Leftism turns group against themselves by creating a purity spiral of victimhood. When equality becomes the goal, society divides into two groups: those who are more than equal, and those who are less than equal. An imaginary line divides the group based on those who are succeeding, and those who are not. The group then takes from the former to give to the latter.
You may be familiar with this idea from Robin Hood or other tales that involve virtuous poor and sneeringly evil rich, and the idea that the poor are somehow victims of the rich and therefore deserve what they have, whether money, power, or social prestige. Our literature from the years after the revolutions began universally focuses on this theme.
As one might expect, over time the definition of “the rich” changes. It starts with the aristocrats, then moves to the big landowners, then finally the kulaks — the upper half of the middle class — become the targets. The insatiable mob takes their wealth, but only as a means of destroying them, because only when the successes are gone can the unsuccessful feel good about themselves, and ultimately Leftism serves only as a self-esteem replacement for the lost and unhappy.
Naturally, the lower echelons of society comprise a great deal of this group. If all you can say about yourself is that you can do simple repetitive labor, you probably have a lower IQ and less moral awareness than others, which means that you will find yourself explaining your life as a narrative of how you were victimized by others.
As Leftism winds down after fifty years of cultural dominance in the West, collapsing amidst the rising dust of its many failed programs and the polluted alienating world it leaves behind, we are seeing how the crisis of white people is not a white crisis. In fact, it embroils all of humanity. As a species, we are trying to learn to avoid the pitfall of self-pity that validates our pathologies as virtues and turns us into unhappy robots applied ideology obsessively in a desperate attempt to feel relevant at all.
Humanity struggles with this because our inclination is to be social, and in social circumstances, egalitarianism proves popular time and again. When we gave in to the force of social pressure, especially as aided by the printing press and later television, we formed ourselves into a herd, mob, or cult that lives through the authority it externalizes to the group. This made us weak and also revengeful toward anyone who did not share our sickness.
As much as whites are under assault, Jews — who are not whites but a white, Asiatic, and North African hybrid — find themselves under attack for also being a successful group, much as the Japanese are resented in Asia and probably the ancient Polynesians were by their subordinate Asian populations. The Aztecs, Angkor Wat, the Maya, Incas, and even Easter Island civilizations may have perished through the class warfare that egalitarianism both engenders and arises from.
Right now, Jews are dealing with the unfortunate truth that the rest of the world is turning to nationalism and therefore has become hostile to any Other groups, but Jews as a successful other group stand out more than the others. We cannot simply blame nationalism for this; as populations try to get healthy, they want ethnic self-determination, or command of their future, and in order to have this, they must walk alone.
We can see early evidence of this from the pre-Nazi letters of Albert Einstein, who saw anti-Semitism rising around him as Germany tried to purge itself of the filthy Weimar era:
It was during this hiatus that he penned a handwritten letter to his beloved younger sister, Maja, warning of the dangers of growing nationalism and anti-Semitism years before the Nazis ultimately rose to power, forcing Einstein to flee his native Germany for good.
“Out here, nobody knows where I am, and I’m believed to be away on a trip,” he wrote in August 1922. “Here are brewing economically and politically dark times, so I’m happy to be able to get away from everything.”
Nazis were far from the only party to embrace anti-Semitic rhetoric. It seemed to spring up out of the ground, much as Theodor Herzl warned. That great thinker saw that in times of stress, national populations would scapegoat those around them who they saw as being in the way of the national population achieving total power over itself.
Upon that revelation, Jews divided into two groups: Leftist Jews wanted to end nationalism, since that made Jewish presence in that host nation dangerous; Right-wing Jews wanted a strong Israel and to support their host nations so that their loyalty was never again in doubt.
Herzl wrote about The Dreyfus Affair, an event which divided 1896 France because it was clear that the Jewish officer Dreyfuss was being blamed rather than correctly attributed as the cause of the events which unfolded. However, the subconscious point made was that people cannot have dual loyalty: you cannot be both loyal to France and Israel, for example, even if only in your heart.
In the same mode of thought, the Germans targeted not just Jews but freemasons and other fringe religions that they found incompatible with being a German. We know that 150,000 Jews and partial Jews fought for Hitler because they saw their higher loyalty as being to Germany:
Contrary to conventional views, Rigg reveals that a startlingly large number of German military men were classified by the Nazis as Jews or “partial-Jews” (Mischlinge), in the wake of racial laws first enacted in the mid-1930s. Rigg demonstrates that the actual number was much higher than previously thought-perhaps as many as 150,000 men, including decorated veterans and high-ranking officers, even generals and admirals.
As Rigg fully documents for the first time, a great many of these men did not even consider themselves Jewish and had embraced the military as a way of life and as devoted patriots eager to serve a revived German nation. In turn, they had been embraced by the Wehrmacht, which prior to Hitler had given little thought to the “race” of these men but which was now forced to look deeply into the ancestry of its soldiers.
In other words, they chose Germany over Israel. One can feel a sympathy for the Jewish people: perhaps a bit neurotic because of their mixed-race (mostly Caucasian, substantially Asian, and a small amount trace elements of North African) origins and the conditions of the diaspora, in which they were ejected from their homeland and set to wandering the Earth, but fundamentally invested in their host countries.
Most Jews did not want to leave Germany; they loved Germany, and were conflict and ambivalent about their dual identities. This split them down the middle, much as it did in Russia. They were forced to choose one over the other. One could either be a good German, or a good Jew, but rarely both, because at some point, loyalty is a zero-sum game.
No person can existed as a divided entity for long. At some point, one must choose one or the other. To choose Germany is to hate oneself; one cannot be a German and think it is excellent to be a Jew (perhaps some of the Jewish-looking Nazis, like Joseph Goebbels, struggled with this). To choose Israel is to become hostile to the host majority; this is the nature of diversity, and leads people into Leftism.
We saw this division play out also in Russia, where Jews contributed to the rise of Communism, but we get the impression that this was only some Jews and not all:
The role of Jews in the Russian Revolution, and by extension Communism writ large, has always been a sensitive subject because antisemitic voices often painted Soviet Communism as a Jewish plot, or “Jewish Bolshevism.” When Alexander Solzhenitsyn began work on a book called 200 Years Together, he was criticized for what touching this taboo issue. His own comments to the press didn’t help the matter, claiming two-thirds of the Cheka (secret police) in Ukraine were Jewish.
“I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited.”
…Winston Churchill agreed. In a piece in the Illustrated Sunday Herald in 1920, he broadly stereotyped Jews as either “international” communists, loyal nationalists or Zionists. He called it the “struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” and claimed the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution “probably outweighs [the role] of all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.”
Here we see the horrible split: much as many Jews supported National Socialism and others hated it, many Jews supported Communism, but others turned toward being “loyal nationalists” or “Zionists.” Since Zionism is merely Jewish nationalism, this meant that Jews could either be nationalists or internationalists, with the latter group being those who were more loyal to an ideology of universalism — all people being equal and interchangeable, and requiring only the right propaganda and control to make them equally “good” in terms of the ideology — and therefore hostile to nationalists much as nationalists rejected it.
For a good example of universalism, see this from the source cited above:
…Vinaver came to lead the group of Jews in the Duma and pressed for equality of minorities in the empire. “We Jews represent one of the nationalities which have suffered more, yet never once have we spoken only about ourselves. For we consider it to be inappropriate to speak just of this and not of civil equality for all,” he said in a speech.
If one is not a nationalist — pro-Russian or Zionist — one must then be an internationalist, which by denying the specific nationality of people, is a form of universalism. Those who identify with being diaspora Jews, or those who are dependent on a host population but separate from it, are more likely to desire equality and universalism, since only as generic citizens can they be accepted despite not being from the national group.
Leftist Jews worldwide follow that reasoning; Rightist Jews split into host country patriots and Zionists, with some overlap because many view the two interests as compatible. Herzl for example would have seen the need for a nationalist Germany without Jews and the need for a nationalist Israel without non-Jews as compatible, although in his later years he abandoned that philosophy for a more sociable cosmopolitanism, which is a form of internationalism/universalism.
The split between Rightist and Leftist Jews however creates a sampling error. We know that many Jews were Communists, but not exactly how many as a percent of the Jewish people, especially not relative to the Jewish population as a whole and those who were nationalist:
…According to Leonard Schapiro, who authored The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement in 1961, Herzl found that “50% of the membership of the revolutionary parties was Jewish.”
If a country has a thousand Jews and a Communist party which has a thousand people, being fifty percent Communist means that half the Jews are internationalists, and the other half are (presumably) nationalists of one of the two varieties, pro-host and/or pro-Israel. If there are fifty people in the Communist party, then suddenly it becomes clear that more Jews favor nationalism than internationalism.
Since accurate data on the size of Jewish populations and even membership in the revolutionary parties is difficult, or at least made unstable by the tendency of authorities to differ with one another, it becomes hard to assess the nationalist/internationalist split among Jews. However, we know that diversity forces this split on all minority groups.
Diversity offers minority groups a divisive choice: either assimilate and join with the national entity, and lose who they are, or remain distinctive and always be outsiders, which naturally results in some loss of opportunity.
It also forces majority groups into a defensive posture, since they see their culture and standards being erased, yet have no one tangible to blame except the symptom, namely the foreign groups present among them.
Diversity mirrors the introduction of universalism in this way. Societies adopt universalism when they become embroiled in class warfare, which occurs when the more numerous lower echelons rebel against the higher (it is never higher versus lower: the higher, being in power, have no need to war against the lower, although they do well to reduce the number of lower in order to stave off future revolts, something the higher rarely have the stomach for doing).
By this same token, diversity within the Jewish population — that split between nationalists and internationalists — will destroy Jews just as surely as it is destroying Western Europeans. In fact, it is destroying humanity: people either seek to conform to this universal standard, and give up who they are, or they remain outsiders to the “New World Order” (NWO).
Leftists recognize that Judaism, as an identity separate from the universal/international identity, poses a threat to Leftism. For this reason, the Left is — as they have in the past — turning on all Jews, not simply those that disagree with them. Bourgeois appeasement of the Leftist beast never works, and elite groups like Jews (higher IQ, higher earnings) suffer the most.
Until they realize that, Leftist Jews will continue to agitate for an “open society,” or a universalist one in which membership in a national ethnic group is not required to be a member of that nation, even though this will destroy them. We see how the popular notion of an open society appeals to the Left who see it as a solution to the extremes of WW2:
“We are commemorating today with the promise that we will set ourselves strongly against attacks on our open and plural society,” she said. “We are commemorating in the knowledge that watching as lines are crossed and crimes are committed ultimately means going along with them.”
However, this is also an open society:
Representatives of the Netherlands’ ruling party have asked the capital city’s government to explain why it allows anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement at a monument for victims of Nazism.
Organizers played from loudspeakers a song by the rapper Ismo, who has featured anti-Semitic and homophobic content in his songs. In a 2014 song, he said “I hate Jews more than the Nazis.”
When it comes down to the line and the Jewish needs for freedom from anti-Semitism conflict with the desires of others to be anti-Semitic, who wins? It defaults to the simplest principle: the open society must win, so anti-Semitism triumphs over Jewish nationalism. In time, Jews will be seen as an impediment to the Utopia of the open society.
At that point, Leftists will move from defending Jews to defaming Jews, and eventually to destroying them. They will get tired of making special protective arrangements a group they view as an elite, and will defend anti-Semitism as a means of preserving the open society.
Right now, Jews are still caught up in WW2, which we might call the “diversity war” since like WW1, it ultimately involved a clash between different ethnic groups lumped together in nation states by the dubious politics brought on by the Leftist revolts of the previous century.
As a result, they blame Nazis for rising anti-Semitism:
“We have sadly almost become accustomed to the fact that every synagogue, Jewish school, kindergarten, restaurant and cemetery needs to be either guarded by police or given special protection,” she said.
The head of the Central Council of Jews, Josef Schuster, accused Germany’s far-right AfD party of stoking incitement. Every other week a synagogue or mosque was daubed with hate speech, he said.
Mr Philippe wrote on Facebook that he had just learned that anti-Semitic incidents had gone up by 69% in the first nine months of 2018 alone, despite a fall in the previous two years.
However, as anyone who is remotely alert knows, the real threat comes from other diversity which as part of its culture and religion, makes a habit of hating and murdering Jews:
A vigil held by pro-Israel activists in London for Jews murdered in Arab countries was dispersed violently by men shouting about killing Jews in Arabic.
Joseph Cohen, an Israel Advocacy Movement activist, filmed the event as about 20 men drowned his talk, shouting: “Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning.”
The cry relates to an event in the seventh century when Muslims massacred and expelled Jews from the town of Khaybar, located in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Some of the men shouted about “Palestine,” surrounding the pro-Jewish activists and shoving them.
Like it or not, those Arabs have more melanin that Jews, and since egalitarian societies defend the underdog against whoever has power, the Arabs are going to get preferred victim status, bumping the Jews from that place. In America, we see the same thing now that Hispanics and other minorities are dethroning African Americans from “#1 victim of racism” place in the pity Olympics.
This shows that Jewish Leftism is suicidal, as is the tendency of diaspora Jews to act against their host nations as those turn more nationalist in the wake of the failure of Leftism internationalism/universalism.
Diaspora Jews voting Leftist opens them up to criticism of acting against the national interests of the majority when in fact the Jewish vote is in self-interest, defending against nationalism despite that perhaps not working out as they had hoped:
The overwhelming majority of American Jews voted Democrat in Tuesday’s elections, a CNN poll found.
Nearly 80% of Jewish voters polled voted Democrat, while 17% voted Republican. Jews also voted Democrat at the highest rate of any other religion included in the poll, which included several denominations of Christianity. The poll did not include a large enough sample size of Muslim voters to make a determination for the religion.
As we see, however, all groups who identify as minorities vote nearly the same way that Jews do. This means that Jews are a member of a larger category, minority groups, rather than outliers. Jews vote the same way that Africans, Asians/Hispanics, single drunk women, racial hybrids (Muslims/Indians), and even non Western European ethnic groups (Italians, Irish, Slavs) do.
Not surprisingly, people are reacting as one might expect, not targeting Jews specifically but as part of a generalized dislike of diversity because all foreign groups work against the majority culture, mainly because they have to in order to assert autonomy and have any power:
Germans are becoming more hostile towards immigrants, people of the Muslim and Jewish faiths, and other minorities like the Roma, according to a new study.
A report out this week by the Leipzig-based Competence Centre for Right-Wing Extremism and Democracy Research found that more than one-out-of-three Germans think foreigners come only to exploit the welfare state.
Some 44 percent of Germans surveyed for the research now want a ban on Muslim immigration, compared to 36.5 percent in 2014.
It also found that more than one-in-two Germans said Muslims make them feel like strangers, compared to 43 percent four years ago.
Most of this new xenophobia focuses on the most recent immigrant groups, namely African and middle eastern Muslims, but includes other groups as well, with Jews among them. Germans want to be Germans; this, after all, is identity politics for the majority, which if we extend the same right to minority groups, is only fair and natural.
In the long term, Jewish Leftism is dead in the water. Leftists see Palestinians are victims of the rich, powerful, and white-ish Jewish people, and they will soon see Arabs in Europe and the USA as being just like the Palestinians and turn on the Jews, much as they did during the Soviet years.
Supporting Leftism, universalism, and through them, the extension of the diaspora will terminate the Jewish people through outbreeding and self-hatred as well as association of Jews with Leftism resulting in their alienation from normal people at the same time the Leftist establishment disowns them.
All of this points to the same notion that has been thrown around here for some time: the West took a misstep during The Enlightenment™ by adopting individualism, which in groups becomes egalitarianism, and from there asserts universalism instead of the uniqueness of national culture. That flowers into feminism, diversity, and socialism and destroys the host.
This same force destroys Jews, just like it will destroy any population, and the only way to defeat it is for enough people to see this that they reach across ethnic lines to defeat it. Without Leftism, each population can have its own nations and finally be free of the enmity that Leftism and diversity have forced upon us.