The Unreality of Leftism — Leftist Underpinning of Western Progress — Goyim as NPC's in the Jewish Dream — Jewish Way vs the Greek Way — Surreal 'Logic' of the Current Dream

EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg

https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-interpretation-of-left-dreams/

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’
...if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.

There's some truth to this but not quite. There's always been a Rousseau-ean aspect to the Left. As an Mexican elder says in THE WILD BUNCH, "We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us..." But the Left also developed as a movement of reality check. The modern left originated with the intention of waking history out of its slumber. The masses were trapped in the dream of the Divine Right of Kings, God & Heaven, and virtue of meekness. But in fact, kings and noblemen were merely human like everyone else. They weren't special or innately superior despite all the pomp and posturing. And was there proof of God & Heaven? Should the clergy have power and influence when their institution is based on a myth? And why should the people be meek and humble when the vain elites live in opulence and feel contempt for the unwashed(contrary to Christ's teachings)?
Much about the French Revolution was meant as a reality check on the state of things. It told the people that the regal monarch is just a man, like you or me. So, why should he be blindly revered and obeyed? And why should his heirs take power and hog privilege? By what right should they rule over the people? The Left also spilled the beans on religion and clergy. The rise of reason and science called for demonstrable proof, and there was no evidence to Biblical claims. Furthermore, even though the clergy preached the Christian message of meekness, many were corrupt status-seekers catering mostly to the rich and powerful. In ANY institution, it is usually the opportunistic, cunning, and shrewd than the honest, principled, and scrupulous who make it to the top.

So, the Left was trying to wake people up from the slumber of history dominated by kings, aristocracy, and the church. What did Napoleon mean when he said, "China is a sleeping giant. Let it sleep"? He meant it's better for China to remain 'rightist' and static than go 'leftist' and dynamic. It was conservative China that was asleep in its own Middle Kingdom conceits. So sure of itself and its civilizational values, it refused to wake up to the reality that the West had surpassed it in every measure of power and wealth. Before Western Imperialists ventured into China, there were obvious clues that China must fundamentally reorder society to remain a great power and deter foreign threats. But it kept on sleeping in its smug 'rightist' conservative dream of superiority and security. It was the introduction of Western Leftism that forced many young Chinese to wake up and smell the coffee(than the usual tea). It was this materialist perspective that urged them to break out of Confucian conceits(of the useless literati) & Taoist musings and accept the material dimensions of reality: Facts over Feng Shui. It's no wonder communism was appealing to so many young Chinese in the early 20th century. It spoke of history as hammers and nails than brush and ink.

Karl Marx argued the people should wake up to the truth of history. He called religion the opiate of the masses. He argued that the main engine of history is not Great Men, Spiritual Ideas, or Philosophy but the struggle for the control of material reality. Throughout history, the elites found clever ways to exploit the masses and hog most of the wealth EVEN THOUGH it was the masses who did the heavy-lifting. He regarded capitalism as both a liberating revolutionary force and an exploitative form of new oppression. Capitalism was liberating in that it was totally materialist, something it shared with socialism. It accepted matter as the true basis of power. Titles such as king or duke meant nothing to capitalism. Neither did God or spirituality. Capitalism was about property, investment, factories, and technology. It was about the buying and selling of materials and labor that turned raw material into manufactured goods. To facilitate investment and transfers of wealth, capitalism relied on ever more elaborate schemes of finance. Because capitalism focused on the material world and real results, it revolutionized technology and profoundly transformed the landscape, along with human relations based on production and distribution. However, because it was focused mainly on profit and finance(that managed and manipulated the profit), capitalism had two problems, one moral and the other economic. Capitalists didn't care how much the masses suffered as long as their own profits increased. Even though finance is supposed to serve the material economy, it could take on a life of its own and create a form of economics that defies material sense — today, Wall Street and globalist banks cook up ever more surreal ways to increase wealth. Jews as 'made men' with insider information grow ever richer and buy up everything.

So, in that sense, Marxism was to wake people up from the dream of kings & queens, myth & religion, and the 'virtues' promoted by the powerful to hoodwink the masses. It also warned that 'liberalism' and 'individualism' were smoke-and-mirrors used by the propertied class to justify their exploitation and wealth. Their real power owed to control of materials via capital, not abstract ideals about 'freedom'. Also, it was the freedom of power that mattered. Most people without power had useless freedom.
For the exploited masses, 'freedom' was meaningless because they lacked the material means to ensure their own interests. So, true freedom for the masses could only come by gaining control of the material means of production. Why did so many Russians join the Revolution? The horrors of World War I and its social impact woke them up to the realization that Tsar Nicholas wasn't some wise grand patriarch, the father of his people, but a half-wit, fool, and weakling. Nicholas, the biggest rightist force in Europe, had been asleep about reality and history. He thought the people would remain loyal to him no matter what because he regarded himself as the loving father of his people; he loved them and they loved him, or so he thought. What a rude awakening for him.

So, there was a side to leftism that was about waking up to reality and seeing the light. The Left grew out of the Enlightenment. Let there be light and let us look upon reality with a clear eye. Let us be critical of power than just obeying it. Let us ask questions than accept the old answers as sacrosanct.
But the Left had its own problems arising from arrogance, ignorance, ur-spirituality, and limitations of man. Some on the Left were so sure of their truth(supposedly based on science and reason) that they became intolerant of and even murderous to those who disagreed. Despite the conceit of true knowledge and reason, mankind can only know so much. An expert in one field knows nothing of other fields. And even experts often turn out to be wrong(or they cravenly cater to the Power). What was 'certain' in medicine a hundred yrs ago, or even fifty years ago, may be null and void today. And there is the 'spiritual' nature of man. Even those who claim to be totally rational and materialist(or secular) have a secret need to divide the world into the holy and the unholy. Consider the Holocaust, Globo-Homo, and the Magic Negro. Holocaust should be treated as a historical subject, but it's become a religion where one must not question the numerology of the sacred six million. 'Gay rights' became Gay Rites, a cult of sodomy as the wonder of the ages. Homos used to push their cause on secular grounds of individual rights. Now, they insist that religious institutions fly the 'gay' banner. And if anyone says homo fecal-penetration is gross, he or she must be purged, shamed, and blacklisted. It's the 'inqueersition'. Indeed, anyone critical of the homo lifestyle has no chance of making it in higher echelons of government or industry. Globo-Homo is the official faith of the Deep State and Big Capital. You better get on your knees, take it up the arse, and BELIEVE... or else be cast into the purgatory of demotion or unemployment. And consider the BLM nonsense. Most blacks are murdered by other blacks, and if anything, cops save a lot of black lives. But as blacks are now holy objects, ANY instance of a black thug killed by cops is an act of blasphemy or 'blaxphemy'. Michael Brown was a thug who got killed in Ferguson. He never said, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", but that has become part of the Sacred Narrative among blacks and white progs. Why all such nonsense among people who claim to be rational, secular, and modern? Because human nature is 'spiritual', and that means even those who reject God and Church will find new icons, idols, and causes to worship. Notice how all these white progs kneel at the feet of MLK, Mandela, and Obama(and Oprah too). These people claim to be moral or righteous, but theirs is a form of fanta-morality, or morality based on fantasy. True morality must be based on reality. In the Current Year, there is so much moral outrage based on so little truth.

Of course, the choice of Jews, blacks, and homos as the holy trinity is largely the result of Jewish Supremacist control of media, academia, finance, and most whore politicians. Jews naturally promote themselves. Jews value homos as useful allies in turning Leftism from Mayday to Gayday. In the past, many Jews were of working class background or starving intellectuals. They were sincerely on the Left. Today, 50% of Jews make over $100,000 a year. Jews are the richest people on Earth. Jews want to keep the brand of 'leftism' and 'radicalism' but in service of wealth and privilege. So, why would Jews favor traditional leftism when something like communism would be devastating to Jews?
Indeed, even in the Soviet Union where many Jews had an auspicious start, they eventually lost out to non-Jews. Jews are arch-capitalists who cling to the 'leftist' brand because it acts as a shield — they grow ever richer through capitalism but are accused of being 'socialists' or 'communist' by the Idiot Right. When billionaires are lumped with 'communists', it works as moral cover for their wealth and privilege in the eyes of disgruntled 'progressives'. Look how Bernie Sanders runs as a 'socialist' and then urges all his herd to vote for Hillary or Biden(who serve super-rich Jews). Maybe Sanders was once a true socialist, but now, he's a Jewish Supremacist first and socialist second. There are commie-types among Antifa, but they are useful to Jewish Capitalists because Commie Thought says, "Greatest Evil is Nazism and Racism." So, as long as the Jewish Capitalist Media tells the 'commies' that there are 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazis' afoot, the dummy 'commies' are too busy attacking whites to ever get around to attacking capitalism and the oligarchy. (Traditional communism argued that capitalism, not fascism, is the biggest enemy because Fascism and National Socialism are merely fake-revolutionary movements used by capitalists to capture populist sentiments. In other words, fascism is merely iron boots capitalism. But most of today's commies are the product of pop culture. Their ideology is based more on TV shows, rap, and punk/grunge music than true understanding of the history of the Left. If German capitalists protected and funded the fascists to beat the communists, Jewish capitalists today use the 'commies' to beat down the 'nazis'.) Of course, US politics is pro-elitist on both sides of the aisle. The priority of both Democrats and Republicans is to prop up the elites in the 'center'. Democrats appeal to non-whites & white proggies for votes, and GOP appeals to whites & conservatives for votes. But once elected, politicians of both parties serve the oligarchs and grow fat themselves. Democrats are about suckering the 'leftist' masses to serve the rich and become rich, and Republicans are about suckering the 'rightist' masses to serve the rich and become rich. Donald Trump was hardly different but was loathed by both parties because his style and rhetoric accused the 'swamp' of hoodwinking and manipulating the masses.

If Leftist Ideology is based on 'what ought to be' than 'what is', could one argue that capitalism is leftist? Or that the West has been leftist even prior to the French Revolution, perhaps going back to the Renaissance? After all, capitalism has been about 'what ought to be'. It's been tireless in coming up with new and better ways of production, transportation, communication, and etc. Take the invention of flying machines. Most of humanity had given up on such dreams as impossible. Birds can fly, man cannot. But Western Man was not content with the reality that man is a terrestrial creature. He had to keep striving for 'what ought to be', and it was realized. So much that seemed impossible, ludicrous, or fantastical 100 yrs ago, let alone 200 yrs ago, have been realized. Back in the 1980s, only rich people had portable phones, which were cumbersome. Now, people have slick cell phones even in the slums of the Third World. When I was young, I didn't expect something like the internet to arrive suddenly and revolutionize the world.
The West advanced so much faster than the Rest because it got into the habit of pushing for 'what ought to be' than 'what is'. People during World War I were amazed by new technologies, but they were obsolete in a mere two and half decades in World War II. And who would have thought something like nuclear power was even possible? And yet it came to fruition because the West pushed for 'what ought to be'. Steve Jobs came to greatness in the second chapter of Apple by imagining 'what ought to be'. A declining company became the biggest in the world. Granted, 'what ought to be' is more sensible in science/technology than in social 'progress' as objective than subjective standards apply, but ever-competitive capitalism is always fixated on 'what ought to be' than merely 'what is'. So many companies operate on the basis that 'what is' now will be obsolete in the future when there will be products that come closer to how it 'ought to be'.

Leonardo Da Vinci made illustrations of flying machines. He failed to create one, but his mind was certainly in the mode of 'what ought to be', and this attitude did much to stimulate the West beyond the barriers of the 'possible'. And in time, so much that seemed impossible became possible. Leftism seems to share this spirit but in the field of social science. And in many areas, there have been key reforms and successes because of leftist pressure and visions of a better society. But then, this drive for more, the better, or the further emerged in the West prior to the rise of the Radical Left. Columbus had this spirit when he went on his voyage. Otto von Bismarck was a rightist-conservative but committed to creating a modern prosperous Germany with social services. And 'right-wing' autocrats of Asian nations after WWII were all invested in creating new orders; they embarked on tasks that seemed forbidding and impossible at the time.

Granted, even as both the 'right' and 'left' in the modern world keep pushing for new possibilities and improvements, it's generally true that the Right has a better sense of limits than the Left does. So, while rightists will adopt certain socialist policies, they don't believe in panaceas. They are less puritanical even though puritanism is usually associated with the Right, not least because modernity rebelled against the moral teachings of the Church, not least on sexual matters. But when it comes to holier-than-thou fulmination, the left is far more puritanical. The Right is judgmental and repressive but not concerned with uprooting all evils. It accepts the sinfulness and imperfection of the world. It's like Franco's Spain tolerated the Left as long as it didn't make trouble. In contrast, the Leftist order seeks to weed out all crime-think and seed the mind with correct ones. It's why George Orwell became so alarmed about the Left. And Jonathan Haidt finds the leftist mind to be more arrogant and intolerant in its outlook. It's not enough for the Left to control society; it must take possession of souls. Protestantism began as a proto-leftist puritanical challenge to the Catholic Church that seemed overly compromised with the reality of power and wealth. The current 'left' is deeply problematic in that it's radically perfectionist in its imperfectionism. It especially denounces Nazism as an evil obsessed with 'Aryan supremacist perfectionism' and urges all people to be more 'inclusive', or tolerant of differences. But then, it also insists that sodomy is some holy act and that trannies must be celebrated and lionized. And the 'body positive' movement doesn't merely say we should tolerate fat or ugly people but hail them as 'beautiful'. It is the narcissism of the ugly. The Imperfect is the 'New Perfect'. Also, it fetishizes blackness as a supremacist heroism that all races must idolize. Forget about the 'Aryan superman' but believe in the Afro-Aryan-superman who is so awesome that white men should cuck at his feet and offer up their daughters to. Arno Breker is out but Afro-Breker is in. Indeed, Leni Riefenstahl went from fetishizing Aryan supremacism to Afro-supremacism, which was noted by Susan Sontag.

The left vs right dichotomy is especially confused in the West because of Christianity. As the official faith of the West, it became a symbol of establishment and conservative values. But Jesus was a rebel-heretic-maverick Jew who pissed off Jewish Conservatives. And His message is eternally radical(though not a radical call to arms). All of Jewish History was about the children of men and women who, in turn, became fathers of sons and daughters. So, despite all the spiritual content, it was grounded in the reality of biology and history. In contrast, the Christo-myth says Jesus is the miraculous Son of God. Though born of Mary, she was only a vessel. And, He didn't have sex or get married and have kids. He lived the life of the Perfect Man and died and defeated death. This fantastical story and message are more suited to leftist than rightist thinking. Also, whereas Rightism tends to be particularist — our tribe, our culture, our people — and hierarchical, the universal and egalitarian thrust of Christianity is closer in spirit to Leftism, which is universalist.
But Christianity became the religion of the rich and powerful in the West. And the Enlightenment associated Christianity with kings, noblemen, corrupt clergy, superstition, reaction, and etc. But the meaning of Christianity never favored the rich and powerful. (One might say the development of the Roman Church was a betrayal of Christianity as it welded the pacifism of Christ with the militarism of the Romans. Furthermore, inspiration became an institution. Granted, all things need institutions to survive and propagate, but Catholicism turned worship of faith into worship of an institution. But, Christianity exists with or without the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. All one needs is the New Testament.) And there were many Christian progressives who believed the Faith must be on the side of the powerless than the powerful. Many Italians were both Marxist and Catholic. Still, one might say Christianity is conservative or rightist in its moral judgmentalism. It calls for social order in admonishing people to be sober, solemn, and pious. Leftism, in contrast, has a libertine streak. Many anarchists and early Marxists spoke of Free Love and other sexual experimentation. Some tried to fuse Marxism with Freudianism. And to that extent, Leftism was neo-paganist at odds with the moralism of Christianity. Ancient Greeks were certainly more libertine than the ancient Jews and Early Christians. But then, to the extent that the pagans were more cold-eyed about power and reality, they could be said to have been more 'rightist'. The Romans saw the world in realist terms of winners and losers. If your side won, they were winners; if they lost, they were losers. In contrast, Christianity said the material winners of this life could be spiritual losers in the afterlife. Paganism's no-nonsense view of power could be construed as 'rightist' in contrast to Christianity's abstract view of power as it 'ought to be': The meek and powerless in this world could be(as they ought to be) the powerful in the next life(while the rich and mighty in this world are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity). Perversely, current 'leftists' have the puritanical mindset of hard-line Christianity and the puerile sensibility of paganism at its most degenerate. It's as if the characters in FELLINI SATYRICON got 'moralistic' in celebration of debauchery: "I'm holier than thou because I take my kids to Drag Queen story hour." It's as if we are living in a dream because strange things happen in dreams, and the Current Year is very strange indeed.

According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds.

But it's also because most people lack the power to dream, therefore they want to be part of the bigger dream. Perhaps, MLK's (I Have A)Dream. Dream in the literal sense is what we all do when we sleep. Dream-as-metaphor is what we inhabit in the real world. There is no such thing as absolute living-in-reality as our understanding of reality is subjectively shaped by our senses. When we walk down the street, we are often just barely aware of the surrounding so as not to trip over or get hit by a car. Otherwise, we hardly acknowledge or think about the reality before and around us. We don't think, "I'm walking on concrete sidewalk, this is a parking lot with those cars, that is a tree, that is a person with a grocery bag, that is a cat, etc." Instead, our minds process what holds most meaning for us. It could be about personal relationships, but it's often about things that interest, stimulate, and provoke us. And these are often narratives, stories, images, idols, and issues, not least because people with smart phones are always 'hooked' to their favorite 'channels'. These function as something far more than mere knowledge. When someone watches the umpteenth show about hapless innocent noble blacks terrorized by the KKK, one doesn't coolly think, "There was a time when certain white groups used violence against blacks in the South." Rather, those images linger in the mind as dreamlike ghosts. They haunt and lurk the soul. Thus, they function as dreams than mere knowledge. In this sense, we are all living in a dream, and mankind always has.

Among primitive folks, a shaman or storyteller who tells the tale or narrative infects the listeners with heroes, villains, images, and visions that take on a life of their own in the hearts and souls of the listeners. Thus, the listeners come to partly live in the dream of the storyteller. Why do Jews now want to clamp down on Free Speech? They want to control the Dream Machine. They want all of us to be characters in their Dream Play, just like every instrumentalist in an orchestra plays a socially subordinate role to the conductor who, in turn, is 'spiritually' subordinate to the composer. So, even though we all exist as individuals in the physical sense, our minds are often NPC-like in the Dream of another. Under Stalinism, so many Soviet citizens were NPC-like minions of Stalin's Dream of Power and Justice. Under Maoism, so many Chinese youths were NPC-like minions of Mao's grand dream. All those Germans under National Socialism fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler, a great orator who could pull people into his dream of Germany.

It may well be that conservative types are less dreamy than those on the left. This element could keep them closer to reality, but it could also mean that conservatives become more dependent on the dreams of others who have the power to dream. Why can't conservatives create their own Hollywood, their own dream-machine? Even as they complain about the Liberal/Leftist control of Hollywood and other dream-centers, they rely on the Other for visions and narratives. The fact that so many German conservatives and rightists threw caution to the winds and surrendered to Hitler's dream suggests that one's inability to dream doesn't necessarily lead to more reality or clarity but to reliance on the dream of others.
This may explain why American Conservatism sucks so bad. Without the power of dreams, it has adopted the dreams of the other side: 'Diversity Is Our Strength', 'MLK was awesome', 'Gay Marriage is a conservative value', 'Muh Israel', 'Women in the Military', and etc.

The problem with reality is it's difficult and inconvenient. The mind finds dreams more appealing than reality. This is why truth upsets so many people, especially if the Dream has elevated certain ideas or groups to holy status. So, honest talk about Jewish Power or black crime or homo degeneracy upsets people who've come under the spell of the Schlomo-Afro-Homo dream of Tri-Supremacist Holiness.
Granted, what is currently 'acceptable' depends on the nature of the Dominant Dream. At one time, even most Liberals believed that homosexuality was a mental sickness, even a disease. In either case, pro-homo or anti-homo, it wasn't merely cold knowledge about homos but a mythic vision of them as either darkly corrupting pathological villains(as they were portrayed in so many movies even up to the 1980s) or pure-as-snow angels of 'rainbow' wonderment.

We are living in the Jewish Dream. Even those who are cast as villains and deplorables in this Dream are part of the dream because they explain themselves in accordance to the dream logic. For instance, most 'conservatives' will say "I'm not racist" or "I'm not homophobic". They are morally defensive than morally autonomous. They accept the rule-book of the Dream that says 'racism is evil' and 'homophobia is wicked'. They don't ask why it's called 'racism' when Ism simply means belief. If Ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. Of course, race is real because evolution is real, and different groups evolved separately. But even if we accept 'racism' to mean 'racial supremacism', isn't it obvious that Jews are supremacist because they demand the West favor Jews uber alles and Israel over Palestinians(and Muslims & Arabs in general)? For the sake of moral consistency, it is wrong for Jews to say that privileging whiteness is evil BUT favoring Jews is wonderful. However, such illogic can be 'logical' in a dream, a Jewish Dream, one in which Jews blame whites of 'racism' but practice 'racism' to the hilt for their own power and privilege. And yet, white conservatives who are demeaned as 'racists' by Jews go out of their way to prove they are NOT 'racist' by sucking up to Jews and praising Israel that is so blatantly 'racist' to Palestinians. It's like Jews say Donald Trump is Hitler but Trump goes out of his way to prove he's not 'racist' by totally supporting Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians and imperialism against Iran/Syria. So, even white conservatism operates within the hegemony of the Jewish Dream. It has no moral autonomy. It is essentially an NPC that plays according to Jewish Dream Logic that is illogical by any rules of moral consistency. How is it that Jews can denounce whites as Nazi but then ally with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine? How is it that Jews can condemn supremacism but demand governments to shut down BDS, a movement that calls for equal justice for Palestinians?
Or take 'homophobia'. Any conservative who says "I'm not a homophobe" is an NPC in a Jewish Dream because, by his denial, he accepts the reality of 'homophobia'. But Jews made up that bogus concept to imply that anyone who counters the globo-homo agenda or makes fun of homos is suffering from a psycho-pathology. In fact, 'homophobia' doesn't exist. While some people hate homosexuality or have strong antipathy to homo behavior, it is not a phobia which specifically means extreme fear and panicked response to something harmless. 'Homophobia' exists as an article of faith in the Jewish Dream.
In truth/reality, homos do indeed exist as some people are born homo, and this reality must be accepted, and social policy should be based on this fact. But it's also true that homo-fecal-penetration has no biological or moral worth, and it makes no sense to celebrate sodomy with 'rainbow' colors. And now, we are told there's 'transphobia' because many people still insist Bruce Jenner is a man and not a 'woman' or because they object to penis-and-balls-cutting as medical practice. What kind of sane medicine mutilates and removes perfectly healthy organs because some nut demands it? Also, if truth is a matter of subjectivity — "I'm a woman because I feel that I'm a woman even though I got penis and balls" — , what happens when such 'logic' is applied to race and other attributes? Is a dumb person a 'genius' because he says so? But maybe we are there already because so many mental midgets are now promoted as public intellectuals, especially if they're black or tranny. All such craziness are allowed because we live in The Dream that is Jewish. As Jews control the media, academia, deep state, and the megaphone, they get to weave The Dream. What they show on TV, teach in classes, print in papers, and allow on platforms come to determine the narrative, the myth, idols & icons, and the Current Year map of Good vs Evil. No wonder then that, even though Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom & Gomorrah and dump on white Christians all the time, most Evangelicals are always shouting "Muh Israel".

The world is like The Dream because most people lack the power to dream. So, they rely on the dream of others. Much of the film MULHOLLAND DR. takes place in the dream of a woman, but her dream unfolds according to the dream logic of Hollywood fantasy. So, even her own dream is part of a bigger dream, the myth of stardom and cult of celebrity. In TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN, David Lynch's character meets Monica Belluci in a dream who says, "We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives inside the dream. But who's the dreamer?"

Who is the dreamer of The Dream we are all part of? In that dream, we are mere phantoms because our 'thoughts' and 'actions' all follow the 'logic' and sub-will of the dreamer. We are free only like NPC are 'free'. Jewish Power is the Dreamer. All of us dream little dreams when we sleep but our waking life is part of The Dream of Jewish Power. In that dream, we are programmed to feel and behave in accordance to the 'rule'. In whose game are we effectively NPC's without true autonomy of thought, freedom, and liberty?
But then, is liberty an effective counter against The Dream? Libertarians tell us so, but what if most people are incapable of being free and independent? In that case, The Dream can be countered only by another Dream. It means history can never be about dream vs reality but dream vs dream. Reality is too harsh and dreary for most people. No wonder then that even fat ugly women go to hair-dressers and cling to the fantasy that they are attractive. Indeed, things have gotten worse. Well, if a man can be a 'woman', who says a fat ugly woman can't be a beauty? This anti-essentialist subjectivism all points to how dream-ism has infected so much of society. Such lunacy is intrinsic to The Dream pushed by Jewish Power. REQUIEM TO A DREAM. You may be nothing and have nothing, but YOU ARE SPECIAL because you're part of The Dream.

'Reality' and 'logic' in The Dream is as Jewish Power programs it. So, even though blacks are the main thugs and killers, we are led to chant BLM and cry for precious black lives being 'genocided' by white police. We prefer fanta-morality than real-morality. It's utterly absurd as a claim in the real world, but countless people who've been sucked into The Dream keep the faith. The Dream is so powerful and pervasive that all of us are, in one way or another, part of The Dream, if only because we must always remind ourselves and others that it isn't real. Thus, no one is really fully awake. Either you go along with The Dream or you're a lucid dreamer who knows you're in The Dream but can't really break out of it. As we are all social creatures, we can't help but be part of the prevailing order. So, if much of society is still in The Dream, we are also partly in it because we are part of society. It's like even anti-Hitlerians under National Socialism couldn't fully escape The Dream. It became too much of the life and culture.

The dream is sort of like a game, especially a con-game. Cons work because the con-man slips something with a distraction. Thus, the conned fail to see the reality of what is happening as he or she is fixated on what is shown. It's why the woman falls for the con in HOUSE OF GAMES. That the woman is 'too smart to be conned' is actually part of the con devised against her.
Dreams work in a similar way. We believe in the unbelievable in the dream — dead people alive in front of us and etc. — because the dream turns off the mechanism of verification and detection. Furthermore, the dream keeps streaming new 'information' to the mind that is too distracted to process anything for verification. While what happens in a dream isn't logical, there is a logic behind the process of the dream that keeps the dreamer hoodwinked. And even when a person becomes a lucid dreamer, he is in the dream.

What is true of a single mind is true of an entire society, especially when everyone is connected electronically. Electronic media are like collective neurons of society as a hive-mind. But who's the dreamer or game-creater? Who is the 'user' and who are the 'programs'?
People's minds are colonized by the electronic-neurons beamed by media, the Dream becomes their dream, and they become part of The Dream Empire or Dreampire as envisioned and programmed by Jews. So, even though Sigmund Freud failed as a scientist(as current psychology believes he was wrong about most things), his obsession with the power of dreams could have served as the blueprint of takeover of power. Marx was utopian but concentrated on the materialist reality. But all the talk of labor, production, and etc. got pretty dreary and boring to most people. Capitalism beat communism not only in the material sphere(of producing more) but in creating the Empire of Dreams, which Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion. No wonder Jews were so eager to acquire Disney and then STAR WARS. Walt Disney and George Lucas had the power to create dreams.
Dream as metaphor for power is explored in EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg where goyim move inside a maze created by a Jew. Even as they identify the Dream-Maker and kill him, they're not sure if they're in reality or still in the Dream. Even the Anti-Dream could be part of the Dream. And such is true in our world. Even those opposed to Jewish Supremacism are marked by the 'logic' of The Dream. If you oppose Jews, you must be 'nazis', 'white supremacists', 'anti-semites', or etc. Of course, there are neo-nazi types who can't oppose Jewish Power without resorting to 'Muh Fuhrer', but this is because they lack the autonomous power to dream. Therefore, they must borrow the dream of Hitler to combat the Jewish Dream instead of creating a new and better Dream from scratch.

How do a people replace one Dream with another? A New Dream in which most people become figures in another Dream. They become NPC's in another people's game. US politicians, 'conservative' and 'liberal', are little more than NPC's in the Jewish Dream. One way to replace one Dream with another is by invasion. US defeated Japan, erased the myth of the sacred Emperor, and installed the new Dream of Japan as a peace-loving democracy, which, however, must take orders from the New Empire that invades and destroys other nations. (Incidentally, blaming Japanese Militarism for Japan's woes is disingenuous. After all, Japan embarked on its imperialist ventures BEFORE the military takeover and with the support & even encouragement of Western Imperialist powers. Furthermore, the leading imperialist powers in the world were all 'democratic': UK, France, and US. Also, most militarist governments were generally less imperialist, and more often than not, a nation turned to militarism as last recourse against foreign domination or total chaos. Franco and Pinochet were military leaders, but they didn't invade anyone, and they came to power to defend the order from International Communism, a form of ideological imperialism. But as the US-dominant Narrative governs the world, Japanese are to believe that they were saved from bad old militarism with defeat and democracy. Such is the power of the Dream.)

The Dream can be replaced by outright invasion. Still, invaders without a strong Dream may fall under the Dream of the vanquished. Mongols invaded China but fell under the spell of the Middle Kingdom Dream. The Romans, for all their military glory, were weak in the power of Dreams. So, they fell under the Dream of the Greeks and worshiped a fusion of Roman and Greek gods. Their art imitated Greek imagination. And later, Romans and the Greeks fell under the Dream of Christianity even though Christians had no means to conquer them militarily. They became figures in the Dream of Jesus and Paul, Jews rejected by Jews. Later, the Germanic barbarians invaded Rome, much like Mongols would invade China later, but as the barbarians were weak in the power of Dream, they too fell under the sway of Christo-Roman Template.

The Power of Dreams come in two forms. One where the Dream takes on a power all its own independent of its originator and the Other where the Dream is used by a people to control others. For example, all of the West fell under the power of the Greek Dream. Especially the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and 19th century archaeology prized Greek culture as the shining ideal. Still, it was the Greek Dream without Greek power as the Greeks had long declined and fallen. And Greeks were okay with this: The Greek Way conquering the human imagination around the world WITHOUT Greeks having power over the world.
In contrast, Jews felt differently. Via Christianity, there was the power of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power. Christians read the Sacred Texts of Jews, and Jewish spirituality and historiography had great impact on the West. But even as Europeans fell under the sway of the Jewish Dream(as Jesus, Disciples, and Paul were Jews steeped in Jewish tradition), they were independent of Jewish Power and even hostile to Jewish People. And Jews took umbrage at this. Perhaps, the relation between Jews and Christians would have been better IF Christianity didn't insist that Jews rejected the Messiah and murdered Him. But, there was bound to be hostility between Judaism and Christianity because Jews couldn't help but feel that Jesus and Paul laid the groundwork of smuggling the Jewish God to other peoples, the dirty gentiles. It was a violation of the Covenant, and therefore, Jews could only feel hatred for Jesus and the heretical Jews. As Jews were anti-Christian, Christianity could only develop as an anti-Jewish religion.

Anyway, if Greeks were resigned to the prestige of the Greek Dream being independent of Greek power(that was non-existent at any rate), Jews couldn't tolerate Jewishness as an abstraction for other peoples without the input of the Jews themselves. Jews felt that all who adopted the Jewish Way must come under Jewish Sway. As both Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism, Jews must control the West and Near East. So, Muslim nations must be battered with Neocon militarism to teach them a lesson of who's the real Chosen of God. Because Islam is a proud militant religion, Jews know it's difficult to take over the Muslim Soul. But because Christianity is a religion of humility, guilt, and sin, Jews knew they could worm into the Christian Soul and re-code it for self-destruction. Alter the Christian Guilt Code toward feeling most ashamed of the Holocaust and Antisemitism(and 'racism' and 'homophobia') and then watch the dominos fall. As most Christians are craven, shallow, or stupid, their Sin Complex could be manipulated in algorithm. Do it like the guys in INCEPTION by Christopher Nolan. Enter the White Christian Dreamscape, locate and unlock the soul-safe Houdini-style, and alter the main object of worship from God and Jesus to Jew, Negro, and Homo. Replace Virgin Mary with Anne Frank. Replace God with bellowing Negro. Replace angels with homo fairies. Thus, Christianity became cucked and worthless, a mere NPC program in a Jewish Dream of Dominion.

Jewish Power seeks to Greek-ize the West. Just like the Greek Way became divorced from Greek Power(whereby even non-Greeks took Greek ideas and idols with no regard for actual Greeks), the Western Way is to be divorced from Western Folks. We are told that Western Civilization is an Idea. It's not a people and their land. It's an idea or ideal that can be adopted by anyone. So, the power of the West should be an abstraction. Even if whites lose their lands and become minorities in their own nations due to mass immigration-invasion, there is no need to worry as Western Civilization will remain powerful as a Dream for all of humanity. White people having power isn't what the West is about. All that matters is the propagation of the Western Idea. As long as the Idea lives on as the Dream for others, the West is still #1. And what is this Western Idea: A Universal commitment to liberty, individuality, rule of law, and property rights(and sucking up to Jews, blacks, and homos). So, even if white people were to vanish from the world, the West would be alive and well as long as people are into 'muh liberty' and property rights. Following this logic, Chinese need not worry if China vanishes as long as people enjoy Mooshoo Pork. Chinese culture still alive, you see.

But of course, Jews would never want this for themselves. If someone told Jews, "Hey, don't worry if Arabs or Muslims take over Israel and if you Jews vanish off the face of the Earth because the Jewish Idea will always be with us in the form of the Bible and the achievements of Jews such as Albert Einstein and Steven Spielberg." And even the Koran could be said to be partly Judaic since Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Texts. Now, would Jews be okay with a world of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power(and People)? Of course not. Jews want to use their Dream as their hegemonic power over others. The Dream must never be independent of Jewish Power.
Jews weren't content with Gentiles adopting and worshiping the Jewish God. They wanted to gain control over those who adopted the universalized form of Yahweh. Indeed, Jews even wanted to take God back from those people. What is Globo-Homo Queertianity but a bait-and-switch Jews are pulling on the Christians? By making Christians worship the inanity of Sodomic Globo-Homo, Jews effectively turn Christianity into a junk-religion devoid of God. Of course, Jewish Rabbis pretend to go along with globo-homo, but it's just a ruse for the rubes. After all, the Talmud teaches the Jews to use all forms of deception to hoodwink and destroy the goyim. For Jews, a jealous people(like their God is jealous), Jewish Power must always command the Jewish Way. If Greeks are flattered that non-Greeks took the Greek Way and came to greatness(and even surpassed the Greeks), Jews are not happy about non-Jews having taken the Jewish Way and come to greatness. Deep down inside, Jews hate Christianity and Islam even as they take pride in the fact that all those hapless shallow goyim fell under the power of the Jewish Dream. For Jews, the respect for the Jewish Way must be accompanied by supremacy of Jewish Power. Jewish Way must not become independent of Jewish Power. Muslims must be hammered into submission by the Chosen People of Zion. Christians must be manipulated into changing their religion to suit the outlook and sensibilities of Jews. So, how dare the Russians not fly 'gay' flags in Orthodox Churches to appease the Jews... like the Catholics are finally on the verge of doing, what with the poop-pope Francis blessing 'gay marriages'.

White people have two paths: the Greek path or the Jewish path. Greek path says your civilization will live on as a great idea but minus the power(and even the survival) of the people who created it. Jewish path says your civilization must live on as an idea that is inseparable from the survival, security, and power of the people who created it. Jews believe that even though non-Jews can learn and take from Jewishness, the Jewish Way really belongs to the Jews who are its real owners. But Jews tell white people that the Western Way cannot in any way be claimed by white Europeans. It is to be a dream independent of the dreamer... so that it will succumb to The Dream Empire of the Jews.

BIDEN & BIG TECH'S FEAR & LOATHING OF HUNGARY

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/

Dangers of Jewish Ethno-Stalinism or Tribal-Dictatorship — Biggest Contradiction of Current U.S. Power is between Jewish Power and Universal Principles — End of History and Beginning of Beastory — How Jews are METO(More Equal Than Others) over the Rest of Us

What was one of the most striking features of Stalinism? It was premised on communist principles of equality and justice for all. Stalinism was nothing new in terms of tyranny as brutality and repression have been around since the beginning of history. What made Stalinism perverse was the contradiction between its principles and its practice of power. Granted, the very term ‘Stalinism’ implied a perversion of communism from a universal-egalitarian ideal to a cult of personality, an idolatry centered around an individual elevated to quasi-divine status. At least in this respect, communism was a bigger moral failure than Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, ‘ideologies’ that openly and honestly insisted that a strong leader with power of vision and charisma should rule and define the destiny of his people. Though Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were anti-individualist when it came to mass politics, they were ultra-individualist when it came to the Great Leader, Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. Presumably, such a man was so awe-inspiring that he needn't operate by the rules of ordinary folks. He belonged to the pantheon of the greatest men in history. It was as if they were imbued with the stuff of myth. In the 19th century, many Romantics regarded Napoleon that way, seeing him more as god-man or force of nature than merely a military leader or historical figure. A man of destiny.

In contrast, communism claimed to be about ideas and principles than idols and power. Sure, communists would have to gain and even monopolize power to realize their Utopian project, but the end-result of such monumental endeavor would be a world in which all peoples would be equal in freedom, work, justice, and responsibility. Granted, modern communism came to be defined by Karl Marx(though communism as an idea predated him), just like much of modern psychology came to be, at least for a crucial period in the 20th century, shaped by Sigmund Freud at the expense of other more empirical but less imaginative experts. Some may argue this was 20th century communism’s fatal error, the allowing the thoughts of a single individual to exert such vast influence on an idea and movement. Beginning with Marxism, communism was less a generic idea of social justice based on collective ownership of property than the prophecy of an individual who, as Modern Moses, insisted that communism must be something more than a blueprint formulated in the minds of men: It was a historical inevitability that no will or power could stop. It was only a matter of when. Prior to Marx, communism was more a matter of social philosophy than grand history, i.e. communist ideals arose from the minds of men, and communist reality could be achieved only by the determination and will of men committed to revolutionary change. Without such conscious will and decision-making, communism would never be realized in the world. In other words, communism was the will of man. Men had to make it happen. As such, it was kind of humanism. Early communists were like the pagans who believed in a plurality of gods and heroes. Nothing was certain, and history was determined by the clash of wills and visions of men. The winners would decide history.
In contrast, Marx believed that consciousness follows material conditions. Though an atheist, Marx believed in a power beyond the will or wish of men. This power was History, a monomaniacal force like the Jewish God. Just like individuals are helpless and powerless before the one and only God, mankind cannot do anything to change the course of History. People can only be agents of History, like people are only pawns of the one and only God. At most, people can try to understand this uber-power; and when this power demands change, one must be ready to ride the waves or be swept aside. According to Marx's view of History, as economic factors change, social relationships also change, and such shifts affect the way people view reality and their place in it. There is a historical logic and dynamics beyond what people may wish to think or believe. Also, most people cannot think or imagine beyond the material limits of their reality. The material reality must change before the mind follows and changes accordingly; it's like in evolution, organisms react/adapt to the changing environment. Economic reality changes with the evolution of production that, in time, comes to favor one class over another. The rise of trade eventually came to favor the merchant-bourgeoisie over the aristocracy. And as Marx saw the future, the dire contradictions within capitalism must inevitably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie. While Marx wasn’t averse to individual will and commitment — indeed, one of his boastful comments was that the role of scholar isn't merely to study but change the world — , he thought the Revolution couldn’t be hastened or delayed by much. When it will happen, it will happen. It’s like a pregnant woman may try to have the child earlier or later, and she might alter the date of birth by a few days, but the fact remains most children are born after around 9 months.
Because of Marx’s elaborate theories and deep intellectualism, many communists convinced themselves that Marxism wasn’t really a personality cult but merely the best and most complete theory of communism as revealed by a great thinker. Supposedly, it was like Darwinism that merely attributed the discovery of evolution to the English scientist: Not a reverential cult of Charles Darwin as a know-it-all genius but credit due to the man who first worked out the basic theory of how evolution works. Likewise, Marx was seen as the first social scientist who figured out the true working dynamics of history. Still, whereas Darwin was respected as a great scientist, Karl Marx did come to be revered as a near-divine figure in the communist canon. Perhaps, the theme of justice is more powerful and emotionally charged than the theme of facts. Whereas Darwin merely figured out how biology works(on the amoral level), Marx figured out how history ultimately works to bring about a just world for all mankind. Truth is like ice, cold. Justice is like fire, hot. That mankind may have evolved from apes was mighty interesting, but it didn’t do anything to improve the lot of man, but the idea that material history eventually resolves its contradictions by toppling the exploitative class in favor of the toiling masses was deeply heartening to many who’d gone through the often traumatic Industrial Revolution.
That said, because Karl Marx remained a thinker all his life and never gained political power, his official status was that of a man of ideas. One might even say Karl Marx was too good and pure to dirty his hands in the world of politics with its betrayals and compromises. Similarly, Moses remained a prophet but never became king. And Jesus preached ideas and died for them but didn’t go about the ‘petty’ business of setting up organizations to spread the Gospel far and wide. Muhammad notwithstanding, when the man of principles also becomes a man of practice, much of the luster is lost.

It’s usually the case that the thinker or prophet retains a degree of purity in that he dreams big dreams and dies before his theory is put through the wringer of practice that has a way of mucking things up. After all, even the most pristine, cautious, and well-thought-out plan often goes wrong when put into action. Even the most powerful thinkers cannot foresee all the details and complications. Also, those who involved in the practice often turn out to be madmen, incompetents, hustlers, opportunists, egotists, or deeply flawed individuals. And for this reason, it’s hardly surprising that the failure of communism was usually blamed on men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao than on Karl Marx himself. Plenty of True Believers insisted that the practitioners of communism misinterpreted, betrayed, abused, or perverted True Marxism. The chances are that a system ruled by Marx himself would likely have failed too, but we will never know as the Great Man died before communism became a real political force in the world.

What we do know is that communism, as practiced by men like Vladimir Lenin, Bela Kun, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and etc., proved to be failures. Granted, not all communist nations were guilty of mass-killings, and furthermore, plenty of grisly acts were committed by right-wing and capitalist nations in the 20th century. But in the end, communism failed to deliver all the things it promised. It lost to capitalist nations by standards of materiality, freedom, and justice. If communist nations had produced less goods but nevertheless managed to offer more freedom or justice, that would have been something. But over time, it became more apparent by the day that capitalist nations were not only able to produce more goods but procure greater progress in justice and freedom. In contrast, not only did communist nations lag in technology and consumer goods but failed to deliver freedom and justice as promised. Diehard purists may argue that Marxism cannot be blamed for this because communism came to power in mostly pre-industrial nations, thereby turning Marx’s theory on its head. Marx argued communism would follow late capitalism and then the proletariat would inherit the earth from the fallen bourgeoisie. Marxism was a theory of inheritance, not installation, of industry. After all, Marx himself argued that no force was as revolutionary and transformational as capitalism, and for that very reason, despite its evils, it was an absolutely crucial stage toward the development of communism. Just like there must be night before dawn, there must be capitalism before communism.

As no fully developed capitalist nation turned communist, we still don’t know if post-capitalist communism will work wonders or not, but we can still guess as to how such a system will turn out. While the U.K. didn’t turn communist after World War II, the Labour Party did nationalize many key industries, and that didn’t do much for the economy. If anything, the more market-oriented European economies did better. Also, the paucity of material incentives in communism makes one wonder if a capitalist-made society will remain prosperous for long under the new rules. And facts of human nature suggest communism is, at best, over-zealous idealism blinded by narrow definition of ‘justice’. Still, given the rising contradictions of capitalism in our globalist world, it is safe to say that the End of History(as suggested by Francis Fukuyama) failed the understand the power dynamics and its implications for the future.
In terms of Fukuyama’s definition of ‘History’, he was more right than wrong. The end of the Cold War witnessed the closing days of the battle of Big Ideas. Oddly enough, the smaller, humbler, and more moderate ideas had won over the Big or Grand ones. Moderate Liberalism won out over Radical Leftism with its Macro Theory of History. And seemingly, moderate nationalism and moderate internationalism won out over ultra-nationalism that was once synonymous with imperialist ambition. In a way, one might say it was the triumph of the Anglo/American model over others, far left and far right. But one wonders if Anglo/Americanism won out mainly because of its wisdom and good sense or its good luck. While one can find much that is praiseworthy in British-American ways & values, would Anglo/American power have been so great if not for the superb luck that Anglos got to conquer, settle, and develop North America, the best land in the world? And were ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ really crucial in the development of the United States as a great power? Suppose Imperial Germany had taken North America and developed it along autocratic lines. Wouldn’t it have been just as powerful with all the land and resources utilized by a talented and hard-working people? Indeed, when we compare liberal democratic UK and autocratic Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the latter was gaining over the former. So, perhaps, ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ have been over-emphasized as the reason for the power of the United States.
Anyway, the closure of the Cold War did bring about something like the End of History in that people were no longer into mega-ideologies. According to Fukuyama, this was due to the fact that ‘liberal democracy’ triumphed over the final Big Idea of Marxism, the grand theory that claimed to hold the key to the workings of history and culmination of justice. In contrast, ‘liberal democracy’ made no such claim and made incremental progress based on liberty, empiricism, pragmatism, individualism, ingenuity & innovation, and free flow of ideas. Instead of one Big School dictating the Truth, liberal democracy allowed many schools and shops to bloom and offer their ideas and products in the marketplace of choice. Termites won over the elephant.

And yet, Fukuyama was wrong in one significant way. Though he valued liberal democracy for its freedom, moderation, and pragmatism, he also elevated it as the Final Idea that would define and dominate the world. The problem of such view was in assuming that The Idea has final power over the Forces within the System. According to Fukuyama, since Liberal Democracy prevailed over Communism(and Fascism), the dominant force in the West is Liberal Democracy, i.e. nothing, no one, and no group in the West can become greater than Liberal Democracy that is all about ‘individualism’, ‘liberty’, ‘free speech’, ‘rule of law’, and etc. But in truth, ideas have no life of their own. Even though every idea favors something over something else, it is also malleable in the hands of those who have the power, especially lots of power. Also, Liberal Democracy doesn’t preclude the monopolization of power or dominance by a certain group. The sheer prevalence of blacks in the NBA and NFL is obvious proof of that. Thus, the End of History with Liberal Democracy as the Final Idea can easily lead to the Beginning of Beastory with the most talented, intelligent, strong-willed, egotistical, maniacal, and/or organized groups using liberty and freedom to accumulate the most power for themselves. And with such monopolization of power, they can easily manipulate the Rule of Law and ‘liberal democratic’ principles to serve their narrow tribal and/or egotistical principles.
Granted, under a system like the US, no group will be able to gain the power wielded by Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but given the current condition and global trajectory, it is very possible for a few groups to gain such market and elite dominance as to dictate their agenda and narrative to the rest of us. The passing of Big Ideas from the world stage doesn’t guarantee that the moderate rules and principles of Liberal Democracy will hold sway over all the world or even the West. This might have been the case IF everyone and every group in the West were equal in talent, intelligence, drive, ambition, and egotism, but the fact is certain groups are far more talented and driven than others. As such, they will gain so much more power in a state of relative freedom, even entire monopolies. Just like liberalism in sports only led to black domination and near-monopoly in many position, liberalism in industries and institutions led to the pre-eminence of Jewish power in so many areas, indeed to the extent that we live under what might be called the Ethno-Stalinism of Jews. Thus, the beastly ambitions of certain groups gain a stranglehold over the principles of Liberal Democracy. It is the Beginning of Beastory.

What is the similarity between Stalinism and Jewish Power in the US? Josef Stalin was the leader of a communist state where everyone was supposed to be equal in power, property, and justice. Now, given the nature of reality, it was hardly surprising that the leader of a communist nation would be ‘more equal than others’(or METO). Such is to be expected even from the most principled leader in the most principled community. But Stalin wasn’t mildly METO over the people of the USSR but totally METO over them. The rules that applied to others didn’t apply to Stalin at all. He could do just about anything and get away with anything. He wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god over men. While he could condemn millions to imprisonment or death, others could hardly criticize him. Indeed, it was deemed a crime to show insufficient enthusiasm for the man and whatever he muttered. Such tyranny would have been less perverse IF the USSR had been founded on the principle of Stalin-Worship, but it wasn’t. As brutal and ruthless as communism was from the beginning as a political movement, the idea was that radical will and violence were necessary to sweep away the old decrepit order to make way for the new where all would be equal. Of course, such outlook was hardly unique to communists. The US in World War II was willing to use ruthless means to defeat the Evil Enemy so as to lay the groundwork for a New World Order amenable to US interests and ideals. Many people rationalized communist violence in the same manner that others had justified violence in the name of Christianity, Islam, Homeland, Enlightenment, Civilization, and/or Freedom. Most white Americans acknowledged the tragic dimension of taking land from American Indians but believed it to have been justified as savagery and wilderness gave way to towns with schools and churches for womenfolk and children. In that sense, communist commitment to violence as a force of change was hardly out of line with historical narratives: Means justify Ends.
But Stalinism’s hyper Cult of Personality was something else. It didn’t merely compromise communist principles but totally overrode them, in effect turning the USSR into a kind of Stalinstan. And for Stalin to have more individual worth as the infallible leader — so infallible that even when events proved him to have been wrong, everyone had to make believe HE was right and history was wrong or ignore or rewrite history altogether — , the people of the USSR had to have less individual worth as citizens of the state. In time, Stalin wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god among minions. While the lives of millions could be expended by a mere twirl of his finger, no one could find fault with any aspect of the man and his erratic whims. If he said black is white and white is black, you had to nod along and agree. If he changed his mind, you had to agree again, but he might have you killed because, earlier, you had been ‘wrong’. Never mind that you’d only agreed with the Great Man because he’s always right. But if one man is always right, then all those around him bound to be always wrong because they lack the immunity of the Great One. Stalin could change his mind all the time and be right at every turn because the only law he lived by was "Stalin is always right". That gave him immunity from being wrong. So, he could go from A to B to C, and he would have been ‘right’ in all three cases because he is always right. But as those around him had no such immunity or license, they would have been wrong at every turn because they also switched positions from A to B to C. If the current state says C is correct, those who’d pledged to A or B would have been wrong. But of course, Stalin was never wrong because he was right even when he was wrong because he was above the law, with the only law applying to him being "I’m always right."

We see something like Stalinism with Jewish Power, though some might call it Political Trotskyism as most Jews preferred the Jewish Trotsky over the Georgian Stalin. By ‘Political Trotskyism’, we mean the nature of Jewish Personality and Will to Power than the Marxist-Communist ideological underpinnings of Trotskyism that no Jew(at least in power) believes in anymore. In the US, Jews are not merely somewhat METO(more equal than others) but totally so. Jews are always right, even when wrong. And goyim are ‘wrong’ even when they agree with Jews and reiterate what Jews have said. Plenty of Jews have said the Tribe does own the media. They said it with pride. But if goyim agree and say Jews control the media, they are denounced as ‘antisemitic conspiracy theorists’ and dragged through the mud. Jews claim to push for mass-immigration and celebrate the prospect of whites becoming minorities in their own nations, but if whites notice as much and say Jews are behind Diversity-mongering, they are attacked as ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’. Jews can say whatever they like. They can even brag about their sinister plans for other races and nations. They can taunt others and spew bile, but if you, as goy, take notice of Jewish attitudes as particularly Jewish, you are ‘wrong’ and denounced as an ‘Anti-Semite’. Just like Stalin was always right(even when wrong) and his victims were always ‘wrong’(even when right), the same kind of dynamics exists between Jews and goyim. The charter of the Jewish supremacist organization ADL is premised on the notion that in 99% of Jewish-Goyim relationships, Jews must be ‘innocent’ and goyim must be ‘guilty’. So, it’s perfectly okay for Jews to stereotype, demean, defame, and pigeonhole certain groups of goyim(especially whites) as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘paranoid’, and/or ‘hateful’, but goyim better not notice general patterns of behavior among Jews(unless such happen to be positive and flattering).

As with Stalinism, it is the sheer hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Jewish Power so repulsive. Unlike Ivan the Terrible who ruled openly as an iron-fisted tyrant in the Age of Tsars, Stalin ruled as Secretary General of a ‘republic’ committed to equality, justice, and liberation. So, the sheer discrepancy between what the USSR claimed ideologically and how Stalinism operated in reality was absolutely outrageous, so much in fact that Stalin had to tighten the totalitarian screws to make sure that no one said the Obvious: Stalinism was Tsarism x 1000. Though there were some social improvements and certain impressive achievements in the Soviet Union, if the system was equal in anything, it was in forcing blind obedience to the State that went from Stalinist dictatorship to oligarchic one-party rule.


*Incidentally, it appears Jews at Youtube manipulated algorithms so that if one searches for "Stalin Netanyahu applause ovation", no video that draws comparison shows up even though MANY have observed the oddity or similarity. It goes to show that Google/Youtube isn’t really ‘leftist’ but Jewish-tribal-supremacist. If Google Jews were truly ‘leftist’, why would they cover up for Netanyahu’s regime that is more ‘far right’ than even the most right-wing government in Europe? If Jews are so ‘liberal’, why do they push for Anti-BDS legislation that silences and destroys the lives of those who call attention to injustices faced by Palestinian underdogs?*

With Jewish Power, we see the same kind of contradiction in the US and the West in general. Jews make the most noise about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘freedom’, and yet most of what they do is to secure special privileges, supremacy, and hegemony for Jewish Power. Indeed, more often than not, what Jews SAY is merely a convenient cover for what Jews DO. Jews TALK to distract us from how they WALK. Think of a Jew who walks to Point A while making so much noise about how he’s headed to Point B. We need to judge by what Jews do, not by what they say. But even what they say go against what they say. Jews say the New America is no longer about Eurocentrism or ‘white privilege’ but about equal rights and respect for all groups, but in the next breath, Jews insist that America must regard Israel as its closest and greatest ally, and that all Americans must be especially sensitive to Jewish feelings uber alles. Never mind all the anti-Muslim movies made by Jewish Hollywood. Never mind all the anti-white movies(usually set in the American South) produced by Jews. Jews also make lots of movies and TV shows with evil Russian monsters and yellow-peril villains. So, Jewish Power can defame and demean any nation or people, casting it or them as the Enemy of America. Jews can declare Iran or Russia the Great Enemy, but if Palestinian-Americans and their sympathizers try to draw people’s attention to the plight of those in the West Bank and Gaza as the result of America’s blind and mindless support of Zionist tyranny and terror, they must be shut down with Anti-BDS laws and resolutions. This is why Jewish Power is essentially ethno-stalinist. The stark difference between what Jews say in one moment AND what Jews say in other moments(and really DO) is totally outrageous. And just like Stalinism could perpetuate itself only via totalitarian tyranny that compelled the tyrannized to exclaim that they were equal, happy, and liberated under Stalin’s rule, the ethno-stalinism of Jewish Power insists that we all tell ourselves, others, and our Jewish masters that there is nothing more American as Apple Pie and 1776 as praising, flattering, revering, serving, obeying, and worshiping Jews. We must love Jewish Power like Winston Smith loved Big Brother in 1984. Unlike with Stalinism, heretics are not dragged off to be shot, but ethno-stalinist Jewish Power is very effective in maintaining control because Jews know that the fate of the nation is decided by a handful of elites. So, as long as Jews can buy off politicians and threaten goy economic elites with total ruin(by defaming their reputations as 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic') if they deviate from the Judeo-centric Narrative and Dogma, just about everything is under control.
Also, as Jews have perverted the freedom of so many Americans by addicting them to hedonism and vices, so much of American liberty doesn’t go toward seeking truth and real justice. Generally, half of Americans only care to use their freedom for mindless pleasure, and the other half of Americans, having been molded by media/academia controlled by Jews, have a hard time conceiving of truth and justice beyond what they’ve been spoonfed since kindergarten. They grew up with the ideology and idolatry as controlled by Jews.

For a truer America, we need something like ethno-de-stalinization, just like the Soviet Union sought to de-Stalinize itself after the tyrant’s death(or murder) in 1953. But it’s difficult to change old habits, and vestiges of Stalinism remained to the very end of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was that failure to truly root out Stalinism that prevented real reforms that could have made for a better system. Likewise, our de-ethno-stalinization must be total and absolute. It must not be a half-measure, especially as Jews have virulent personalities and radical wills. Just like there is no moderate way to deal with cancer, there is no soft way to deal with Jewish Power gone cancerous in the West.
Cancer is perversely contradictory in that it's about more life that leads to sure death. Cancer produces more cells, thus more life, but it also disrupts balance within the organism. Likewise, Jewish Power works like a contradiction. It speaks of more equality and justice, more progress, but just about everything that Jewish Power does is really to increase and maximize Jewish Power at the expense of all else. Jews are pushing for More Diversity not because they want to share power equally with all groups. No, it is only to create divisions, distrust, and strife among goyim so that Jews at the top can play goyim against one another. The result will be a society that becomes even more unequal and unjust, much like California where the rich(especially Jews) keep getting richer while too many people fall through the cracks and live in a state of ethnic, cultural, and political distress. And if indeed California is the future of America, we can look forward to a one-party state. It is time to wake up, see Jewish Power for what it is, expose its obnoxious & radical hypocrisy, and implement a drastic program of de-ethno-stalinization.