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.
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.
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.
