Unlike Classic Marxism, the Current 'Socialism' is NOT about Class Conflict but about the Special Primacy of Jews, Blacks, and Homos — Current 'Socialism' is more about Resentment of the Educated Class than Needs of the Workers of the World

Political Correctness and 'wokeness' have been associated with socialism-communism, but they are now more like Judeo-Nazism with Maoist hysterics about the supremacy of blacks and sanctity of homos. Under communism, the worst possible label was 'bourgeois', and so, anything deemed bad, heretical, or false was deemed 'bourgeois' even if it had nothing to do with the actual historical bourgeoisie. When communists attacked other communists, they accused the other being 'bourgeois'. During the Sino-Soviet Rift, the Soviets belittled Maoism as a 'petite-bourgeois' theory, and the Chinese predictably denounced Soviet Union as 'bourgeois revisionist'. (Marxists also dismissed the Iranian Revolution as 'bourgeois'.) So, 'bourgeois' became an all-encompassing term of excoriation against anything deemed undesirable or threatening to the ruling regime or communist hack-intellectuals. It was like all sides in Christian Europe accused their enemies of being agents of the Devil. "God was on OUR side" while the Other Side was tainted with Devil-worship EVEN IF they all worshiped the same God.

Still, the emphasis on the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils — even Fascism and National Socialism were theorized as mere byproducts of bourgeois capitalism, i.e. the rich class recruited faux-revolutionary thugs to protect its property from the communists and workers as vanguards of the True Revolution — makes it clear that Marxism believed class conflict to be the central issue deciding history and morality. The worst evil in the world was class oppression because it was diagnosed to be the source of all other evils. As Karl Marx said, so-called antisemitism is the cause of class conflict: Because Jews are so maniacal about money, capitalism fuels their insatiable greed, and this leads to Jews acting badly and goyim feeling resentful of Jewish wealth and abuses. Therefore, the ONLY way to get rid of 'antisemitism' and other forms of bigotry is to bring about a communist revolution that would make for a classless society of equality. That way, Jews and Goyim will be comrades, brothers and sisters, under the sun. According to classic Marxism, as long as capitalism exists and bourgeois factors create class divisions, it will lead to other forms of divisions as well. One reason will owe to some groups being more adept at business and extraction; they are more clever that way and gain dominance over other less acquisitive groups. The other reason will be the rich and powerful will exploit racial and cultural differences as a divide-and-rule mechanism. Yet, another reason will be that the masses of proles will be too overworked, under-educated, and beastly in a system of dog-eat-dog capitalism to rise above crude tribalism. Ultimately, the real source of all such bigotries was economic injustice. Make people equal in property and education, and they will appreciate one another more as fellow humans. Marx was convinced that, while Jews may gain great wealth under capitalism, they will always be hated. (Ironically, Jews came to be regarded with greater suspicion in the Soviet Union while they came to be much praised in the capitalist US. American Capitalism, having a less darker history than the European counterpart, may have been a factor. American cult of freedom has been more meritocratic and extols the Winner, especially because of the mythos that ANYONE can succeed. Jews certainly won big. But it also owes to the fact that Jews took over much of the academia and media & entertainment and elevated the Shoah to a quasi-religion and made 'racism', especially against Jews and blacks, the worst possible sin — badmouthing Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians is perfectly fine.)

Anyway, if capitalism said ANYONE, regardless of race or creed, can become gloriously rich, communism said ANYONE, regardless of race or culture, can be made evil by greed and money. Capitalism said it's great that a Jew or a Christian can become rich. Communism said it's sad that both a Jew and a Christian can be corrupted by money. Marxism didn't spare the Jews. While Marx lamented antisemitism, he didn't regard Jews as innocent pure-as-snow angels who were hated for irrational reasons. He believed they were hated for rational and material reasons: Capitalism brought out the worst aspects of Jewish Character as molded through history(of money-making). So, the only workable compromise between Goyim and Jews was for goyim to drop their resentment on grounds that Jews will forsake their greed. Only then as comrades could Jews and all kinds of goyim get along.

Because Antifa types and other so-called 'leftists' claim to be socialist or even communist — and because so many on the Right love to draw parallels between Marxism/Maoism and current PC madness in the West — , one would think Old Communism is back in force. But actually, so-called Antifa, though claiming to be anti-fascist, is oddly closer in spirit to Nazism that put Race at the center of its worldview. Unlike Marxism that said ANY PEOPLE, both Jews and Goyim, can become corrupted by money and power, the current PC insists that the problems of power is almost always about 'white supremacism'. So, it doesn't matter how rich Jews are, how successful blacks are, how well-off non-whites are. The problem is always about 'whiteness'. If some whites are exempted from total abuse, it is only because they funnel lots of money toward PC to appease the beast. According to PC, a poor white person who holds an American flag and doesn't hate himself & his race is a greater evildoer than super-rich whites like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates who fund PC causes.
As for Jews, blacks, homos, and certain non-white groups, it doesn't matter how rich they are. (Latin American whites are also exempt from the worst of abuse.) You are GOOD simply because you're Jewish, black, homo, or etc. But if you're white(and straight), it doesn't matter how many hardships you face. It doesn't matter if you've been attacked by blacks or fleeced by Jews. You SUCK because you're white.

The notion of 'racism' change from one's attitudes to one's innate character. It went from mutable to immutable. It went from an attitude that anyone can have, borne of ignorance and meanness, to a condition that certain groups are born with, regardless of their attitude. So, you can be a hateful Jew or nasty Negro, but you're hardly 'racist'. You can be a Zionist Jew pushing all kinds of wars in the Middle East to destroy countless Arab/Muslim lives, but that's okay. Jews can dehumanize Russians and white Christians, and that's cool too. And, blacks can do thug-talk, threaten other races, attack other groups, and indulge in all sorts of hateful rhetoric. But no matter what they do, it's always contextualized as 'resistance against systemic racism', that is UNLESS blacks badmouth Jews and homos.
In contrast, if you're white, you are 'racist'(or tainted with the white mark of cain) no matter how much you try to be fair with rest of humanity. Indeed, the reason why white Antifa types are so soul-damaged is they indulge in an insane kind of self-hatred. They've internalized Jewish PC so much that they believe it's no longer sufficient for whites to reject 'racist' hatred against non-whites. Rather, whites must actively hate their own race as innately tainted with the 'original sin' of 'racism'. Thus, White Antifa is less about anti-hatred than pro-hatred-against-the-self. (Of course, Jewish leaders of Antifa happily promote such attitude among their white dolt comrades.)
If Antifa is truly communist, socialist, or Marxist, it should focus mostly on economic issues. In regarding the 'bourgeois' elements as the source of all inequality and evil, they would condemn ALL forms of power, wealth, and privilege. They would hate Barack Obama who's approaching a billion dollars in personal wealth. They should be denouncing Tim Cook and other fancy-pants homos who do the bidding of oligarchs and the deep state. Karl Marx did just this. Though of Jewish origin, he lambasted Jewish capitalists as among the worst bourgeois elements. But no such is heard from current Antifa and of course BLM. Their worldview is essentially racial-supremacist in that good or evil is really a matter of one's identity. So, it doesn't matter what Jews, blacks, or homos do or how much wealth they have and how much privilege they enjoy. They are wonderful and good simply because of their vaunted identities. In contrast, it doesn't matter how difficult one's situation is as a white person; it doesn't matter how much he or she tries to be good and fair-minded. He or she is bad, even 'white supremacist', simply because he or she is white or, worse, refuses to hate himself/herself.

How ironic that Jews who support Antifa as anti-fascist and anti-'racist', a means to expose and hunt down 'nazis' and 'white supremacists', are now the main purveyors of something like a Neo-Nazi outlook. Jewish Power pushes a certain racial essentialism. Jews are forever to be 'essentialized' as the Holocaust People, or Holochs. So, even when Jews act like Nazis and abuse Palestinians, Jews are a bunch of Anne Franks while Palestinians might as well be the 'nazis'. In the most perverse way, Jews have used the narrative of victimization under supremacist Nazis to justify a kind of moral nihilism for Jews, i.e. because Jews suffered so much, they are forever wise, and therefore, everything done by Jews must be grand! In other words, Jews invoke 'Never Again' against the evils of Nazism to act like a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Just ask the Palestinians.
And blacks are to be 'essentialized' forever as a bunch of Emmett Tills when, in fact, so many black thugs roam the streets and terrorize people worse than the KKK ever did. If Jews really care about humanity, why are they most angry with Donald Trump when he wants to de-escalate wars in the Middle East? Why have the likes of Thomas Friedman praised ISIS as the wreckers of Assad's Syria? If Jews are really against 'racism', why are they perfectly fine with Trump and Pompeo's most blatant form of racial bigotry: the mindless support of Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and other Arabs? And if Jews are opposed to racial essentialism, why do they create TV shows that feature Jews and blacks as noble simply for what they are, whereas whites are villains because it's in the nature of whites to be 'racist' and 'supremacist'?
Jews fool a lot of people by claiming to condemn 'white supremacism', but the notion that some groups are incorrigibly 'racist' whereas other groups, such as Jews and blacks, are always 'anti-racist' is essentially supremacist. A truly anti-supremacist view would argue that ANY group, given the circumstances, could be supremacist. It was certainly the case with Romans and Germanic barbarians. When Romans were on top, they could lord over the Germanics with supremacist arrogance. But when the empire fell apart and the Germanic barbarians rampaged through Rome, who were the supremacist overlords?

Any honest person would admit the current US is animated by Jewish Supremacism, especially in foreign policy and historical memory. When Jews are remembered only as victims of the Shoah but not as perpetrators of mass killings of others, it's like remembering white history only in terms of what American Indian savages did to white settlers but not what the white invaders did to the Native Tribes. And how can BLM be anything but a form of supremacism when it pretends that even obvious black thugs and degenerates are saintly victims of white supremacism while totally overlooking all the anti-white violence carried out by deranged blacks? When blacks rioted and looted, carrying out modern-day pogroms, the Jewish-run media didn't care about the victims because they were white or non-blacks. (While some Jews were negatively affected too, Jewish Power saw it as a gambit to bring down Trump America. One step backward for Jews for three steps forward for Jewish Power.) Indeed, the Jewish PC Narrative mirrors the peculiar manner of Jewish remembrance of Russian History. Jews never let us forget about the Slavic pogroms against Jews but suppress all discussion of Jewish role in Bolshevik violence that literally destroyed millions of lives. In other words, pogroms were worse because thousands of Jews were affected because, of course, a single Jewish life has more value than a million Slavic lives. It's a form of JLM or "Jewish Lives Matter MORE than Slavic lives", especially if the Slavs were slaughtered at the behest of Jewish communist henchmen.

At the very least, because communism identified economic injustice and class oppression as the true source of evil, any group could be condemned for being 'bourgeois'. While the Soviet Union forbade antisemitism, an ethno-racial animus against Jews, it attacked Jewish capital as well as goy capital. So, even though Jews were protected as communists, they could be destroyed like anyone else as capitalists. So, Jews could be good(communist) or bad(capitalist). But according to current Identity Politics of PC ideology, Jews are never bad or wrong. Jews can be Liberal Zionists or Neocons; both are great. Jews can be socialist or capitalist; both are super. Jews are great no matter what they do. Both GOP and Democratic Party expend most of their energies in flattering and appeasing Jews. Democrats will denounce white conservatism but praise Neocons. Republicans will denounce white liberalism but praise Liberal Zionists. Jews are exempt from all blame. Donald Trump was dragged through the mud by Jewish Power, but his main message is "I Luv Israel, and I Kiss Jewish Butt." And in the recent riots, black thuggery and violence were celebrated by Democrats and unopposed by Republicans. Even as cities burned, Trump was sucking up to blacks and making Fentanyl Floyd into a saint-angel.

This is so unlike Marxism or communism where any group, any nationality, or any race could face moral censure and condemnation for evils. Current PC is more like Nazism because it's about the racial supremacism of Jews and blacks(with special honors for Homos). It says certain groups(Jews, blacks, and homos) are infallible, while whites are intrinsically tainted(no matter what they do or say). Sadly, whites brought this upon themselves because they've enabled the current state of affairs. Whites grovel to Jews who demean them most. Whites also hurt those who face the same kind of hatred from Jews. Given Jewish vitriol and venom against whites, the logical thing would be for whites to side with other targets of Jewish hatred. Whites should be main allies with Russia and Iran; whites should be shouting, "Palestine is our greatest ally." But whites, as politicians, preachers, tax-payers, and soldiers, go out of their way to do the bidding of Jews in destroying other victims of Jewish Power. So, even as Jewish Power clobbers Trump and his white Christian Base, they are enabling the total destruction of Palestine. It'd be like Poles sucking up to Nazi Germany even as Germans push them around. It's truly a disgusting sight.

Whatever socialism that remains among the American 'Left' is NOT about the workers. If American 'leftists' really cared about the Power of Labor, it would call for end of immigration which has a scab-effect on Big Labor. They would also support policies that encourage more blacks toward productive work. But the American 'left' condemned welfare reform under Billy Boy Clinton because it 'heartlessly' put conditions on blacks to find some kind of useful employment. American 'left' doesn't care for workers or labor. What goes by the name of 'socialism' in most places is the demand for more freebies for parasites. Indeed, most 'leftists' and so-called 'progressives' look down on most jobs as demeaning and dirty for 'losers'. They don't want to pick up the shovel. They want to use pens. They want the government to produce more 'clean' jobs for bureaucrats, officials, operatives, instructors, activists, coordinators, managers, and the like. They want to be busy doing nothing in bogus jobs that make them feel they are 'saving the planet', 'working for progress', 'raising consciousness', 'fighting hatred', and etc. Over the years, more people got college degrees, but most degrees outside practical fields like science, technology, medicine, and the like are pretty useless. What good are most 'liberal arts' degrees or 'humanities' degrees, let alone degrees in Women's Studies, Black Studies, Gender Studies, and most social sciences? Out of college, all these people with fancy-pants college degrees realize their future is working for Starbucks and serving coffee to people who make lots of money in high tech, medicine, entertainment, finance, and the like. (And those with secure government jobs do pretty well.) And this breeds resentment among many of the educated. Thus, current 'socialism' is not about the proletariat or the working class at war with the rich; rather, it's about college-educated Starbucks workers feeling resentful about having to serve expensive coffee to their much more successful peers who specialized in practical fields like technology or money management. These 'socialists' don't feel any sense of camaraderie with the Workers of the World whom they regard as 'losers of the world'. They don't lose sleep over wage-slaves toiling in Asia to make Nike shoes. If anything, they want the hip and fashionable lifestyles enjoyed by the yupsters, or yuppie-hipsters who work for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Wall Street firms. In a way, they feel more deserving of the good life because they majored in more 'meaningful' fields like arts, culture, and ideas whereas their more successful 'shallow' peers only care about making money. And yet, they are gravitated to the world of privilege; their dream is to live in a fancy condo, be surrounded by books and music, and attend cocktail parties. But only a handful of people who majored in arts/culture/ideas get to attain privileged slots in society.

Still, given the resentment against the successful, you'd think the current 'socialists' would be most passionately anti-rich. But despite their rhetoric about the 99% vs the 1%, their main passions are for the holy three of Jews, blacks, and homos(and sometimes 'diversity'), while their main ire is directed at 'white supremacism', 'racism'(that means speaking truthfully about blacks), 'homophobia'(that means refusal to celebrate 'gay pride'), and 'nazism'(that means anyone hated by Jews is a 'nazi' who must be punched and destroyed).
Of course, being anti-rich while being mindlessly pro-Jewish makes no sense because Jews are, by far, the richest people in the world. For one to say that excess wealth is evil but then claim that Jews are above criticism is, for all practical purposes, anti-socialist. If Jews, the richest people on Earth, cannot be condemned, it means Jewish Wealth must be protected. And being pro-'gay' is also antithetical to socialism because homos are naturally vain, narcissistic, elitist, and fancy-pants aristo. While there have been some homos on the Real Left, homo nature tends toward catering to the rich, privileged, and the fancy crowd. Once 'socialism' is associated with homo-celebration, Mayday turns into Gayday, which is precisely why rich Jews and the oligarchy(even in the GOP) pushed the homo agenda so far.
Also, celebration of Jews and homos can only be a kind of elite-minority-supremacism. While some minorities are poor and powerless, some are rich and powerful, much more so than the great majority. In the US, almost nothing is said of the plight of American Indians or Muslim-Americans(especially of Palestinian backgrounds), the powerless minorities. Jews and homos, as minority-ruling-elites, count for much more; they are akin to the British Imperialist minority elites in India or the white-Jewish minority elite in Old South Africa.
As for blacks, yes, it's true that many are mired in poverty and backwardness. But blacks are also oppressors as street thugs, predators, criminals, and bullies. It's been said that comedians should punch up than down, but it's not like all members of the group are either up or down. While some whites are above blacks, some whites are below blacks. While rich whites live in communities totally safe from black criminality, other whites are constantly attacked by black thuggery. Just because one bunch of whites are above blacks doesn't mean ALL blacks are above them. Some whites are below blacks. But in Jewish-controlled US, there is this crazy notion that ALL whites are privileged with supremacist power while ALL blacks are oppressed. It's like ALL Jews are forever Holocaust Survivors or something whereas ALL Russians, despite having suffered tragically from Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish gangster-capitalism(in the 1990s and even today under international sanctions), are forever tagged with blame for the pogroms.

What can be done to save the West? It must go Cold Turkey with the truth. And white people have no one to blame but themselves unless they speak the obvious truth: That the West is now Jewish Supremacist and that 'white supremacism' is just smoke-and-mirrors cooked up by Jewish Power to distract people from the fact that the modus operandi is "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" Then and only then can whites work toward White Liberation whereupon whites will be telling Jewish Power, "I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more." This will not only be great for whites but for all victim peoples of Jews, such as the Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians. White Racial Disobedience and Resistance to Jewish Supremacism will mean No More Wars for Israel & Zion and no more use of white energies to spread the 'ghaspel'(the ghastly gospel) of Globo-Homo and Afro-Mania around the world. The White Bridges used to spread Jewish Supremacism(and its proxies) around the world must be blown up. If whites resist, the rest of the world will take inspiration and follow suit. If whites cuck and submit to Jewish Supremacism, the rest of the world will do the same. This is the special place whites have in the world. Though the West is Jewish-supremacist and Jewish-dominated, Jewish Power feeds on white submission and obedience. White behavior vis-a-vis Jewish Power serves as the template for all the world. So, if whites suck up to Jews and worship globo-homo-BLM craziness, other races will do likewise. But if whites finally say NO and stand up to Jewish supremacist perfidy, others around the world will also get the message and toss away the shackles. Whites no longer have the power of rule, but they still have the choice between submission and liberation to the rule. And what whites do will determine the direction of history.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQzSILxdgCOq/

The Problem with Jason Morgan's "Shocking the Bourgeoisie: Our Most Insufferable Cliche" in the American Conservative Magazine

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/shocking-the-bourgeoisie-our-most-insufferable-cliche/

In my wild youth, I spent a season in hell as a devotee of Arthur Rimbaud... I fancied myself a top-flight bohemian... and my defiance of all the niceties that kept the common folk in bondage to the workaday grind.
I had boarded a drunken boat, and, like Rimbaud, made a bad habit out of shocking the bourgeoisie. Or so I thought. What I mostly encountered in response to my pretensions was rolled eyes...
If I could go back now and kick my 18-year-old self in the shins, I would gladly do so. I wish someone had at least slapped me with their gloves or laughed in my face. That nobody did so is because, well, it’s harder than it looks to shock the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, as it turns out, are pretty nice people...
The bourgeoisie politely smiled through the hippies, the yuppies, the Seventies and the Eighties, Studio 54, David Bowie, the gross gyrations of Madonna Louise Ciccone, the new domesticity of Ellen and Rosie and Elton John, the copulating of David Crosby and Melissa Etheridge, the proliferation of the sperm bank, wardrobe malfunctions, Jim Carrey, the Movable Train Wreck commonly referred to as Johnny Depp...
Young Jason Morgans of the present, take heed. People have been trying to do this since Leonardo da Vinci. No, since Sappho. It’s a phase you don’t need to go through. There’s nothing romantic about tilting at accountant-shaped windmills. In a world in which shocking the bourgeoisie has become the most conventional, most predictable, most stultifying form of utter conformity, I dare you to be different...
Like learning. Like culture. (Remember that “culture” implies cultivation, not laziness.) Like devotion. Like charity. Like discipline. Like rock-bottom time preference. Like sacrifice. Like truth. Like love.
Rimbaud died a sad death and so did Verlaine. They were, in the end, big losers. This wasn’t at all shocking—anybody could have seen it coming. But because we’re all busy trying to shock one another with bathroom humor and pierced Adam’s apples, we tend to miss the obvious truth staring us in the face. Épater is bourgeoisie. Now, young squire, put down the tattoo needle and hie thee to a library.

Jason Morgan defends the bourgeoisie and advises young people to think twice before making fools of themselves as rebels against bourgeois values and norms. On the surface, it's mostly good advice, especially in our degenerate age. One of his proposed alternatives to wasting one's years on anti-bourgeois pain-in-the-assery is the search for truth, but it seems Morgan himself ignores too much truth in his opinion piece that comes across as a bit smug, even glib. So, what facets of reality has Morgan overlooked or mischaracterized in his defense of the bourgeoisie against vapid decadents and vain poseurs calling attention to themselves with their 'enfants terribles' schtick?

First, it's pointless for a mature older person to give advice to one's 18 yr old self, especially in a modern democracy where youths have the freedom of 'self-actualization'. Indeed, if his current self could really go back in time to advise his 18 yr old self, the latter would look upon his older self with equal distress and skepticism. It'd be like the two selves meeting in the sci-fi movie LOOPER. All we can really hope for is that young people eventually grow out of their often foolish but sometimes inspired phase of searching for identity, meaning, and place for themselves. The problem for society is not the phase itself but the inability or unwillingness of so many people to eventually morph into sober adults.
In some cases, it seems like adults, especially as they enter middle age, revert to a kind of juvenilia as if to get their second wind of youthful excitement or to stave away(with growing desperation) the fact that one will never be young again. Especially given all the pop cultural fantasies of narcissism that so many people are inundated with since childhood, many feel cheated as they grow older as their fairy-tale wishes didn't come true. At the very least, they once had youth(and the dreams of a better future) in their younger days, but as it dawns on them that they will even lose youth itself, many grow desperate and go out of their way in self-indulgence to make up for all the things they missed out on. I'm reminded of the mother played by Jennifer Connelly in AMERICAN PASTORAL. A woman who'd been mature and responsible for most of her adult life suddenly turns into vain glam-girl as she enters middle age and is freed from having to worry about her troublesome daughter.

It's no big deal and no great shame for young people to make asses out of themselves. When a person is 20, he has no personal references as an adult. 5 yrs earlier, he was only 15, and 10 yrs earlier, he was only 10. So, even though he's all grown up physically and mentally, there is still something of the child in him, and it takes several more years before he can emotionally mature into an adult. So, Jason Morgan shouldn't be too hard on his younger self. The kid was just trying to find himself, not always in a good way, but we can't expect young people to become adults overnight.
What is truly alarming about our society is that so many people never grow out of their youth phase emotionally, intellectually, and culturally. They are stuck in teen-mentality. Why do so many adults get so excited about superhero movies? Why do so many older women have funny-colored hair? Why are men and women in their 40s and 50s getting hideous tattoos? Why do older women put on 'pussyhats' and make total asses of themselves? This perpetual youth-mentality began with the boomers of the Counterculture, and its impact is truly dire. Instead of older people imparting knowledge and wisdom based on their life experience on younger people, they are so eager to gain approval from the young by trying to appear 'hip' and 'cool' and 'with it'.

Second, Morgan's put-down of Arthur Rimbaud makes little sense. Rimbaud isn't remembered simply or mainly because he was a bad boy who snubbed normality and the bourgeoisie. It was because, whether one likes his lifestyle or not, he was a brilliant and original poet. Cases like Rimbaud demonstrate why we must make a distinction between genuine strangeness and poseur weirdness. Rimbaud was a genuine weirdo, an eccentric. It wasn't just an act. Likewise Vincent van Gogh really had personal demons, some of which served as his muse to create great works of art. Luis Bunuel was not a phony. He had a genuinely strange vision of the world. David Lynch isn't a fake either. His strange visions are real. David Bowie was half-poseur, half-poet. Much of his act was BS glamour-puss nonsense, but he was a singular musical talent who heard and created voices and sounds no one else did. Morgan says he's for 'culture', but so much of culture was made by genuinely strange people who stood apart from social norms. Same goes for religions. The great ones were founded by people who rejected normality & conventionality and ventured off to find a deeper truth, often risking madness or death(to themselves and/or others).
The real lesson is that anti-normality isn't enough for art and creativity. The problem is too many fools fallaciously think that, because such-and-such great artist(ancient or modern) was a strange or 'subversive' individual, putting on a bad attitude or doing something outrageous means one is special in talent and creativity. Most of contemporary art is garbage because it's all premised on the conceit of 'outrage', 'subversion', or 'cynicism'. Indeed, most 'creative' people today are either normal people who strain to be 'different' or genuinely messed-up people without talent or originality. But they comfort themselves with the notion that, just because many great artists in the past were not appreciated in their time, they too must be geniuses or visionaries who have yet to be discovered and prized.
In contrast, artists like Rimbaud, along with Van Gogh and Edgar Allan Poe, really had different ways of seeing, sensing, and feeling things. And it is often from such people that art and culture arise. While strangeness or different-ness per se doesn't guarantee creativity — most weirdos and messed-up people aren't artistic — , it is what lends depth and shade to intelligence and talent. Indeed, compare filmmakers Sydney Pollack and Stanley Kubrick. Pollack was a very intelligent director who mastered the A-B-C's of film-making, yet even his best works don't come anywhere near the masterpieces of Stanley Kubrick. What made the difference? Kubrick had a genuinely strange and 'different' take on world and psyche. Franz Kafka was another person who didn't lead a happy life, but his works are among the towering literary achievements of the 20th century that will haunt, provoke, and inspire humanity as long as literature exists. Many artistic types didn't lead happy lives. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died young in depressing circumstances. Beethoven's final years were dark and gloomy. Many Jazz and Rock greats died too young. Sam Peckinpah crashed and burned. And yet, they left lasting works that have entered the pantheon of arts, culture, and entertainment.

Could they have achieved such had they all been respectable bourgeois types? While bourgeois values are good for most people, notable achievements in arts and culture(and even in science, technology, and business) are made by people with certain dark obsessions and compulsive need to make a difference. The real problem seems not the existence of such individuals but the vulgar popularization of such types as a 'cool' ideal for most people to emulate. I don't mind Rimbaud being Rimbaud, leading a dark existence of unhappiness but in the process producing works that have entered the canon of poetry. The problem is people who are all-too-normal becoming so enamored of the hipsterism of being 'different' or 'edgy'. Look at Art Schools. They are filled with spoiled bratty middle-class kids who go out of their way to be 'subversive' and 'rebellious'. It's all an act. They've bought into the cult of artist-as-glamorous-weirdo. (Some do have mental issues but are generally without any talent.) Truly strange people don't have to try to be strange. And truly talented people don't need the crutch of arbitrarily violating rules as easy call for attention. The fact that ideology plays such a big role in the art world is a sure sign that most artists are privileged bratty middle-class types without genuine strangeness. That's why they rely on ideology to supply them with the cachet of being 'radical', 'revolutionary', or 'avant-garde'.
This is why, despite modernism having burned out and its ideals rendered meaningless over the years, many middle class brats play dress-up with retro-rebellion so as to pretend that the cultural revolution is ongoing. Some people may get the wrong impression from the movie AMADEUS that Mozart was specially talented because he was so exuberant in his vulgarity, irreverence, and uproarious antics. In fact, there is no guarantee as to whom will be favored by the muse. It could be an extrovert, an introvert, a rationalist, a spiritualist, a rich person, a poor person, a kind person, a vicious person, a lout, or a saint. Still, it's generally true that what all great artists have in common is they have a way of experiencing and sensing things in a way that strays off from conventionality and normality. Even if the artist happens to believe and uphold social norms and conventional values of mainstream society, he has an inspired and imaginative way of seeing things that are denied to most people. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE may be an All-American movie about the virtues of small town values, but it is a work of individuals of special talent and vision all-too-rare in the Narrative Industry.


Third, does anything like the real bourgeoisie exist anymore? Morgan speaks of impetuous young ones making asses of themselves for attention and notoriety(a good thing these days apparently), but can we really speak of the (respectable) bourgeoisie vs the anti-bourgeoisie when 80% of Americans support 'gay marriage'? When so many middle class suburban soccer moms have bought into the notion of 50 genders? When ugly rap is the biggest musical genre in the country? When even supposed conservatives embrace 'LGBTQ' celebration? Perhaps, the so-called 'bourgeoisie' roll their eyes at silly 'outrageous' antics not in mockery but in agreement? It could be they're signaling, "Why do you make such a fuss with degeneracy when we are fully on-board with it as the New Normal?" Even at libraries, we see fat, hideous, staff members with green hair and tattoos. There have been so many cases of female high school teachers having sexual relations with students. American conservative politicians receive most donations from the vile gambling industry. So much for 'family values'. Even though hardcore pornography is readily available to young ones via the internet, no one makes a pip about how to deal with the problem.
Morgan speaks of the bourgeoisie as mostly nice people who patiently suffered through the comings and goings of various culturally degenerate pop cultural idols and celebrities, but did it ever occur to him that members of his favorite class actually consumed, enjoyed, and embraced so much of this junk culture? Many in the 'respectable' middle class don't so much suffer fools gladly as support them eagerly. Look how the 'bourgeoisie' took to 'gay pride' and entire downtown districts being shut down for globo-homo celebration. Consider how the so-called 'bourgeoisie' are A-Okay with all the foul TV shows and trashy commercials that spread decadence and degeneracy. If there was a true bourgeoisie, they wouldn't suffer fools so gladly. They wouldn't be so 'nice' and, if anything, would take measures to resist the overflow of cultural sewage. What we have is not the bourgeoisie but what David Brooks called 'bobo' or 'bourgeois-bohemian' culture. Brooks' idea is that the aspirational class wants wealth & privilege, status & approval, and the cachet of being 'different' & 'subversive'. Especially following the social revolutions in the 1960s(though the process was well under way since the Romantic Era of the 19th Century), being chic & trendy counted more for status & approval than the older mode of respectability did. Thus, we live in a world where even the seemingly respectable 'bourgeoisie' want to be thought of as 'edgy', 'cool', and 'hip' than as 'respectable', which is considered 'lame' and 'square'.

And yet, the fall of the bourgeoisie owed to something within bourgeois mentality itself. It was an element of artifice. At its core, the bourgeois mindset was less about truth, courage, and virtue than social approval, status anxiety, and cultural conformism. True, the bourgeoisie could practice real virtues and stand for worthy principles, but the core animating force was not courage and conviction but anxiety and confirmation. It's like a dog can be led to do good things, but the main impetus is not moral reasoning but the eagerness to please the master. To please the master, a dog can be made to do good things or bad things.
Likewise, even though the bourgeoisie could be led to do good things and stand for sound principles, they could just as easily be swayed in the other direction. Either way, the bourgeoisie were motivated mainly by status-anxiety and hunger for confirmation by those deemed as 'social betters' either economically, culturally, intellectually, or etc, though those considerations were almost always interlinked. After all, many of the top 'intellectuals' tend to be those favored by those with money.

For this reason, anarchists, rebels, mavericks, and free-thinkers loved to target the bourgeoisie. It wasn't necessarily out of envy and resentment for bourgeois wealth and privilege. It was the sense that, even when the bourgeoisie were doing the right thing, they were acting not out of real understanding, true conviction, and genuine virtue but out of status-anxious sense that it was the 'right thing to do' according to the prevailing social norms. Ironically, this very quality of the bourgeoisie made them so malleable and useful to the avant-garde and enfants terribles who loved to insult and mock the bourgeoisie for their obsession with respectability. After all, if the bourgeoisie were really philistines with airs of respectability and hadn't a real clue as to the real truth, meaning, or culture, they could easily be fooled into supporting whatever was deemed as the New Reigning Fashion. While anarchists and modernists felt much animus toward hardcore reactionaries and religious fanatics, they felt a grudging respect for them to the extent that such people had true convictions that could not be shaken or shucked by New Fashions. Indeed, this is the difference between someone like Pat Buchanan and David French. Buchanan, agree with him or not, has core convictions that he won't surrender for social or status expediency. In contrast, all these 'cuckservatives' are typically neo-bourgeois in that their main animating force is being approved by the reigning dogma, ideology, or 'idology'(as the West went from ideological to mainly 'idological' worship of the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos). Thus, there is an artifice at the center of bourgeois mentality. Even though we may associate the classic bourgeoisie with virtues such as work ethic, thrift, sobriety, self-control, and good manners, was it really a matter of real conviction and commitment, or were most bourgeois folks just going along with such norms because they were deemed most proper by rules of prevailing respectability? Given the fact that bourgeois norms changed so fast, indeed to the extent that it was the bourgeoisie that was funding and patronizing all those avant-gardists and modernists in the 20th century, one wonders if there was anything substantive, let alone eternalist, at the core of bourgeois thought.
As modernism and radical modes of thought and expression became the new fashions in the Late Modern Era, most bourgeois types seemed to fall in line, pretending to like 'modernist' whatever without real understanding or appreciation of them. This was especially beneficial for vain and cunning homos who could toy with neo-bourgeois status anxiety to manipulate people with money into patronizing or investing in things of dubious value. At their core, the bourgeoisie was about money and stuff, but mere money and stuff don't lead to moral meaning, cultural understanding, or spiritual depth. Also, as people don't live on money alone, they crave respectability or some kind of social confirmation. But how can the bourgeoisie know what is good, right, and true if they are, at the core, mere status-anxious cultural philistines? This is why the modernists and avant-gardists had a grand time proto-trolling the bourgeoisie into investing in and patronizing all sorts of arts, expressions,and ideas that were so anti-bourgeoisie. It was like fooling the Emperor into believing he's wearing clothes when he's naked.

Over time, modernism's assault on the bourgeoisie was so overwhelming — albeit with the full participation of the bourgeoisie and their children who were led to believe that people like Andy Warhol meant something — that the notion of middle class respectability and bourgeois ethos was flushed down the toilet. Then, is there no more bourgeoisie since the bourgeoisie themselves came to adopt anti-normative ideas and expressions as the New Normal? Yes and no. Bourgeois culture in the traditional and classic sense are gone for good. And yet, the bourgeois mentality is very much alive because today's so-called bobo's(coined by David Brooks) are animated by the artifice of status anxiety. (Maybe they should be called 'boogiwazi'.)There is no other way to explain the Globo-Homo-mania spreading like wildfire among the elites and wanna-be elite class. How could something that absurd and vile be adopted, even with gushing enthusiasm, as the greatest thing since sliced bread or baked buns? It's because most affluent people are moral voids, cultural idiots, and spiritual zombies. They have deforested minds and uprooted souls, and what animates them the most is status anxiety and eagerness for social confirmation. As such, they are easy dupes of those charlatans, grifters, and con-men who promise them the quasi-neo-respectability of being 'hip', 'cool', or 'woke' with the latest batch of fashionable posturing, such as passion for tranny nonsense.

And the 'conservatives' aren't much better. True conservatism is supposed to be about deep understanding of nature(and human nature), eternal truths of spirituality, and commitment to morality. But American Conservatives have been easily sold on the Mammon of Libertarianism, the mindless supremaicsm of Yinonist Zionist Supremacism, blind worship of the Warfare State, and even 'gay marriage is a conservative value'. In that sense, the most artificial and vapid aspect of bourgeois mentality is very much alive. Today's progs and so-called 'radicals' would like to think of themselvse as 'free thinkers' and 'rebels', but the fact is 99% of those dolts adopted all their ideas and values from corporate media and indoctrination-industrial-complex to satiate their status anxiety and need for social confirmation. Just think. Why would anyone who really cares for justice and truth vote for Hillary Clinton, the Deep State tool, warmonger, and corrupt bitch?
But then, look at the state of the GOP. Totally foul. Your average conzo, like your average libby-dib, will ultimately make up his or her mind on the basis of status anxiety and social confirmation. Look how easily the children of the Bushes and McCains all jumped on the 'gay marriage' bandwagon. Look how S.E. Cupp, the so-called 'conservative', wept with joy over Supreme Court forcing 'gay marriage' on the whole nation. Why such rapid change of heart? Because they have no real heart, no real soul. There is void at their core except for the status anxiety for the neo-respectability of hipsterism, hedonism, and 'wokeness'. As Jews and Homos control the media and decide what is hot and what is not, most people(as brain-dead minions of Pop Culture and Political Correctness) just learn to go along and get along.