Social Credit system sucks anywhere, but it is of course worse in the US than in China. Not because it's more stringent in the US but because of its coding and character. China is ruled by a national(ist) government; therefore, the social controls are meant to boost national security and patriotism. In contrast, the US is ruled by Jewish globalist supremacists; therefore, social controls are meant to shame the white majority into cucking to Jewish Supremacist Power. Even though the Communist Party has a bloody history in China(especially under Mao), the silver lining was a political system was put into place that was entirely independent of foreign interference. For all its epic failures, the founding principles of CCP were idealism and nationalism.
Tyranny isn't good, but tyranny in service of patriotism is still better than tyranny in service of treason. As the US is ruled by Jewish globalists, it is now increasingly resorting to tyrannical social controls to make whites commit mass treason against their own race. (White elites go along with Jewish Power out of craven opportunism and/or 'spiritual' possession, the result of PC education. Not only do they expect big carrots by obeying their Jewish masters but have been conditioned from cradle to believe the greatest evil is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. Therefore, if White Guilt, White Demise, and White Nakba are necessary to defeat 'racism', so be it. Besides, what does it matter when they, as white elites, get the carrots than the sticks in the game of Defame-Whitey? For most whites, 'spiritual' possession by Jews leads to dispossession of white power, land, and wealth. Jewish Message to whites is "Whites must keep paying and paying to right whatever wrongs invoked by Jews, blacks, and their allies." White soul-debt for 'white guilt' means permanent payouts to Jews, blacks, and etc. Thus, all of the white race has been 'Germanized' as, of course, Germany must pay the Jews forever and ever and ever for what are now called 'epigenetic' reasons.)
This is why democracy devoid of nationalism is bound to fail. A national democracy, such as the one in Israel, is relatively strong and stable. In Israel, both the 'right' and 'left' are patriotic and committed to Jewish Power. Such might be called a 'fascist democracy'. Even though people have the freedom to vote, their minds are united in ethno-patriotism. The true worth of democracy is measured by how well it serves a nation and people. Democracy is supposed to serve the people than the other way around. If democracy serves to defend a nation and its people, it has worth. If it subverts a nation and people, it has failed(no matter how democratic it may be in terms of liberal principles); if Israeli democracy were to abandon its nationalist content in favor of pure liberal principles and bring about the demise of Israel as a Jewish state, it would be a failed democracy as it failed to protect a nation and people. When nation serves democracy than the other way around, the assumption is the nation must favor abstract principles over tangible realities EVEN IF they cause grave harm to the nation. (Such mindset governs mainstream conservatism of the National Review crowd. They don't care if White America is lost as long as the future is about 'muh liberty'. Never mind that a non-white majority America means goodbye to the US Constitution as most non-whites don't care for Free Speech and Gun Rights. And, how amusing that these die-hard adherents to Universal Principles are so supportive of Jewish Nationalism and even Jewish Supremacism in Israel and around the world.) Jews understand this, which is why Israel puts Jewish-Nation-hood above abstract principles of democracy. Democracy there is coded to serve and defend Israel as a Jewish State. And why are Jews chipping away at the US Constitution? Because the First Amendment allows open criticism of any power. Therefore, Jews seek to change the Constitution with 'hate speech' laws whereby they get to label and ban any speech they don't like as 'hate'. Of course, they mean to target speech critical of Jewish Supremacist Power and Israel. Jews support principles only to the extent of self-interest.
In contrast, a liberal democracy de-emphasizes and even disparages any notion of national unity based on blood-and-soil, race, ethnicity, culture, and/or history. Thus, it's primarily about the personal liberties of individuals. But individuals as dispersed members of society don't amount to much. It's like there can be no sun if particles of matter don't come together to form a mass. Liberal democracy, in weakening ethno-nationalism, makes it less likely for the ethno-majority to unite as a real force. They are too busy being individuals. Such dispersal of power without a concentrated core is easy to penetrate and manipulate. It's like an army is useless if soldiers are spread out as individuals and not working as combined force.
This is why Jews and globalists promote 'liberal democracy' all over the world. It is to deny other nations a concentrated core of mass consciousness that allows for the preservation of national sovereignty and political unity. When a nation adopts the formula of 'liberal democracy', it means the leaders no longer invoke blood-and-soil themes to inspire and unite the people. They just talk about 'muh liberty' and 'muh money'. It becomes a game of everyone for himself(or herself). Then, the globalists can easily buy off the elites who operate merely as deracinated and rootless individuals. Easier to buy off opportunistic individuals than genuine leaders of nations. And under liberal democracy, everything becomes privatized and globalized, and that means Jewish/American/global money can buy up all the media and spread Afromania, Globo-Homo, and DIOS(or diversity-is-our-strength, with 'our' being mostly Jewish).
The ideal bulwark against globalist hegemony and Jewish supremacism is a National Democracy or Fascist Democracy. The problem for many nations is it takes time for democracy to develop and come into fruition. Furthermore, if Europe provides any lesson, even nations with deep history of democracy can be taken over by Jewish Globalists, as attested by UK and France.
For many newly minted democracies, the institutions are weak, and that means lots of corruption, as in Russia of the 1990s. Under such circumstances, it is easy for Jewish supremacists and globalists to take over the system. It happened in Ukraine recently. Ukraine is now praised as a 'liberal democracy', and it has globo-homo parades(as tell-tale sign of Jewish domination). But there is no national unity, no national security. Everything is up for sale to the Jews.
In that sense, the autocratic systems in China and Russia(and Iran) are preferable. Not because they are ideal but because they serve as more effective barriers and bulwarks against the hegemonic ambitions of the Lone Superpower, the US that is under Jewish Supremacist Control that seeks to undermine every nationalism EXCEPT that of Israel.
All patriotic White Americans must wake up to the fact that a country run by plutocrats will lead to certain demise for the historical-racial majority. In the past, the US was a de facto national and racial democracy, and that meant white elites cared for the white masses; there was a concentrated core of white unity and Christian power. But as the US turned into a liberal democracy, white power became dispersed and spread out into tiny individual units. Jews pushed for this, all the while tightly concentrating their own power, influence, and authority. Concentrated power will always beat dispersed power. Why do lions feed on wildebeests? If wildebeests all united and fought as one, they could wipe out the lions. But when lions appear, wildebeests disperse and run off in multiple directions. So, a handful of lions ALWAYS kill and devour the wildebeests that number in the hundreds. No wonder then that Jewish Power has been devouring whites. Jews combine into one whereas whites disperse into many directions. Five fingers that combine into a fist will defeat a thousand fingers that function individually.
Rich Jews are concentrated into Jewish Power. Rich whites are dispersed when it comes to white power. If white oligarchs do come together, it is to serve the Jews but NEVER to do anything good for the white race.
This is why Putin and Xi are relatively good guys in the current world. Their political controls limit the power of capitalists, most of whom are soulless materialists and craven status-anxious opportunists. Capitalists remain patriotic only if the Order demands nationalism. Jewish capitalists are tribal-nationalist about Jewishness because the Jewish Community demands it. Also, as Jews control the media and elite institutions, they coded things so that it is perfectly okay, even noble, for them to be proud of Jewishness and serve Jewish interests. In contrast, the coding says that even a sentiment such as "It's Okay to be White" is totally unacceptable and worthy of investigation by the FBI.
So, all those American patriots and 'rightists' who denounce Vladimir Putin as autocrat or Xi Jinping as dictator should really re-examine their own situation. They would be better off if they had an American Putin or a White Xi. If there is no national democracy to protect your people, it's better to have a strongman or even a 'tyrant' than what goes by 'liberal democracy' that almost inevitably leads to lack of unity and then demise of race and nation.
Indeed, if Trump were a true patriot and had the power of Xi or Putin, the US would be in a much better situation. Instead, US is ruled by Jewish-globalist oligarchs who use the likes of Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos as their tools. The coding says Jews are holy for being Jewish whereas whites are unholy for being white. Thus, even the richest white person can be justified only by serving the holy, such as Jews, blacks, and homos, the three groups that have permanent membership in the Sacred Council — other groups must take turns in the council, usually on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"
This would be less of a problem if most democracies were nationally organized and ordered. But as things stand in a world of the Lone Superpower, to have a democracy means your nation/domain is more exposed to foreign interference by globalists, people like George Soros and Paul Singer. While some rich foreigners just want to do business with your nation/domain, others(especially the supremacist Jews) seek not only financial access but 'spiritual' control with stuff like globo-homo, which is meant to serve as proxy-worship-and-obedience to Jewish Power. If Russians and Chinese merely want to do business with your nation, Jewish Power wants to spread its globo-homo and Holocaustianity tentacles into your domain so as to morally and 'spiritually' manipulate you. And if your people say NO, as Russia did with Globo-Homo, Jewish Power throws fits and pulls all sorts of dirty tricks. When Jews extol 'liberal democracy', they are really telling your nation to undress and put out. Spread the legs for the Jewish Supremacist Portnoic lust and bend over to take it up the arse from globo-homo. Globalism is really the Jewish pornographics of power. Jewish Power as the pimp and goy nations as the prostitutes.
Naturally, a sound nation will push back against such foreign infiltration and meddling. It needs concentration of power in a nationalist context that may have to clamp down on certain liberties that invite infection and takeover by globalist power. It's like Soros operations are banned in some parts of the world. But then, globalist Jews denounce such a nation as 'anti-democratic'. Of course, Jewish Power never mentions that it's their infiltration and corruption of other nations' political processes that necessitates more autocratic measures. Imagine a drug pusher and a parent & child. As the pusher tries to sell drugs to the child, the parent needs to be tougher and restrict his child's freedom to do as he pleases(like indulging in drugs). But then, the pusher accuses the parent of tyrannical control over the child and calls on the child to rebel and seek 'liberation'. The pusher never mentions the fact that the parent must be tough to protect his child from none other than the pusher. If some goy nation sought to infiltrate Israel and turn Jewish kids into druggies and whores, of course, the fascist-democracy of Israel would take tough measures to stop such. But when Jews seek to corrupt other nations, they better spread their legs wide open to the Zionic thrust. Such total hypocrisy.
For a national-democracy or fascist-democracy to succeed, its core constitution must prioritize racial-cultural-territorial integrity above all else. Freedoms are fine AS LONG AS they don't violate or undermine the right of the nation to survive and maintain its integrity. Furthermore, it must severely limit foreign ownership, and its elites must be educated within the domain. If the elites are trained in places like Harvard, they are likely to be shills of the Glob. And it must emphasize themes over leaders. The problem with Italian Fascism and National Socialism was they were essentially premised on Cult of Personality and whims of the Great Leader. The danger of dictatorship. The rule must be Dictatorship of Themes, not of Personalities. This way, no matter who is in power, he must rule in accordance to the National Theme, a particular than a universal principle. The future of Russia and China will be determined by the National Themes inherent in their Constitution. Without the dictatorship of such themes, the whole system may change with new leadership.
PATRIOTIC WEEKLY REVIEW - JARED TAYLOR - Mark Collett
It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.
So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.
But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.
Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.
That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.
Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.
Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.
And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.
Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.