Comments on My Unz Post: Ideological Inertia


Me: I’m starting to think that if all the Jews took off tomorrow not much would be different. The Woke movement would keep going full steam along with the degeneration of society. Porn? The Jewish porn companies would simply be taken over by Gentiles. A lot of this stuff may well have been kicked off by Jews but right now, it’s on autopilot so much that if the Jews left, nothing would change. Our policy on Israel would change though.

Commenter: What you’re describing has a name. It’s called ideological inertia. After the Jewish communists and Bolsheviks took over Russia they indoctrinated everybody into communism. At some point the Jews were mostly thrown out of power (largely by Stalin), but communist ideological inertia stuck around and was such that the USSR went on trying (and failing) to make communism work for another half century.

If all the Jews suddenly disappeared then Cultural Marxism (which Jews founded and foisted on the West to serve their interests just as the Jews in the USSR foisted Communism Classic on Russia to suit their interests there) may well stick around for awhile, sure.

True-believing gentiles would continue trying, and failing, to make Cultural Marxism (diversity and multiculturalism, etc.) work, just as true-believing communists like Khrushchev and Brezhnev tried to make communism work.

That’s just the nature of media conditioning and intrinsic to the nature of organizations which perpetuate themselves by promoting true believers within. The Soviet leadership spent decades promoting true-believing communists long after the Jews were mostly removed from power.

But at least the Jews who originally created and promoted Cultural Marxism would be gone and no longer in a position of power to cynically and dishonestly push an ideology which they know to not be in their host’s genuine interests (but only their own).

Hence, Cultural Marxism, like Communism Classic before it, would be able to eventually fall apart – as both ideologies are ultimately unworkable, based on lies, and are counter to human nature (human nature being self-interested and tribal and not like eusocial insects as communism assumes or non-tribal as Cultural Marxism assumes).

For a wound to heal, you must get rid of the root cause of the the infection which makes it fester – and, as Lindsay points out, even when you do, the patient dies anyways, as one might fear the West would regardless of whether we get rid of the Jews or not.

I definitely agree with his point here. He’s a very smart guy, he writes well, and this idea of his is an excellent concept. “Ideological inertia” – nice!

Commenter: But to have any chance at survival then the infection (Jews) must be removed – at least from positions of power in media, government, law, politics and academia – and then the healing process can occur. Thus, for a gentile to argue “but it might not work” and therefore “you should not give the patient antibiotics” is an argument born of either (1) stupidity or (2) maliciousness.

There are dramatic examples where Jews were expelled in a very deliberate way because the harm that they were doing was well understood, and it was seen as necessary to get rid of them to achieve recovery.

You see this in the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, which is also the year that marks the beginning of the Spanish Golden Age.

You also see it when the Jews were removed from public life at the end of the Weimar period which resulted in an immediate and dramatic economic and cultural renaissance.

So, when Jewish expulsion is done in a very conscious manner – and when the jilted parasite doesn’t then lead a coalition of nations against you in vengeance – the recovery can indeed be rapid, dramatic and sustainable.

As you can see he’s also a very nasty antisemite like so many on that site. I certainly don’t advocate getting rid of the Jews in the West or the US. If the Cultural Left is truly unsustainable as he says, then it will die out at some point anyway, Jews or no Jews.

I don’t believe the Cultural Left was created by Jews, but there were some Jews who were prominent in it. Critical Race Theory was actually started by Blacks in academia as you might expect. The White-hating and White demonization comes straight from these radical Blacks. Blacks push White-hating far more than Jews do if you ask me.

The Cultural Left actually blossomed with the fall of Communism in the Soviet Bloc in 1989-1991. The Western Left was in chaos as Marxism was seen as a failed ideology. What to do? Turn Republican, go fascist, and vote Trump? Nope. Instead they tried to salvage what they could of Marxism by downplaying Marxist economics and instead substituting race, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. with classic Marxist theory.

I believe that the same woman who invented CRT (Kimberly Crawford?) also invented Third Wave Intersectional Feminism. Law professor Derrick Bell was also prominent in this movement. The Woke movement or the Cultural Left is all seated in Third Wave intersectional feminism.

It posits that people suffer from more oppressions than one. For instance, a Black woman suffers from being Black and also for being a woman. That’s the intersectional part. There’s probably something to it but by now this theory has gone crazy and it’s not doing much good.

So if you want to get down to it, Crenshaw and Bell invented Cultural Marxism, though of course all of these things had their roots in the women’s, Black, Hispanic, gay, etc. Liberation movements of the 1960’s. There were some Jews prominent in these movements but it would be silly to call them Jewish movements.

Anyway, feminism is now run by mostly Gentile women, not Jews. Black antiracism is run by Blacks and not Jews. Hispanic rights is run by Hispanics and not Jews. Gay rights is run by gay Gentiles and not Jews. It doesn’t much matter who kicked off these movements if they’ve all gone automatic by now.

I don’t believe Jews “founded Communism.” That’s just bullshit. Most Communists were Gentiles. In 1917, 7

Only a small sliver of Russian Jews were Bolsheviks, no more than 1

Also I looked at the list of leading Bolsheviks early on and I counted as many Latvians as Jews! Latvians! Latvians are known as hardcore Commie-haters. Shall we blame Latvians for starting Bolshevism? The Bolsheviks’ supporters were mostly Russian Gentile urban workers and demobbed soldiers from the war. There was also some support in the countryside. Stalin fled to a remote village in Siberia inhabited by a different ethnic group. He found that he fit right as all of these Siberian ethnic types were already hardcore revolutionaries and communists!

I really get tired of this Bolshevik Jews arguments and at its core, it’s simply straight up Nazism. One of the main thing Hitler had against the Jews was that according to him, they were all Communists.

There had been some prominent Communist movements in Russia led by Rosa Luxembourg, Karl Liebneckt, etc. There was even a short lived Communist republic in Bavaria. Apparently these uprisings really freaked the German middle class out and hence led to an anti-Communist ideological fervor among the masses. So these revolutions probably informed Hitler’s view.

I think the whole argument is just bullshit and furthermore, it’s toxic because it’s not just antisemitism, some of which might be palatable if it’s true, but instead it’s full-blown Nazism, and I ain’t supporting any of that BS!

How on Earth did these early Jewish Bolsheviks found Communism to benefit the Jews? How did they benefit? A lot of Russian Jews probably had some money and lost most of it after Communism. They couldn’t be bankers or businessmen anymore.

I’m not seeing how their group and only their group benefited. Instead Communism was intended to benefit the vast majority of  impoverished Russian Gentile peasants and urban workers, probably very few of whom were Jews. The Russian Bolsheviks were actually very selfless. Communism screwed most Jews over but it helped the Gentiles immensely. They were the opposite of Jewish ethnic activists.

Furthermore, while we already decided that the Cultural Left was not started by Jews, it’s hard to make an argument that Jews started it to benefit their own kind and screw over the Gentiles. How on Earth do Jews benefit from the Cultural Left? It advocates for the rights of women, Blacks, Hispanics, gays, trannies, etc. the vast majority of whom are not Jewish. If anything Cultural Left Jews were selfless.

The bit about removing Jews from power in the US is something I cannot support. That’s exactly what the Nazis did before they started killing them. It’s also what Arab governments did to the Arab Jews after 1948. This was then followed by pogroms in which hundreds of Jews were murdered. So this sort of thing – removal from public life – not only has a bad history but it also seems to lead, probably inevitably, to Jews getting killed.

He’s really going to have to prove his case that throwing out the Spanish Jews (who hadn’t much power anyway) led to the Golden Age of Spain. They also threw out the Muslims at that time and that may have been the most important factor.

He’s also going to have to prove his case that the removal of Jews from power and the arts in Germany led to an economic and cultural renaissance.

If these things are true, I’ll definitely believe them though I don’t wish to. I believe all sorts of things I don’t want to that make me feel uncomfortable. But I’m committed to the truth and I have no desire to believe lies about worldly matters.

If anyone wants to chime in either way on this rather incendiary charge, go right ahead.

Please follow and like us:

7 thoughts on “Comments on My Unz Post: Ideological Inertia”

  1. I am tired of hearing about the advent of USSR having been a Jewish enterprise of revenge against the Slavic people of Russia, which wouldn’t have taken place hadn’t it been for that special anti-Russian hatred. That thesis has been best popularized thanks to Solzhenitsyn, a way-overrated literary guru who tried in vain to reach back to the Silver Age of Russian literature.

    Solzhenitsyn never sounded very honest to me and many of the figures he throws in the readers’ face are fantastic as best Stalin’s regime was horrible but the gulag did not kill more people than the German camps, tens of millions Russians did not perish in them at the hands of Jewish henchmen. Instead, about one million died in those camps if we are to trust the Soviet bureaucrats themselves who were proudest of their demolition job. Meanwhile Russia experienced one of its highest population growth ever. Perhaps their lives were not the best, but the exploding population growth seems to negate genocidal intent.

    The Russian Revolution as such owes comparatively little to Jewry as such. Russia was simply due to experience a revolution of the most barbaric kind, as most authors of the famed Silver Age had got the inescapable intuition of. Most paranoid observers expected that violent revolution to come to be a right-populist anti-intellectual one, with some more Machiavellian Rasputin in charge. First of all the Russian Jews as a whole were the least inclined towards a revolution: unfortunately most of them who dared voice an opinion were quite satisfied with small privileges granted by the Czarist state at the expense of the peoples of Russia and even of their own less fortunate co-religionists caught to live as near-serfs in the Pale of Settlement, though a more progressive plurality maintained the hope the regime would gradually morph into a moderate-progressive parliamentary regime like most Western nations had gained. The dream of a totalitarian state run by a Jewish elite was nearly absent among the Jews themselves. Marxism was probably the way of thought most hostile to such an enterprise as it was a current of thought that wasn’t very optimistic about the chances of a socialist revolution happening in Russia: the dominant opinion among Marxists was that Russia was first to strive to look like a modern capitalistic country before ever dreaming of a centralized socialist economy.

    Lenin had a strong argument though : such a hope of a gradual transformation was mistaken as it was clear that world capitalism had decided that Russia’s future in their system was to be an underdeveloped country’s deliberately impoverished, its place in the world imperial system was that of a resource exporter, in other words all things unraveling as normal it would turn into yet another South America not another North America (this is important to remind nowadays: the alternative to Stalin’s dictatorship was a Mobutu’s). Namely, Russia was the Austro-German Economic Empire’s own de facto resource colony, not a developing one, but never to be developed, a mentality that later on crystallized into the Nazi doctrine’s chapter about Slavic countries. There was a scramble for Russia among all Western powers as there was one for Africa.

    But the US had some reason to fear Russia : the latter as a better organized resource colony had a big probability to deal a severe blow to America’s fortune which was heavily dependent upon the monopoly upon the modern world’s food commodities it exerted. Were Russia to be more efficiently managed as the Industrial World’s new main granary and also as a reserve of dirt-cheap industrial labor of second grade, the USA was due to go the way of Argentina or worse. Most American elite people Jewish or not saw the danger coming and crossed their fingers for any bad luck to strike Russia as the latter’s growth as a resource colony wouldn’t benefit them.

    But as for the USA themselves, they already owed their very existence to a Jewish enterprise and worse still to a would-be Jewish enterprise right from the start in a way the young USSR never was. The spirit of revolt that was agitating Russia owed very little to Jews as such, it actually owed very little to any human intervention, it was a near geological phenomenon. The only place where some albeit very atypical Jewish intelligentsia played a key (but by no means only) role in the advent of the Bolshevik regime was the Soviet of Petrograd but elsewhere in Russia that was not the case at all and in many other regions the Bolsheviks could even be on the Pogrom-rousers’ side. The early transportation of the government from Petrograd to Moscow was already a first blow against Jewish cultural predominance as Moscow was known never to have liked them very much. Had the Jews played that a central role in the Bolshevik phenomenon the capital would have been more probably moved to Odessa or some place along the Black Sea.

    Most Jewish elite or middle class people of Russia, as a whole, were the most frightened by the potential regime to come and among the first to flee. They didn’t trust at all their alleged co-religionists in place in the young party. Russia was then more known for its Zionist Jews than for its socialist ones. Those Jews emigration destination of choice was the US with smaller numbers choosing the French Empire or such countries then supposedly promising such as Argentina.

    What is true is that the US elites, all tendencies confounded, favored any evolution preventing Russia from being as organized as to overtake them as a key food resource exporter, especially as regards grain and pushing them back into a state as retrograde as possible : preferably China’s. The first choice was a return to the most reactionary kind of Czars that ideally would bring back serfdom and impose a religion as obscurantist as possible, or a purely destructive kind of revolution that might linger on for decades. Some did push Bolshevism for that temporary purpose but the aim was not the Bolsheviks’ success but calculated chaos in the interval of time necessary for a new Czar or kind of Franco to take back things in their hands.

    If your intention is to accuse Jews they were all on the Anglo-American interests’ side, never Soviet Russia’s at any point in time and they had been in charge like nowhere else in the world since not only 1776 but 1620 to take the NYT’s parlance. First of all, that is never talked about even among professional antisemites like David Duke, they were definitely on the Plantation-based Southern Economy’s side up to the South’s fag end: they were then Sephardic and always ultra-conservative on all economic and social issues as Sephardic communities have always tended to be, most contrary to Ashkenazi communities who often made alliances and even exerted leadership in all forms of progressive-humanist causes. Among the Sephardic you don’t find that, the ambition of all is to serve best the powers that be and stand as their best guarantee of survival over the great unwashed. The American revolution of 1776 was that class of Sephardic Jews and allied non-Jews’ triumph. It was a bourgeois revolution in the most extreme sense of the word: it was a revolution for the rich only that feared the advent of democracy and majority rule like plague. Contrary to the official narrative it never had a majority of oppressed people on its side: it had a majority of economic oppressors who felt impeded in their moves by various European powers and traditions (“dinosaurs, sacred cows…”). They gained a plurality (not a majority) of partisans by resorting to would-be Jewish sectarian religiosity, entertaining the dream of living again the most heroic passages of the Old Testament, in a fashion reminding the Born-Again movement of the late 20th century that helped so much the destruction of the New Deal American social contract of the American working class.

    The American Revolution had some strange after echoes in history: the formation of Rhodesia as an independent country from the British Commonwealth. The American Revolution took place right at the time the European public opinion at large was growing more conscious about plantation slavery in their colonies and about native extermination, owing to that public opinion’s getting less and less limited to the traditional European political theater and modern history superseding more and more strictly Roman history as the only worthwhile object of historical study. The American constitution was meant first and foremost for ideological consumption by the European intelligentsia (mostly French) as a subject of salon discussions so as to overshadow the real businesses going on.

    I am not accusing those Sephardic Jews who helped early America the most to have engaged personally in the slave trade : bar a few exceptions it was a too dangerous occupation, to be left to suicidal would-be noble non-Jews. They rather benefited from selling equipment to the whole process itself, and to concentrate on the last most profitable leg of triangular commerce that of finished commodity exportation. Those Jews then formed a greater percentage than today (3%) and up through the Civil War there was no single abolitionist of note among them. When the Civil War was lost they opted for their existence to be forgotten about, and to concentrate as anonymously as possible in Manhattan finance while immigration of a wholly different category of Jews, the Ashkenazi ones from central Europe, would be known as the new conquerors of land and of left-wing or at least rather progressive variety. But from 1980 onwards the Sephardi element and mentality came back in saddle. The antebellum Sephardic Jews have taken refuge in the memory hole.

    The American revolution happened in a very strange parallel with the take-over of all India by the East India Company which as regards India was a Jewish company stemming from the Persian empire, the Sassoons. They were far richer than the rest of the British Empire united, even as regards the tonnage of their transportation fleet. The British didn’t conquer India with so remarkably small numbers of troops, administrators and governors : they were hired as a mere interface with the European world. The decision to deindustrialize India and impoverish it using Britain as an outsourcing base was not taken by many people in Britain, it was taken by a conjunction of Jewish and non-Jewish allies in India and Persia. The same company favored the beginnings of the American revolution, especially during the infamous Tea Party episode which had nothing revolutionary.

    The New US flag was nothing more and nothing less than the Sassoons’ EIC flag composed of thirteen alternate red and white stripes and thirteen white stars on a blue quarters in circle: only the vessels that had a British owner or builder (only 1/3) donned a small union Jack instead of the thirteen stars along with the stripes: the other ones which were built along more traditional models flew the stars and stripes.

    These Oriental ships not so backward: technical improvements happened in both directions and purely Indian vessels could be armed with missiles (anyway much of the first stage Western Industrial revolution consisted in pilfering of technical contraptions: the infamous Cotton Gin is not an American invention but a grossly reverse-engineered oriental one) in Indian Ocean building yards and more specialized in coastal commerce though some of them did make the voyage to the New World. The first US flag, which mimicked the Indian one, meant nothing more that their vessels would have exactly the same status on sea as the EIC vessels floating outside British legal purview proper. For 13 years both flags were exactly the same, until new American states were added justifying more stars.

    That such a fact as waving, as a revolutionary power, the same flag as the most anti-revolutionary and anti-independence imperial company of the world of then, escaped the notice of most people involved shows that the level of political consciousness was not very high to say the least among most protagonists of the American Revolution, as they were not very emotionally attached to their own symbols: they were attached to their economic interests and accepted what their economic interests demanded as determined by marketing professionals, like those Born-Again Christian Republicans who don’t object against their beloved party’s having changed their upright stars for Satanic ones on its logo.

    Normally when you set up a new country as the result of a revolution your first concern is to structure a new code of law, like Napoleon did, not mere constitutional slogans. The young USA decided to remain stuck with the British Common Law as it was to the point that all judgements passed in one country are valid in the other and vice-versa, just not to bother any established judge or attorney in his habits. One strange result is that for Julian Assange everything took place as if the same judicial personnel decided of his case 1) in Australia 2) in Britain 3) in the USA by the judicial action of one US plaintiff. For quite a long time the US National Anthem had the same melody as the British Royal Anthem, with only the words having been changed and extolling the King of Israel instead that of Britain (though it was most often just bugled not sung). The present-day American Anthem (which is near impossible to sing so counter-intuitive is the melody) is another British melody that had a London oligarchical club’s (a drinking song actually) and that was hastily given words much later. Those might be only details but when everybody concerned never asks any question about that kind of details it means that those revolutionists and patriots had all their minds elsewhere.

    Now the USA are reverting to what they were at the beginning : a place where the only American Dream allowed to fly is for would-be rich slaving plantation owners only dreaming themselves as the new nobility of the world to come. Many Patriots complain that Christmas is more and more discouraged as a feast day to be named as such under the influence of Jewish-inspired multiculturalism. From 1776 to the Great German immigration Christmas, was prohibited by most state laws not to be passed as a mere working day as it was accused of being most typical of Catholic superstitions (the Irish, the Spanish and the French Cajuns were especially targeted) and also as working like a slave for a capitalist was considered as the highest form of prayer expected from good Protestants except for the tiny deciding elite : the complaint of the whole would-be Jewish masonic elite was that under a Catholic regime there were way too many unworked holidays for the economy to be prosperous and that nine Jewish feasts or coincidentally Jewish-like ones like the Thanksgiving or Easter was the maximum biblically allowed. That changed only when America decided to take up central Europe’s surplus population and to flatter people of German descent as even better and purer Americans than Yankees proper.

    1. Germans strongly assimilated to America. Probably not a good thing these days.

      I’ve always favored Sephardic Jews. They’re historically more interesting IMO. I know many Southern Ashkenazi Jews assimilated and adopted Sephardic names. People that truly assimilate should have the kindness returned.

      Assimilated Blacks years ago deserved better. Today, I’m not so sure…

  2. I find anti-Communism cute as sort of a 1950s time capsule. I never lived through that though.

    Ukraine isn’t understood much outside of here and the Far-Right. I’m tempted to shut up about it because Ukrainian women are so hot.

    Russia’s the model multiracial society IMO. This is my goal for America going forward. We don’t have to get rid of non-Whites, but they should be the minority in both senses of the word.

    1. I find anti-Communism cute as sort of a 1950s time capsule. I never lived through that though.

      It was going on in a very serious way all through the 1960’s and even 1970’s. With my parents’ generation, it never went away and they were basically insane on the subject of communism. It seems to have petered out anyway and what they have now in China seems to be working very well, so if they like it, I’m all for it.

      87% of 18-40 year old Chinese describe themselves as Marxists. 95% of the population supports the government and the system. The poll was set up to be completely anonymous and anyway there are lot of anticommunists in China, maybe 50-100 million of them. They can’t put them all in prison.

      It looks like Marxism and communism is very popular over there. Well, who am I to say they are wrong? If they enjoy living in a Marxist or communist society, go for it. Have fun. Why should I overthrow a system that 95% of the people love? Because I think it’s evil? Screw that. That’s BS. People can have whatever system they want to have as long as it meets basic levels of morality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)