I've been thinking about race, politics, family and all the crap that's been going on.
And one of the things I've realized about the elites, is that they hate poor whites and middle class whites more than anyone else, and I think the reason for hating whites makes sense when you think about it.
White people everywhere, wherever they are, generally think about freedom and push for freedom everywhere. That is a problem for them. They are only going to replace and remove whites from power in their countries because they can't control them, the goal is to put trojan horses in power that are also white or look white, and only replace them completely afterwards (this is where we are right now, notice how the whites in power is always a Marxist, it is never just about their own country and people).
We are actually seeing how all these Marxist supporters of Palestine are being pushed aside by the authorities (we know the don't give a shit about "minorities" at all), they immediately lost political influence and out of nowhere the "right wing" media now has the narrative power because they decided it is necessary, but when we are no longer useful to protect them, they are going to go back to whatever they want and kick us again, all of us, right and left alike.
They used leftists all this time to destroy our countries and gradually put control laws over our lives, when people went after them in 2011 with the whole Wall Street situation, they used leftist ideology to divide us, now that they are being attacked again, they are using the right to move the rage towards Muslims. (Who deserve it no doubt, but let's talk about who is really in control here).
So all this time, we have been being used by the elites and because the internet exists, they can no longer hide (that's why they want to control all social media as they did with the mass media), I think the "change" of narrative we are seeing that benefits the "right" is nothing more than another operation to protect themselves.
And here is the craziest thing I think is happening ... we are allowed to talk about protecting white countries and white people, because they are actually thinking of using white people as their strike force if shit goes down in flames ... white supremacist armed forces funded by Marxist globalists are on the table, because if necessary, they will not only have stronger white men killed in battle, but they will also imprison the survivors who win said race war through a new type of Nuremberg trials (the strongest will be dead, and the rest will be politically assassinated).
They thought they could control the browns and blacks because they really think they are racially superior (the white elite who are under Zionist influence, and the Zionist Jews themselves), but seeing how no one is publicly defending them, they have panicked and are thinking of using whites to defend them. And furthermore, the other reason why they were bringing Africans and Asians, among other Muslims to America and the West, is because black Americans and Hispanics are coming into ideological contact with whites and they can't let that happen.
But as I said before... now that the machine is running and the bureaucracy is too big to handle it, they can't stop the whole operation (mass indoctrination has that problem, that the machine doesn't stop running even if you try to stop it, because the useful idiots will continue to operate against your orders, they now believe the lies and that's why they are Marxists), so they are planning ahead. ... and as I said, the white supremacist groups are going to be controlled by the CIA and the feds, and they are going to be used as pawns, shock troops, or exterminators if necessary.
Crazy fucking long post but, i'm i seeing too much into this whole situation?.
I assume you're referring to the French Revolutionary regime, which as far as I know is the first explicitly God-rejecting government in recorded history. This is a good point, but I have to add that the next atheist regimes were the Soviets and the Chinese. Obviously the Soviets were heavily Jewish-influenced.
The fact that white people have favored autocracy in the past is not remarkable. Everyone has. The fact that Protestant white people are the first to agitate for individual rights, however, is remarkable. American Catholics have followed suit for the most part, and this is why I assume the elites marshal their troops to siege and attack everything white and Christian.
One can take the slavery abolition movement as a proxy for a people's inclination towards liberty. The first abolitionist nation was the UK.
The French revolution is one of them. Totalitarian movements across Europe had significant support among whites during the 20th century.
Autocracy is not Totalitarianism, and so isn't really relevant to the conversation except to point out that they are different concepts. Autocracy is the norm through history, with a few exceptions (notably the Anglo kingdoms)
This is my point, specifically. It's not French, it's not German, it's not Scandinavian, it's not Spanish, it's not Portuguese, it's not Polish, it's not Italian. It's explicitly Anglo. It's an extension of the English culture. Individualism has never been a 'white' trait.
I'm not convinced of the utility of that distinction. Wikipedia's basic definition of totalitarianism says, "Totalitarian regimes are often characterized by extreme political repression and human rights violations to a greater extent than those of authoritarian regimes, an absolute lack of democratic ideals, widespread personality cultism around the person or the group which is in power, absolute control over the economy, large-scale censorship and mass surveillance systems, limited or non-existent freedom of movement (notably the freedom to leave the country), and the widespread usage of state terrorism."
It seems that the main difference from ancient autocracy is the deemphasis of religion. State terrorism would be business as usual in many kingdoms, and the idea of ancient censorship is laughable because no one would think of speaking against the king in the first place. Ecclesiastes 8:20: Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, because a bird in the sky may carry your words, and a bird on the wing may report what you say.
Ecclesiastes 8:2-4: Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God. Do not be in a hurry to leave the king’s presence. Do not stand up for a bad cause, for he will do whatever he pleases. Since a king’s word is supreme, who can say to him, “What are you doing?”
The Anglos led the way, but they are descendants of Germanic and French peoples. Europeans adopted abolitionism much faster than anyone else.
There are real differences between European peoples, but individualism is clearly a greater force in European cultures than elsewhere. Sailing expeditions are strong examples of individual risk-taking. The Chinese were capable of sailing expeditions, but they were so conformist and inward-looking that they never advanced with it.
Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia's definition is garbage. Autocracy is simply the absolute rule of a specific authority. "Rendering obedience to orders" if you will. But that's the end of it. Orders are not perpetually given in all places at all times for all things.
Totalitarianism is a much more extreme issue. There is no aspect of any part of your life that is not wholly devoted to the political power. Reality itself is demanded to be subservient to ideology. Effectively, politics is even more powerful than God. That is a totalitarian framework. Religion is de-emphasized, because politics is more than God.
Totalitarianism is even more than this.
"Reviling the king does not exist. Anything that claims that a king can be reviled is to be immediately executed, report to re-education, or both. Birds do not exist. Birds did exist, but it was discovered that nature was a Counter-Revolutionary enemy, and so all birds were killed (See: Mao v. The Sparrows). If you see a bird, kill it. But also kill yourself because there are no birds."
Totalitarianism, or 'the political institutionalization of ideological totalism' is fucking hysterical madness. Only the most extreme and criminally insane autocrats in history get close to totalitarianism, and they normally don't. The ones that do, tend to be Socialists of one variety or another; because no tyrant or absolute monarch was that insane.
The Anglos may have previously descended from Germanic, Celtic, and French populations, but they were slower to adopt than the Anglos that invented in. Frankly, all 3 seem to be struggling in one way or another with the concept of individuation. Particularly ze Germans.
Individualism is not an inherent part of European cultures, it was (effectively) a confluence of several 'perfect storm' factors. The deaths from the Black Plague allowing for upward social mobility and the collapse of Feudalism, (as you say) the use of sailing vessels for expanded trade options due to the Ottoman Empire's embargo on Europe, the Anglo culture having already had a long history of anti-Autocracy and emerging from the English Civil War period, recognizing the failure of both Absolute Monarchs & Revolutionary Protectorates. The Anglos were a right people, at the right place, at the right time, with the right opportunities. And that culture thrived in a mostly depopulated North America that was rich in natural abundance, and low in predators and opposing civilizations.
Other Europeans, and frankly the world, only adopted it as a result of cultural dominance. The problem is that liberalism and individualism has basically been a skin suit for Socialists everywhere else.