Jews, the rightful master race. It’s like a bunch of dogs believing that they will be spared and rewarded if they serve the Asian master who kills and eats dogs; it doesn’t occur to them that THEY may be the next in the pot. So, even though Jews did the Palestinian Nakba and are now pushing White Nakba, white shabbos goy dogs hope and pray that Jews will spare and reward them as the ‘good dogs’ if they bark and bite at the ‘bad dogs’. But even Palestinians like Rashida Tlaib could be so deluded. She denounces what the Jews are doing to her people but earlier played cheerleader to the Jewish War on Russia via Ukraine as proxy.

Of course, some will say that the stereotype of the passive Jew who got beaten up by bullies(before Zionism revived the warrior spirit of the Israelites) has been something of a stretch. Passive Jew? Jews have long been known for being ‘pushy’, hardly a passive trait. And the criminal world has been filled with ‘Tough Jews’ in both Europe and the US. And Bolshevik Jews, before Zionism became a thing, amply demonstrated how blood-curdling they could be. Even though the Jewish schlemiel-weakling isn’t as fantastic as the Noble Magic Negro, it too has been something of a false stereotype that lend the dubious impression of Jews being hapless victims or nincompoops in tight spots.

Video Link

Given the reality of Jewish life and history, it’s hardly surprising that the Jewish ‘civilian’ sector is rife with aggressive tendencies, the kind that may lead the world to Chutzpacalypse Now. Besides, if perceptions and passions precede action, the vitriol that often spews forth from the Jewish community against white goyim, Christians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and now even the Chinese is a sure sign that much of Jewishness is a raging cauldron of arrogance, fear, resentment, and paranoia. Many Jews relished in ‘Punch a Nazi’ and ‘Trump is Literally Hitler’ antics that often led to violence, culminating in Antifa and BLM wrecking entire parts of cities in 2020, though in the case of Ukraine, Jewish violence opted for ‘Hug a Nazi’, if only to hurl the ‘Nazis’ at the Russkies.

Outwardly, homos also come across as unlikely warmongers. The common image of a thug, bully, or warrior is that of an alpha male tough guy, like Colonel Kilgore(Robert Duvall) in APOCALYPSE NOW. Arnold Schwarzenegger in CONAN THE BARBARIAN was no pansy fairy but a testosterone-filled slayer of men and humper of women. Homos have often been portrayed as victims of macho-man bullies and ‘God Hates Fags’ patriarchal types.
In truth, homos tend to be vain, and vanity seeks privilege, a domain of power, and the nature of power is aggressive, expansive, and coercive. Once a part of the power elite and/or the deep state, homos have sought to impose their neo-aristocratic will on everyone else, out of revenge if not haughty delight.
It is then hardly surprising that the US deep state, run by Jews and homos as the top elites, has become even more warlike than in the days of the ‘hawkish right-wingers’, the types who overestimated or exaggerated the Red Menace but nevertheless regarded it as a genuine threat, whereas the current pro-war mania merely and cynically invokes ‘muh democracy’ as a cover for an agenda that is entirely ethno-supremacist and homo-hegemonic, as if the entire global economy must be dictated by Jewish bankers and all the world’s institutions, secular and spiritual, must hoist the ‘gay’ banner.
The quasi-aristocratic homos sneer at the straight world as the peasantry that must bow down to the superior tooty-toots. Like Tim Roth’s feline character in ROB ROY who loves to cut down the lower-class dogs.

Video Link

Though true that plenty of gung-ho types in the military rattle their sabers at perceived enemies while plenty of peacenik types in civil society chafe at overseas(or neo-imperialist) ventures, the fact remains that, by and large, the most adventurist and reckless figures driving the world to the edge(of even Nuclear Armageddon) tend to be in the ‘civilian’ sectors whereas the military brass generally harbors a sober and cautionary attitude on foreign policy, if only because they feel responsible for their men.
It’s the reverse of developments in Japan in the 1930s when the civilian government’s attempts at diplomacy went undermined by the military that was hellbent on war as the only solution.
The so-called Greens in Germany, once associated with the Peace Movement, are now among the most vociferous beaters of war drums even at the risk of World War III with Russia(and its partners).

At the very least, many American civilian-leaders in the past had served in the military(and even participated in war) and had few illusions about what it was about. Even those who hadn’t chosen military careers had direct experience of violence. John F. Kennedy suffered from pain all his life. Dwight Eisenhower as President, head of the civilian government, grew increasingly anxious about where the Cold War may lead, as World War III could involve nuclear weapons.

In contrast, most civilian hotheads today have no military experience, and this could be said of most of their family members, friends, and associates as well. As such, they tend to see military men as pawns and toys than as fellow comrades, the kind of people with whom one once rubbed shoulders.
Furthermore, there’s an ethnic component to the civilian-military dynamic in the current order. The Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist types who dominate the civilian government tend to see goyim as expendable, less than fully human. It’s no wonder that they are so blasé about casualties, military and civilian, in wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine, or about the victims of US-led sanctions, like the 500,000 Iraqi children whose deaths Madeleine Albright deemed as ‘worth it’; indeed, even when Jews carry out wholesale massacres in Gaza and spread terror throughout the region, the main narrative from the Jewish-controlled media is “What can be done to protect Israel?”
But then, Jews, who tirelessly heap abuse on whites, Christians, Muslims, Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Venezuelans, Hungarians, and etc. and defame entire nations & cultures, are the first ones to bitch about ‘antisemitism’ and how they need ‘protected group’ status despite constituting the most powerful and destructive force in the world.

As for cuck-minded goy maggots like John Bolton and Lindsey Graham, they crave approval and plaudits from Jews as their masters and bark like attack dogs. (Given the pathetic nature of so many goyim, Jewish supremacist attitudes are understandable to a degree. If all those around you acted like lap dogs vying for your approval at every moment, would you respect them?)

The so-called civilian ‘democratic’ regimes of the West demonstrate that militarism can thrive outside the military as a mindset of excessive confidence and arrogance of force. The Neocon/Neolib administrations are totally militarist, far more so than the average officer in the Army or Navy.
The Iraq War was the brainstorm of the civilian government led by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who figured that the surest way to increase Jewish allegiance to the GOP was by giving Zion the war it wanted, especially with ‘liberal’ Jews in the media also hankering for the so-called War-on-Terror.
Needless to say, Jewish Power played it smart. It got the war it wanted while also criticizing Dubya as a reckless cowboy, useful as plausible deniability. The New York Times pushed for the Iraq War, but when it went badly, claimed to have been duped by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

While the German militarists have been named as the chief culprits of the First World War, the conflict was as eagerly embraced by the civilian sectors of society. And the civilian government in France had been itching for war, if only to avenge the defeat at the hands of Bismarck. At the very least, the Germans, militarists and civilian authorities alike, believed that the war was a matter of survival or national integrity as Germany was squeezed between vengeful France and increasingly hostile Russia. They regarded it as much a war of defense as of offense(as the best defense). The most gratuitous and unnecessary participant in the war was Great Britain, ruled by a civilian government, with which Germans sought no conflict.
Even in the Pacific War, the Asian sphere of World War II, it is too simplistic to lay all the blame on the Japanese militarists as evidence suggests that the civilian FDR administration was trying to bait Japan(and Germany) into war. And near the end of the war, prominent military figures like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur detested the use of the atomic bomb, the decision of Harry Truman, the civilian head as commander-in-chief.

The myth of Camelot(of John F. Kennedy), which stems in part from the Cuban Missile Crisis and America’s involvement in Vietnam, usually pits the idealistic Peace Corp president against the right-wing military generals or the military-industrial-complex as the bogeyman(while blithely overlooking the fact that Eisenhower had originally meant to call it the ‘military-industrial-congressional complex’ to highlight the civilian aspect of the beast — today, more fearsome is the Military-Intellectual Complex whereby Jews cook up the ideas and agendas to be executed by goyim-golem in the military). Liberal opinion at the time was of the mind that, but for Kennedy, the world would have been embroiled in World War III and with nukes. This tough guy attitude that talk is weak, diplomacy is delusional, and only overwhelming force will thwart the enemy was seen as dangerous, even pathological. But then, the Liberals set the template in the late 1930s and early 1940s that war and only war could resolve the issues with Germany, Japan, and Italy, and the right-wing Cold War mentality was essentially a continuation of war-only mindset.

General Jack D. Ripper of DR. STRANGELOVE is a precursor of ‘Dirty’ Harry Callahan but at the global level: Diplomacy, like legal process, is for ‘liberal’ wimps, and it is time to grab the gun and pull the trigger. Again, the anti-militarist satire is rather ironic as the very people(of Liberal persuasion) who denigrated the hardcore Cold Warriors as paranoid and psychotic had been the ones who’d insisted on the absolute and total destruction of the enemies in the buildup to and during World War II. Anyone calling for peaceful solutions were tarred as ‘unpatriotic’. And figures like Oppenheimer were hellbent on speeding up atomic research in order to turn German cities into ashes. (And the Liberals, Jews and Goyim, hardly opposed the theft of US nuclear secrets by Israel that ignored or violated all international rules and norms and even cooked up scenarios like the Samson Option. If anything, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Jews alike have demanded that American politicians of all stripes stand behind Israel no matter how bellicose its foreign policy.) Today, the supposed heirs of this ‘no appeasement’ school invariably denounce any diplomatic solution in conflicts involving Russia, Iran, and increasingly China.

While there were hardliners in the military, especially in the early part of the Cold War, the kind who even pressed for first-strike on Russia, hawks were also to be found among civilian ideologues, and it wasn’t just the likes of Barry Goldwater. Indeed, the gloom-and-doom specter of the right-wing demagogue often masked the warlike nature of the entire spectrum of American Politics. LBJ appealed to voters as the Peace Candidate contra the madman Goldwater, but he was the one who escalated the war in Vietnam. (In our time, voters were warned that Trump was too unstable and dangerous on the world stage, but it was the Jewish-heavy administration of Joe Biden that unleashed new wars. As long as the ‘right-wing demagogue’ trope remains potent in political discourse, the actual warmongers can evade responsibility by pulling the alarm on the ‘far-right’ or ‘fascist’ threat. They pose as counter-bullies to the right-wing bullies, domestic and foreign, in the name of ‘democracy’ or whatever, even though they are now the most hegemonic bullies in the world.)

Many military men, having witnessed the horrors firsthand in the Second World War, have advised against aggressive actions in the Cold War. In US history, generals who became presidents — George Washington, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower — tended to be sober-minded on matters related to war. Indeed, America’s involvement in the bloodiest wars — The Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and Iraq War — owed to presidents whose closest advisers were ideologues or businessmen.

The ‘industrial’, as well as the intellectual/ideological, feature of the military-industrial complex was far more decisive in the formulation of agenda. Regarding the current bloodbath in Ukraine, the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for more death and destruction are in the civilian sectors than in the US military. The business elements are ecstatic about profits, and the intellectual/ideological(mostly Zionist) elements are fanatical in their dream of conquest of Russia as the final trophy in the hegemonic design of World Jewry.

While Oliver Stone’s revisionist film JFK shows Lyndon B. Johnson being prodded into escalation in Vietnam by military types, the real drivers of policy were the so-called ‘The Best and the Brightest’, the know-it-all mandarins with their high concept of ‘defending’ the Free World.
Films like DR. STRANGELOVE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, and FAIL SAFE propped up the useful scapegoat of the US military when, in fact, the bigger danger lay in the civilian sector.
For sure, it was the rising prominence of Jewish strategists of varying worldviews, which more or less converged on ‘neoconservatism'(or Nulandism), that would turn the US into a full-blown imperialist power that has simultaneously managed to frighten and alienate much of the world. Ironically, most of these saber-rattlers never served in the military or even fired a gun.
The Ukraine catastrophe and the looming disaster in Taiwan are the brainchild of civilian ideologues and think-tankers or political shills. Whether it’s Nancy Pelosi visiting globo-homo Taiwan to provoke China or Lindsey Graham accompanying the likes of Victoria Nuland to Ukraine, civilian rule hasn’t ruled out militarism.

In retrospect, 20th Century Wars weren’t generally the conflagrations started by militarists. The most notable militarist-led disaster was Japan’s ventures in mainland Asia and eventual clash with the US, and it may have owed to Japanese militarism being rooted in Japanese culture and ethos going back to the samurai. Even after modern Japan abolished the samurai caste, the vision of the military as the true embodiment of the spirit and honor of Japan remained, thus fueling a ‘sacred’ sense of mission absent in most militaries(premised on professionalism) around the world.
Otherwise, however, military men were often the peace-makers or at least peace-keepers. Kemal Ataturk of modern Turkey had no ambitions beyond the national. Franco, upon victory in the Spanish Civil War, was careful not to become entangled in alliances that might drag Spain into a larger conflict. Ultimately, Charles De Gaulle ended the bloody war in Algeria. Generally, it appears those who’d held higher ranks were more judicious than those who’d held lower ranks. Hitler, after all, was only a corporal.

Fascists have often been confused with the military, not least because fascist leaders donned military gear. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler dressed and acted the part of military commanders. Actually, both came into their own as intellectuals, ideologues, and activists.
Unlike most military men who specialize in tactics and logistics(and are thereby acutely aware of the limits of power based on availability of men and material), the intellectual/ideologue types tend to base their worldview on Big Ideas or the ‘vision’ thing.

Perhaps, fascists are the only people who’ve been demeaned and scapegoated more than the military for the wars and destruction of the late modern era. While the militarists(usually depicted as military men though anyone can qualify) have often been impugned as thick-skulled and overly blunt in their approach to foreign affairs, they weren’t necessarily depicted as sadistic, cruel, and/or evil. Not knowing any better, they’re prone to solving crises with violence and aggression. In their lack of ideas(and even brains), they may be childish and stupid in their violence-first or violence-only approach, but at least they aren’t inspired by Evil Ideas.

In contrast, fascists are reviled as people of ideas, all bad. Such a characterization is somewhat understandable given the romanticism of war by certain Italian Fascists and Hitler’s brutalist vision of the world, humanity and history locked in a constant flux of struggle and violence.
Still, fascist-bashing is usually a form of scapegoating by dumping the blame of history on the fascists when, in fact, capitalists, communists, liberals, and etc. have hardly been amateurs in war and aggression. FDR was the true father of the military-industrial-congressional complex. Winston Churchill plunged the British Empire into a war it could easily have avoided. While Josef Stalin and Fidel Castro were generally cautious, figures like Leon Trotsky and Che Guevara were globe-trotting revolutionaries committed to stoking conflict wherever and whenever. Communism, even more than fascism, blurred the lines between revolution and war, between civilian and military.

Not only have the fascists been blamed for virtually everything, but even when non-fascists have resorted to aggression and violence in politics, they were smeared as ‘fascist’, thus placing the blame on ‘fascism’ than on the actual parties involved. It’s like Christians blaming Satan for everything that goes wrong, thereby absolving themselves and their religion for the failings, i.e. even when they did it, the ‘devil’ either did it or made them do it.
So, when Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump did the bidding of Jewish Neocons, they were often condemned as ‘fascists’ when, in fact, their policies were the logical extension of Western capitalism, decadent liberalism, corrupt conservatism, and ethnic nepotism(of the Jews).

By calling one another ‘fascist’, both the ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ can go on pretending that they themselves aren’t the problem, which supposedly lies with ‘fascism’. So, Clinton the Democrat wasn’t really responsible. It was Clinton the closet-fascist. Or Bush the closet-fascist. Or Obama or Trump the closet-fascist. What a convenient way to exonerate the system of its failings. Just call everything bad about the American System ‘fascist’, and Americanism is spared condemnation. Instead, the problem is the ‘fascism’ that has somehow managed to infect the pristine US system. You see, it was the ‘fascist’ bug that messed up the system. This way, one sector of American political discourse can always pretend that Obama-ism or Trump-ism isn’t just another manifestation of Americanism but an errant ‘fascist’ mutation that seized power against the spirit of the Constitution and Apple Pie.