Classic KIA material
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
I get the thrust of your argument. I can even agree with whites being self-destructive by ceding important intellectual institutions to their cultural enemies, and adopting self-destructive ideologies... there's plenty of culpability for Whites in the current situation without the need to invent more by ascribing the whole of their plight to themselves alone.
You want to say Marx & Hess were White, by saying whites 'invented' Communism. That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Early Zionism and Communism both spring from the same circle of revolutionary intellectuals who were on the fringe of European Society because of their Jewish faith. Their skin may have been white, but they didn't pass, and wouldn't pass if it meant integrating entirely and erasing their culture. The whole point of Jewish Identity is that they are Schrödinger's Whites: White when they want to be and non-White when they can otherwise benefit.
So I have to ask why you're erasing the Jewish roots of Communism by painting them as being White when they were "Fellow Whites?"
Whites invented Leftism, going even further back than even the creation of Communism, all the way back to Jacobism. Communism and Socialism are still emergent from Leftism, and still lay on the same philosophical bedrock of Leftism.
Furthermore, Marx rejected Judaism, explicitly. Capitalism, as he writes it, is effectively just his stereotype of Jews. This is why he called money (capital) "the Jealous God of Israel", and why he described Christians who were involved in finance "internally circumcised". Even the word "bourgeoisie" was a reference to the property-less city-dwellers to exist off the power of large economic entities were jews, the people of the boroughs. Capitalism is literally just an "inclusive" way of saying "Cultural Judaism", in the same way we would refer to something as Cultural Marxism. This is why he believed that Jews would simply disappear with the coming about of Socialism. The New Socialist Man couldn't be "Jewish" in culture because he would not be someone who worshiped capital, wouldn't be concerned with commerce, wouldn't be concerned with monetary obligations, wouldn't save money, and would be obligated to the general population rather than his family or friends. The New Socialist Man would certainly not be religious.
All Hitler did was apply State Socialism to those concepts. If a Nation was to be synchronized into a Volksgemeinschaft, there could not be jews in those communities. And since the state was the harbinger of the Socialist revolution, it was the state that would have to make the jews disappear.
Not really. The Schrodinger's White thing is a rhetorical flourish of modern Leftists and white jews, using identity to score points against white non-jews. As we've seen from BLM's attacks on jews, Leftist jews condemnation of orthodox jews objecting to being murdered, and the fact that Socialists keep having antisemitsm row's; jewish identity is only useful as a skinsuit to Leftists. Just like everything is a skinsuit to Leftists. Ideologically, there are no Chinese Communists, only Communists occupying China. You can't be a Communist and anything else. The same thing applies to jews. (And whites, blacks, arabs, Christians, librarians, etc)
It's not really jewish roots. That's the point. Communism's roots are in Leftism. The fact that jews were intellectuals that supported the intellectual fad of Communism should't surprise you because jews were intellectuals. That's the result of communities that are highly literate, highly educated, saved lots of money, had strong family ties, and couldn't own property for centuries so either got into finance, trade, or law which were service-sector economies that didn't require property.
I mean, if you want to talk about white clusterfucks, the French Revolution is ground zero for a pretty big crater, so yes. I agree with you there. There's plenty of white culpability for Leftism, more so if you take that as a starting point.
However, when you look at the shoot of leftism cultivated by Jewish Intellectuals, brought to fruition in the USSR by Lenin, to the detriment and death of tens of millions of Christian Slavs, no-- the roots of Communism in white Leftism do not excuse Jewish involvement in the cultivation of its deadly ideology.
Whites could well have poisoned themselves lethally with Leftism on their own-- but that's not the timeline we live in. Jewish thought leaders have long had a leading role in directing the rot and revolution through the financial, trade, and law sectors-- which you mentioned. Claiming that an evil is derived from a broader category of earlier evil doesn't mean it shouldn't still be derided as evil-- you don't get to point at Jacobins and disregard the role of Jews in the evils of the USSR and communism more broadly. That's a genetic fallacy.
I'm not minimizing the role of Whites indoctrinated as Communists, either. I would like to point out they were educated into those positions. The other sector you failed to mention as being a bastion of Jewish influence is the Academy. Education's subversion and the fall of the Ivory Towers of to anti-western sentiment, the weaponization of critique, and the turning of Western intellect against its body politic? I wonder which Ethnic group is disproportionally responsible for that?
Whites aren't just at the root of it. The USSR was rules by whites. The CCP run by chinese. The Khemer Rouge by Cambodians. The spread of Leftism, Communism, and Socialism in Europe was predominantly done by whites at every level. You will find white intellectuals, white financiers, white protesters, white activists, white terrorists, white rioters, and white unionists everywhere within western Leftism.
No, I didn't. I mentioned intellectuals that are ethnically jewish. Normally intellectuals that are non-practicing jews, and normally even target religious jews with their eire as backwards, non-progressive, and counter-revolutionary... because they are not ideologically jewish. They ideologically Leftist as all Leftists are.
It's not any ethnic group that is responsible, and don't give me a "disparity is evidence of discrimination" argument.
What is responsible is an ideology.
Let me put this another way: The dangers of Islam are real, yes? I assume you're not an Islamist, so let's go down this route. Let us assert Islam is a genuine threat to western civilization. But Islam is a religion and is comprised of many ethnic groups. Somalis, Arabs, Persians, and Indonesians to name a few. But to claim that a Lebanese Christian, a Hindi Indonesian, an Arab Assyrian Christian or a Bantu Christian is a threat to western society because they could bring Islamism with them is patently absurd. This is because they're not Muslim. They are very likely anti-Islam. They are more likely to assist western societies in warning them of the dangers of letting Islam become dominant in the west, since they have lived under it. The utility of Islam among Arabs, as Mohhamed intended, was to forcibly unify them at the point of a sword, regardless of their innumerable ethnic conflicts. Islam is a unifying religion that disregards race and ethnicity for submission.
Leftism works in very much the same way. It is a doctrine dedicated to achieving Rouseau's final destination by any means necessary. The reason why Marx believed that jews could not exist under Socialism is because Leftism is dominant and supreme among all things, the same way that Allah is supreme among all Muslims, and submission to the General Will is very similar to the submission to Allah. The nature of Internationalist Homo Globo nonsense is that Globalism/Leftism itself will make all people of the world ideologically homogenous. No ethnic group actually matters. Even when Leftism has been explicitly racialist or nationalist, whether in Germany under the National Socialists, or in Arabia under the Pan-Arab movement, or in Africa under Pan-Africanism, or in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, it's purpose is to balkanize a population into a political bloc to bring about Socialism. Leftism doesn't care what ethnic group is dominant in any one place in the long run because all ethnic groups will be eliminated inevitably when the Utopia is reached.
The muslims understand Leftism as a threat, and vice versa, because these are both supremacist totalitarian ideologies that (by definition) can not co-exist. It is why the CCP are genocide the Uyghurs. It is why the Ayatollah exterminated every Marxist revolutionary that helped him ascend to power. In fact, Jihadism is effectively the Leftist subversion of orthodox Islamic doctrine, as it's founder tried to explain with his foundational work: "Social Justice in Isalm". He basically child-rape-married the two ideologies and found pure, unadulterated, evil. A kind of absolute, totalitarian, need to murder everything that wasn't absolutely devoted to an internal and external upheaval that would bring about the return of Muhhamed, like a fucking death cult. Anyone who doesn't agree with him, isn't a true
socialistmuslim. It's why the saudis use the slur "Takfirists" against them (those who repeatedly 'takfir' muslims out of islam in order to justify killing them). The cautious, alliance of convenience of Islamo-Leftism in the west serves them both for the moment, before one or the other must exterminate their opposite.There is no ethnic origin point for either ideology. Even if we were to point out that Arabs dominate many places within Islam, it's totally irrelevant because the it's not Arabs that are the problem with Islamism, it's the Islamism that's the problem with Arabs. The focal point of the entire problem is the ideology itself. Complaining about qatari influence in Islam means nothing.
Similarly within Leftism, the complaint about chinese presence within Leftism is irrelevant. So is the the complaint about jews presence within Leftism. The dominance of whites within Leftism is worse than that of jews, but you don't want to see it, because you don't want to accept that the problem isn't jews... it's Leftists. It's an ideology that seeks for the eradication of the jew as much as it seeks for the eradication of the white or the Christian.
You peg me one layer too high in the dig for the root of all evil. I spoke of evil, particularly, for one reason only: Jew or Gentile, it needs opposition.
There exists a very particular bent of post-Rabbinical intellectual that seeks to bind God with His own laws. You're right that the behavior is hardly limited to Jews. That spiritual 'Will to Power' now wears the form of Leftism; power is the religion at its core. I suppose the raw root of it would be Satanism, perhaps Saturnism, if you want to go further back than even then Judaism.
I don't really care much about the average God-fearing Jew. It's those who carry the intellectual water of the Devil that scare me-- those 'brave' and Godless intellectuals, be they Jew or Gentile. Your combinations of Rothschild with the Shabbos Goy and the Klaus Schwabs of the world who willingly craft a cage for all of us to be tortured in.
In your terms, I oppose all those who would make a hell out of earth in the name of establishing a utopia. You know, on account of their intent to make a hell out of earth.
You're right: it's ultimately about intent, not ethnicity.
So, too, the parallels between WEF policy proposals and the enslavement of Goy in the Talmud must be... pure coincidence.