But if the GOP wants to survive, it better figure out Realpolitik real fast. A key point: Making the Democrats the black party requires understanding how much Hispanics disdain and in some cases dislike blacks, and why remaining in the party does not serve Hispanic interests. The Democrat coalition is a hodgepodge of loud, non-white, sometimes sexually-deviant sub-groups with conflicting interests. Try getting Aztlan irredentists, black nationalists, homosexual activists, Islamic grievance hustlers, and leftist Jews in one room.
Democratic Party is the Jewish Party. It's about ultra-right Jews larping as ‘leftists’. It is also the white-elite-party that makes it so formidable. Majority of Democratic voters are still whites, the bulk of the most educated and well-connected.
In truth, only Jews, blacks, and homos matter in the American Political Drama. Crumbs are thrown at Muslims, but they got zero power, and most Americans don’t like them(even true of blues state folks). Browns are numerous but hopeless. Look at Latin America. After several centuries, white minorities still rule over mostly passive brown folks. Most browns are Tacoans, not Aztlanists. In other words, they live for taco and cerveza, not the strong brew of contentious politics. Even the crime problem in Mexico is the product of most browns being tacoan beaners. They are nice people and don’t stand up to drug cartels and the like. They keep their heads low. Americans love winners, and that’s why only Jews(winners of brain power), blacks(winners of sports & pop music), and homos(winners of fashion & style) matter. Yellows do well in school but are ‘lame’ and don’t count in identity-idolatry. Hindus seem to count more but they are mainly useful as collaborators. Under British Rule, Hindus became adept at working with the West. Sure, Indians eventually gained independence but PEACEFULLY and by adopting Western ‘values’. It also became the “world’s biggest democracy”, which goes to show how culturally servile to Anglosphere it became.
We must never underestimate the one huge advantage for the Democrats. Most white elites are Democrats, and they either control or manage all the elite institutions. This matters big time because it’s the Deep State that constitutes the permanent government. In the stupid movie THE GOOD SHEPHERD, Matt Damon’s CIA character says his WASP folks own the US and the rest of Americans are mere guests. Deep State thinking is the same. Its members are the permanent rulers, and the politicians are mere guests. Politicians come and go, but the deep state remains.
So, while politicians rely on the votes of the hoi polloi every 2, 4, or 6 yrs, once ensconced in office their chief roles are focused on appeasing big donors and the deep state. This is why the GOP is utterly useless even when they got majority hold of Congress and the presidency. In their day to day operations, all politicians must deal with the institutions of power and industries with big money. They reach out to their constituents only during election seasons, if that(as most don’t even do that), and spend of their time at the feet of Big Money and Big Government. They know the best assurance for re-election is appeasing big donors and assenting to the Deep State.
The real problem with the GOP is not elections but its total absence in the Deep State. Washington DC institutions are 95% Democratic. So, even if GOP were to win ALL the seats in Congress and have the presidency, they must deal with entrenched institutions that are wholly Democrat-controlled. Government is a fish tank. So, Republicans lose even when they win. Imagine if politics were about land animals versus aquatic animals, BUT the government is situated in the water. Thus, wateriness always prevails. So, even when land animals win the majority of seats, they struggle to remain barely afloat in the domain of dolphins, turtles, sharks, and fishes. How can you drain the tank(or the swamp) when all the levers of power are held by the water creatures?
Now, does that mean the institutions are progressive and into social justice because they're all Democratic? No, that’s just a ruse. The Deep State is about power for power’s sake, and it’s currently controlled by Jews who got the most money, select the puppets & whores, and control the gods(the sacred symbols & narratives of society).
Pedro Alvarado focuses on the rift between brown voters and black voters, but that’s about the powerless rabble on the bottom. It ignores the white ‘liberals’ at the top in the institutions working with and for Jews. Even if more browns vote GOP and send more Republicans to Washington D.C., the latter will just end up doing the bidding of the Deep State that serves Jewish Supremacism. Look at the likes of Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Youngkin, and so many others.
And let’s stop pretending Democrats are Jewish Leftists. Just ask the Palestinians how the Jews really care about 'social justice'. The likes of Chuck Schumer are closer to Netanyahu and do everything to suppress BDS. Most of Jewish 'Leftism' is just a masquerade. It’s Jewish ultra-rightist supremacism laundered as ‘progressive’. That said, there are genuine Jewish Leftists like Max Blumenthal. Like them or not, there is a certain consistency in their principled stance. But with most Jewish Democrats? Forget about it.
What to do about blacks? Bolsheviks had the Cheka, later replaced by OGPU that morphed into the KGB. A movie was made about Chekists.
The main driver of ‘wokeness’ isn’t ideology but idolatry and of what? Jews control ‘wokeness’ and mainly use the idolatries of globo-homo and BLM. During the Obama yrs, globo-homo was most prominent. Jews didn’t worry about black loyalty then because having Obama assured virtually all black votes for the Democrats.
But after Obama, blacks were less enthralled of the Party because, looking back on the 8 yrs under Obama, Jews and homos got most of the goodies(and immigrants gained a lot) while blacks got little but symbolism. No wonder Donald Trump increased his share of black vote. Not by much but every vote counts in some blue states. Also, in the 2016 election, many blacks in Michigan didn’t vote at all.
So, in the final yrs of Trump’s presidency, Jews decided to go big on BLM or black idolatry. Thus, politics since then has been stoking black ego and erecting monuments to blackity blackness, like George Floyd statues, ROTFL. It even led to de facto human sacrifice in riots(as offerings to angry black gods) and the bogus trial of Derek Chauvin who most certainly did not kill Floyd, the fentanyl junkie.
Anyway, if early Soviet Union was terrorized by the Cheka or Chekists, one could say the current order is tyrannized by Blacka(or Bleka) and its Blackists(or Blekists). This is what it should be called. Blackism or Blekism(to play a word game on Chekism). And it is of course a reign of terror because it goes against truth and common sense. The obvious lie can be enforced only with threat and violence.
Communism lasted as long as it did in Russia not only because of terror and repression but because enough people at the top really believed in the nonsense they were peddling. So, even when the system was faced with crisis after crisis, they doubled down on their radicalism…. until finally they stopped believing and the whole system became one big cynical game of position and status until that deteriorated too.
For now, we must let Blekism run its course. Let the Blekists idolatrize blackness as innately noble and sacred. Let them blame all black problems on non-blacks. Let them sweep black criminality under the rug and pretend it doesn’t exist or is justified. Let them do this until they can no longer deny the truth.
"They will next be robbing hotel guests room by room. I remember checking into an upscale hotel on Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana Beach sometime in the 1980s. I asked the clerk why the hotel had 30 armed guards with submachine guns in the lobby. He replied that last week a gang took over the hotel and robbed guests room by room. The same event can’t be very far in our future. Democrats already permit blacks to burn and loot the business districts of Democrat-controlled cities. Just ask any resident of New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Atlanta what life is like in Democrat cities."
It’s Blekism running riot and spreading terror. It’s like use of poison gas in war. It's used against the the other side but the wind may blow it back in your direction. Blue city elites meant to use black terror against Middle America but it’s blowing back in their face. It’s total LOL.
So, I say let Blekism take over blue areas. Black-and-Blue, the new formula of ‘wokeness’. Let the blues believe blacks are saintly Emmett Tills being killed by rednecks when, in truth, black thuggery and criminality(sanctified as noble) are wreaking havoc all over. Blue city folks won’t listen to us, so they will have to learn the hard way… just like communism finally failed of its own excesses.
By the way, what is a ‘Latino’? White ones? Brown ones? There are even black ones. ‘Anglo’ only means white Anglo Americans. But ‘Latino’ can mean any race. So, a brown tacoan with zero white blood still counts as ‘Latino’ simply because he speaks Espanol. Ridiculous.
A thought. If whites are offended by the term ‘white supremacism’, maybe they should go with WHITE STUPDENOUSISM or WHITE STUPENDISM. White Stupendism believes white achievements have been stupendous, which is true enough historically in arts, culture, science, and philosophy. Saying that one’s race, people, and culture is stupendous is surely less controversial than saying it is supremacist.
The recent collapse of US-backed Afghan government hints at something about History. The Afghan military has lots of men and tons of the best equipment in the world supplied by the US. But after 20 yrs and 2 trillion dollars of so-called 'nation-building' by the US as the lone superpower, the Afghan Regime is crumbling like a house of cards, and there's hardly anyone around to support or defend them. US dominated with things, with material support, but not with themes, with spiritual meaning. There was talk of 'democracy', but if democracy is about majority rule, Afghan version wasn't going to be like the 'liberal West'. Some compare the Afghan debacle with US retreat from Saigon, and indeed South Vietnam had more people and more material than North Vietnam. Even when US cut off aid to South Vietnam, it still had more than enough people and arms to fend off the North. They had lots of things but not a compelling enough theme to unite and inspire the people to sacrifice their lives for the cause.
Now, will, unity, discipline, and morale alone don't ensure victory. Germany and Japan in World War were united and hardy but still lost. In terms of iron will and determination, Germany met its match in the USSR. And Japan couldn't compete in things with the US that, furthermore, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, had all the determination, unity, and morale to destroy the 'Japs'. Still, so much of history has been decided by the lack of will despite sufficient men and availability of resources. Somehow, the link between the elites and the masses was lost. Also, the masses no longer regarded themselves as one people united by common values and shared themes; they no longer worshiped the same gods and hated the same devils — consider there was a time when even most white Liberals worshiped God and looked upon homosexuality as a grave sin or clinical sickness.
Once a regime loses the respect for the people, the latter is less likely to follow orders from above. They are less likely to be good citizens and more likely to look out for their own interests without much sense of the public good. And once a people lose fear of the elites, they are less likely to comply with its dictates. The people of North Vietnam feared but also respected their government. It was this combination of fear and respect that made the NVA so formidable. After all, respect alone doesn't cut it. Even if you respect a certain power, you may not choose to risk your life for the cause because it's natural for people to choose life/happiness over death/agony. Plenty of Russians saw the need to fight the Germans in the Great Patriotic War, but how many would have stuck out their necks if not for the fear of their own regime? It was patriotism against German invaders + fear of the Soviet regime that drove so many Russians to march into battle. So, respect alone isn't the magic formula. (Likewise, National Socialist Germany was so formidable because Germans both feared and respected the regime.) But then, fear alone isn't effective in the long run either. If you're operating only on fear, it's no different from bank tellers giving money to the bank robbers. It's purely motivated by fear, not loyalty or respect. Anyone can make anyone do something by holding a gun to his head. Real loyalty is when the person is willing to serve you even when you don't hold a gun to his head. North Vietnamese feared their government but also respected its legitimacy earned from resistance against French Imperialism. This combination of fear and respect made for powerful loyalty. Also, communism, while stifling and stagnant in the long run, was a powerful tool of centralization, organization, and indoctrination in the short run. So, while the capitalist economy of South Vietnam would have far surpassed the communist economy of North Vietnam in the long run, the North had the 'spartan' advantage in the short term, the window of opportunity the North needed to prevail over the South.
The problem of the US in South Vietnam owed to its schizo nature. US did lots of terrifying things to strike fear into the enemy. Lots of bombings and terror campaigns. But the US also turned Saigon into Surf City and promoted laissez-faire-ism that made them more like tourists with guns than real soldiers. So, while the US military could be fearsome in combat, it seemed loose and lost in the urban setting. South Vietnamese soon came to navigate around Americans, who seemed to be all about dollars and cents, coca-cola and sex(and lots of drugs). Thus, the US struck fear only with bombs and bullets. They could be negotiated with. So, there was little need to fear the Americans unless one was suspected of being a Viet Cong in the rice paddies of Vietnam. As Americans came across as tourists with guns, they didn't get much respect either. Not much fear, not much respect. Hardly ingredients for loyalty. As for the South Vietnamese regime, how could it win much respect when it relied on foreign occupation for defense of territory? ("We need to be occupied by foreigners to be protected from our own kind.") Also, American values had a destabilizing impact on South Vietnam. If American values are about freedom, then freedom in South Vietnam meant dissension and opposition to the US-backed regime. The opposition could come from not only communist elements but various other groups, idealists and opportunists alike. While a strong and stable regime could weather dissension, a weak regime could only be hobbled. Of course, US knew this and backed an authoritarian regime, but then, this seemed like a betrayal of American values. America preached freedom while propping up a 'dictatorial' system. (At the very least, the Romans who propped up Herod didn't pretend to be for freedom and liberty.) Because the system was authoritarian than totalitarian, there was just enough freedom for various groups to make trouble for the government while the government used just enough force to crack down and be labeled as tyrannical. Thus, it undermined both genuine popular participation and effective enforcement of authority. Perhaps, in the long run, absent an existential threat(like communist-totalitarian North Vietnam), an authoritarian system of semi-freedom could work out, e.g. Taiwan evolved from authoritarianism to democracy(though it is still a political and ideological puppet of the US). But it was fatal for South Vietnam that was free enough for social chaos and repressive enough for condemnation by world opinion because of the threat of North Vietnam. This was also the problem in Latin America, though the US mostly succeeded in destroying Marxist-Leninist insurgencies there(except in Cuba and Nicaragua). US backed right-wing military regimes that allowed just enough freedom for insurgencies and used more than enough violence to alienate world opinion.
But then, the US couldn't support full totalitarianism because it would be too un-American. And US couldn't support nascent fascist regimes because they might be too independent-minded and insist upon national sovereignty, at odds with US hegemony. But then, US couldn't support a full democracy and civil society either as popular will may turn out to be Anti-American(and Anti-Jewish, not to mention Anti-Globo-Homo these days). Democracy in Chile led to the election of Salvador Allende. In Venezuela, it brought Hugo Chavez to power. So, the US usually struck deals with the kind of regime that rules Egypt today: A weak regime with just enough muscle(backed by US money and arms) to make the masses cower. Still, despite Egypt's dependence on US largesse, its government was domestically formed than installed by foreigners. The Afghan regime, in contrast, is totally the creation of the US that, by the way, didn't even bother to scour the country for the best people. Instead, they found the most pliable flunkies and third-raters willing to whore themselves out to foreigners for a price.
Nationalism is a problem for empires all over the world. Stalin was anxious about Mao's independent will. He fretted Chinese communism would ultimately challenge Soviet Communism(which did happen after Stalin's death). And Tito's independent streak led to bad blood between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Soviet Union wanted stable and forceful regimes in Warsaw Pact nations but not powerful ones(in the sense of national independence). A communist nation could abide another communist nation, but a communist empire had problems with the independent streak of other communist nations. Thus, despite their ideological affinities, there were cases of some communist regimes leaning closer to the Capitalist West as insurance against Soviet Power. Mao met with Nixon. Tito embarked on neutrality between East and West. And Ceausescu was courted by the West, especially as Romania didn't take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Ideal would be a powerful nation respecting the national sovereignty of weaker nations, and such examples are plentiful around the world. Not every powerful nation exerts muscle on weaker nations. But an empire is about a dominant power maintaining hegemony over weaker ones. Thus, the nationalism of weaker nations is seriously compromised, if tolerated at all. US spoke of 'nation-building' in Afghanistan, but it was really empire-building, a process of turning the country into a far-flung satrapy of the Zio-American Empire. It could work as long as the US empire was willing to exert its influence. But it could fail(and the Afghan regime is falling faster than we can write about it) once imperial authority is withdrawn. US didn't do any 'nation-building'. The Soviets did in the 1980s, which is why its clientele regime lasted three years even after the Soviet pullout(and may have lasted longer if not for Yeltsin's total cut off of aid, surely under US pressure).
Granted, Soviet nation-building didn't necessarily ensure survival. Even though Warsaw Pact nations were puppets of USSR, they were stable national entities with functional bureaucracies, disciplined militaries, and effective police force. But the regimes all crumbled the minute the Soviets decided to pull out. Oddly enough, the regime downfall was especially violent in Romania, relatively an independent communist nation, whereas the fall of regimes was mostly peaceful in those that had been occupied by Soviet troops. Yugoslavia, another relatively independent communist nation, also experienced extreme violence, one that actually lasted for some years. Perhaps communist nations under direct rule of the Soviet Union had zero legitimacy. The people overwhelmingly wanted something new and got it right away. In contrast, precisely because Yugoslavia and Romania had staked some claim of independence and national sovereignty from USSR, the powers-that-be were more self-assured of their survival.
Though Afghanistan is being compared with Vietnam and Soviet withdrawal, current events seem more evocative of the sudden downfall of communist regimes the minute Gorbachev declared withdrawal of Soviet Military. In a way, it was even more shocking and took the world by surprise. Whereas most predicted that the Taliban would soon regain power once the US left, most experts in the 80s thought communism would last several more decades, and many conservatives refused to believe that the Cold War was effectively over following Reagan and Gorbachev's summits. Still, there is one key difference between the fall of communism and the fall of the Afghan regime. Even though communist as ideology was suddenly kaput, Eastern European nations continued to be ruled by many of the same people who'd been at the helm. Indeed, many former communists rebranded themselves as 'liberals', 'nationalists', or 'social democrats'. Many kept their bureaucratic posts. And some of the most powerful people of the new order were former apparatchiks. True of Russia as well. Putin was once KGB, and many people in his regime were once loyal members of the Soviet Union. In contrast, it seems everyone involved in the US-backed Afghan Regime are really out of power and scattered to the winds. Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe, but many communists rebranded themselves and held onto power and even amassed huge fortunes. No such luck for the Afghan cucks.
The problem for Eastern European nations turned out to be a case of 'out of the frying pain, into the fire'. They were relieved to be free of the Soviet Monster and expected to join the free democratic West. And who could blame them in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was decrepit economically and when communism was repressive and colorless? Also, even in the 1980s, Western Europe seemed free, reasonably patriotic, and mostly stable(especially with the tumultuous Sixties receding in the rear-view mirror). No one bleated about globo-homo. Even though the immigration problem began after WWII, Europe was still solidly European. No one back then would have thought London would turn into Londonistan or Londongo or that Germany would be ruled by someone like Angela Merkel who flung open the gates to refugee-migrant invaders. And the premier Western Power, the US, was still ruled by the 'greatest generation' types who were white and Christian. Back then, most US politicos and diplomats(other than vicious Jews) wouldn't have been appalled by someone like Viktor Orban or Polish Catholic nationalists. Though US empire had its own form of hegemony during the Cold War, the US was willing to acknowledge that different nations have different peoples, traditions, cultures, and values. But things changed drastically when Jews took over as the new elites of the West. Also, the sacralization of the Shoah meant that Jews were to be regarded as wise men and gurus. They were the new holy men of the West, and white elites in both sides of the Atlantic listened with rapt attention at whatever the Holy Holocaust People had to say. Of course, Jewish Wisdom, for all their highfalutin talk, really amounted to, "Hmmmm, Is it good for the Jews?"
Today, the Jewish-controlled US empire cannot tolerate any powerful, independent, or genuinely patriotic leader in its satellite states. Someone like Charles DeGaulle would give the US deep state a heart attack. It has to be someone like Hollande or Macron. And look at the worthless leaders of UK, total cucks to Jews. Gone are the Christian-Democrats. All that is left are Globo-Homo-Cuckrats. If the US were still ruled by the kind of people dominant in government in the 70s and 80s, it's likely(though not for sure) that the US would have good relations with current Hungary and even Russia. But with Jews at the helm, it simply isn't possible. Jews are hostile to nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity in Russia, Poland, and Hungary for the same reason they are hostile to them in the US.
In the 80s, the newly liberated Eastern European nations were glad to be freed from the Soviet Empire and looked toward a future where they could have democracy and national sovereignty. But as Jews took over the US and gained control of Western elite minds, the whole situation turned into one big bait-and-switch. Globalism demands that Eastern European nations abandon their sovereignty, impugn their nationalism, welcome tons of Africans/Muslims, encourage sluttony among women, and plant the Jewish-Victory globo-homo flags all over, especially inside churches. We saw what Jews did to Russia by funding Pussy Riot to desecrate churches. If Taliban are purists who blow up Buddhist statues, Jews are puerilites who use anarcho-tyranny to desecrate icons and symbols sacred to white and Christian folks.
Anyway, back to the matter of will...
The Romans could still have prevented the downfall and the sack of Rome. They still had the men and the material. But they failed to. They lost the will. Russians in 1917 still could have prevented the Bolshevik takeover. Most Russians weren't that radical. But Romans had lost the heart to unite and fight. Today, we see a similar lack of will among whites. It could be apathy, fear, confusion, disillusionment, hedonism, or whatever. But one thing for sure, so many whites are no longer willing to take action. Even white patriots in the South do NOTHING while their monuments are attacked and taken down. And white Europeans must know that endless immigration will lead to White Nakba and bring about the end of European civilization. But most of them have no will to fight for blood and land. Indeed, many welcome the destruction or replacement of their civilization as 'salvation'. And even though Jews are at the heart of the beast attacking the white race, few dare name the Jew.
Perhaps, one reason for the lack of will and general apathy/confusion is the veneer of political continuity. After all, most people in the US and Western Europe believe that they are living in the same democratic political system, the one they'd known for their entire lifetime. In the US, the democratic system is 250 yrs old. In Western Europe, it either goes back centuries or were established after WWII. And given how democracy served the US pretty well and also did wonders for post-war Europe, perhaps most whites in US and EU believe they must stick with the system. But this is really an illusion. The Jewish takeover of the West profoundly altered the ideological and cultural landscape. The institutions may be the same, but the internals are fundamentally different. West has gone from liberal national democracy to mandatorian tribal supremacy. Western Europe and Canada can no longer be considered free or liberal. They are ruled by Jewish supremacist anarcho-tyranny. Free speech is dead in EU and Canada by Law, and it is effectively dead in the US because of deep state collusion between Jewish Big Tech, Jewish Media, Jewish Finance, Jewish control of courts & law firms, and Jewish State. And of course, Jews control academia and push stuff like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, and whatever other nonsense to neuter white identity and power.
Suppose the Catholic Church remained intact institutionally but the personnel changed from God-fearing Christians to Devil-worshiping Satanists who replaced holy icons with globo-homo symbols. From sacrament to excrement. Same church but entirely different doctrine and agenda. Of course, pope Francis is a servant of deviltry, a crypto-globo-homo psycho-freak who takes it up the arse from the Jews. Catholic Church is no longer what it is; it is now all about serving satanism. Jewish Power maintained the shell of (liberal)democracy but altered the rules so profoundly that the West is no longer what it was. So, people need to wake up and stop believing they are living in the same democracy. It is really a 'demonocracy' controlled by Jewish supremacists. It's like Twitter isn't Twitter anymore. It appears to be the same social platform, but its Terms of Services changed so much that it can even ban the President of the US and shut down information because it doesn't comport with Jewish Supremacist 'schwience'. It's like THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS or THE THING. In both movies, the outer features of the victims remain the same but they've been fundamentally altered at the core, at the soul-level. When idiot whites ceded power to the Jews(as the Holy Holocaust People), Jews used their shylockery to tear out the heart of the West in a ritual far more consequential than any Aztec sacrifice. And the original heart was replaced with another one, the cuck-heart. It was a stealth revolution, and unless whites wake up to this fact and Name the Jewish Supremacism, there can only be slow death for them.
"...a key paradox of Communism is that it retards progress. Under it, China smelled Taiwan’s and Singapore’s exhaust. North Korea is decades behind South Korea. Guided by Pol Pot, Cambodians marched into the Stone Age... State monopolies stunt collective and individual growth. How can they not? Worse, government tyranny degrades individuals, when not killing them, by the millions. Still, Communism seduces, because it’s 'progressive'."
Communism is both radical and conservative in spirit, hardly surprising as it's a deeply moralistic ideology that developed in reaction to the revolutionary upheavals of capitalism. Remember that Karl Marx himself recognized capitalism as the most transformative system developed by mankind. It was most extreme and 'radical' in changing all forms of human relations and interactions. It destroyed entire communities and created new ones. It changed the way people thought and felt about values and their place in the world. Such breakneck pace led to much that was useful and good but also much that was alienating and soulless. Marx recognized that capitalism's power was such that the genie could not be put back in the bottle. There was no going back. All that communists could do was wait for contradictions of capitalism to finally come to a head and unleash a revolution whereby workers would take over the means of production led by the dictatorship of communist moralists and intellectuals. This vision was radical, yet it was also conservative in that Marx hoped for a stable future where things wouldn't change so drastically. In the communist future, human needs would not be sacrificed at the altar of profits and growth. Communists would inherit the means of production and wealth created by capitalism(and could only have been created by it) but, once in charge, they would regulate the pace of historical change so that society would serve the masses of workers than insatiable bourgeois greed for more profits. Thus, even though further 'progress' may be stunted in such a communist order, people would come before profits. The social order wouldn't be upset just so some capitalists could make more money. Such emphasis on stability and balance was, in key aspects, conservative.
Still, Marx's vision of communism depended on historical processes made possible by capitalism. Thus, Marxism is less anti-capitalist than post-capitalist. Marx didn't argue that communism is the way to build an economy. He conceded nothing beats capitalism in wealth creation, technological innovation, urbanization, and emergence of mass consciousness. But he believed capitalism to be too ruthless and rootless for the good of the masses. Also, the bourgeois notion of individualism was illusory because only a handful of oligarchs controlled the key means of information and communication. And only a small number of people could really enjoy leisure and the arts. There was the bigger problem of rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. And these contradictions would eventually lead to mass uprisings that made communist revolution inevitable... or so Marx prophesied.
One problem of communism in the 20th century was it mostly impacted societies that hadn't undergone the capitalist-industrial revolution. (As it turned out, established capitalism proved to be endlessly adaptive in meeting mass demands, distracting the masses with bread & circuses, and/or buying off the radicals with sinecures in the system.) The few exceptions were East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and to some extent Hungary. Unsurprisingly, communism was least bloody in those nations(though far from bloodless). But in nations where communism had to be used as a building tool for industry, it was bound to be bloody, not least because of pressures from capitalist/imperialist nations. After all, Russian communism was encircled by capitalist powers that, at one time, even sent troops into Russia(as US and its allies are today in Syria) to nip the revolution in the bud. So, there was a sense that unless Russia quickly built up industry, it would be destroyed. What it took capitalist nations a century to develop had to be done in a decade or two, and this led to the use of mass coercion and even state slavery. Russian Communism, far from inheriting the bitter but bountiful fruits of capitalism, would have to grow the industrial tree. It was even truer of China that, in the first half of the 20th century, made Tsarist Russia look like a modern nation. Also, endless civil strife and Japanese invasion destroyed what little industrial economy had been developed under the KMT. (And so, the current Chinese government argues, though rather disingenuously, that it must allow some degree of capitalism to develop the kind of modern economy that allows for a true transition to a communist economy.)
As for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, they are not entirely useful models of capitalist success because their growth depended so much on being part of the US empire. (Also, US capitalism could be far more generous than European capitalism because America has the best land and resources in the world. US empire needn't be as extractive of other parts of the world as the European imperialist economies did.) Had the US denied Japan and the 'Asian tigers' market access to American consumers, how far could their economies have grown? (While South Korea has often been compared with North Korea, what would happen to its economy if the US and its allies applied the kind of economic pressure faced by the northern half?) Even as their economies grew, they became ever more dependent on US whims and thus became political puppets of America; they have zero sovereignty, whereas Asian nations that developed from a communist foundation, like China and Vietnam, are relatively more sovereign.
In the case of Asia, the appeal of communism had partly to do with moralism and social justice(owing to their Confucian past) but also to its promise of anti-imperialism. Though Chinese Communists rejected Confucianism, their ideal vision was to a large extent a refurbishment of the Old Way. Confucius believed a good society should be governed by philosopher kings and a wise scholar-class; he also regarded peasants as the salt of the earth, a people of virtue. He had nothing but disdain for the merchant-business class as parasitic. Asian communism essentially replaced the scholar-class with revolutionary elites and replaced the peasants with the proletariat(though Mao made a big deal of peasants as a revolutionary force; Gandhi also favored the peasants). But moreover, many Asians were attracted to communism because Russia declared itself a friend of non-white peoples under European imperialism-colonialism. Also, before the new US-dominated order of post-WWII era, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism in most of the world. The system was rigged so that industry would be centered in the European metropole while the Third World would be used mainly for raw materials and basic manpower. Because Chinese and Vietnamese communists came to political consciousness in the first half of the 20th century when capitalism was rigged in favor of the West, they tended to see US-led capitalism of the post-war era in the same way, i.e. US capitalists would continue to do what the Europeans did. They failed to realize that US capitalism allowed for all nations to participate in world markets and develop their own industries. But then, US played it both ways to confuse the matter. At certain times, the US sided with the Third World against the Europeans, as in the Suez Crisis. But at other times, US pulled off coups, as in Guatemala and Iran, that forestalled any lurch toward 'socialism'. In the case of Vietnam, US aided the French against the Viet Minh after World War II, convincing the Vietnamese communist-patriots that the Americans were a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.
It's debatable to what extent the Cold War had a humanizing or dehumanizing effect on US foreign policy. Did the Soviet-Communist Threat make the US kinder and more generous to the Third World to win hearts and minds? Or, did the US dig in its heels and support loathsome regimes just to contain communism? Probably both depending on the place and setting. One thing for sure, the ebbing of communist threat in the 1980s made the US less knee-jerk supportive of dictatorial regimes in Asia and Latin America. But then, following the total demise of the USSR, the US empire grew more arrogant and aggressive, especially against the Middle East at the behest of Jewish Power. And the 'new cold war' is entirely the doing of the Jewish-run US. (This suggests that the rise of Jewish Supremacist Power than the fall of communism was mainly to blame for the rising obnoxiousness of US foreign policy. If not for Jewish domination, would there have been all these wars in the Middle East and North Africa? Would there have been a 'new cold war' with Russia or all this anti-Russia hysteria?)
Oddly enough, it's arguable that the societies that most closely resembled Karl Marx's vision of the communist future were post-war US and Western Europe. While they retained capitalist economic systems, the government played a powerful role to level the playing fields and to restrain runaway 'greed'. It's no wonder that Noam Chomsky thinks that US from 50s to 60s was the golden age where wealth distribution was most egalitarian. High taxation(at over 90%) and powerful labor unions(and limited immigration) meant that capitalists couldn't act like Jeff Bezos, Koch Brothers, and Tim Cook(the Crook). This New Deal America and Marshall Plan Europe took pains to spread the wealth around. Capitalism remained and continued to operate on the basis of profits, but through taxation and the power of collective bargaining by big labor, there was a burgeoning middle class that became the majorities in US and Europe. Of course, Karl Marx envisioned a total collapse of capitalism, and Marxists scoffed at the notion of 'social democracy' as a craven compromise with capitalists; Marxists felt the same way about fascism. Still, the postwar order was quasi-Marxist-lite in that the vast pools of workers were allowed to share in the fruits of capitalism like never before. Among Western European nations, Labour-led UK came closest to Marxism when big labor attained unprecedented power and when big industries were nationalized.
Now, even if a communist order were to inherit the wealth of fallen capitalism, it is doubtful it would function well for long. Just imagine the city hall running all the industries. Imagine New York city hall running all the hotels, restaurants, apartments, factories, shops, and etc., and it's obvious why things would run slowly if at all. It'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. This is why even communist nations experimented with some degree of privatization and small business to provide incentives to people to work harder and be more productive. Now, some Marxists condemned bureaucratized communism and argued for something closer to voluntary-anarchism made up of local communities working closely together along democratic lines. Israeli Kibbutz works along these lines, but still, people feel most free when they can run businesses or look for jobs on their own.
"government tyranny degrades individuals"
It can but not necessarily. Tyranny can also save individuals as humans are pretty self-degrading. Can tyranny degrade a population? Sure, we are witnessing it now in the West with the Deep State oligarchy pushing all sorts of degeneracy such as globo-homo, trashy feminism, Afro-mania, Jewish egotism, mainstreaming of pornography, and the like. In the past, decadence was a matter of freedom in a liberal democracy. Today, it's mandatory as all of us are forced to bake cakes for 'gay wedding', refer to a man with a wig as a 'she', pretend blacks are angels when too many are thugs, celebrate 'slut pride' as 'empowerment', and honor Jews as all-knowing & all-wise when so many of them are insipid a-holes like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. Besides, true liberal democracy is dead in the West where the so-called 'free press' works hand in glove with the deep state and encourages censorship in media monopoly and internet platforms. Today's 'liberals' are elitist scolds who work for Zionists and the Deep State than defend the rights of free speech and free assembly. Just ask BDS supporters how 'liberal democracy' works in the West. Under the new system, decadence and degeneracy are not merely individual choices but the official value system of the Empire of Judea. Today, most politicians in cities are COMPELLED to march in 'gay pride' parades. The current system gives the lie to the notion of individualism. While capitalist systems were more individualist than communist ones, the current rulers of West fear genuine individualism. Prior to the rise of the internet, nearly all of information and discussion were dominated by a handful of corporations and elite institutions. Internet gave rise to true individualism, for good or bad. So, what did the Power do? The Power rigged the game so that a handful of oligarchs, mostly Jews, would gain platform monopoly and shut down individual voices that deviated from the official dogma. Jewish Power also used financial power to make it nearly impossible for dissidents to make any money. Jewish Power made McCarthyism look like kid-stuff by using whatever means to have any dissident fired and blacklisted from jobs. So much for individualism. For a time, the internet offered a hope for true individualism in thought, ideas, and exchange of information, but Jewish Power gained dominance as gate-keepers of news, search algorithms, and money. While dissidents are not shot in the back of the head or dragged off to gulags and there are alt-tech sites, the fact of the matter is that most voices are irrelevant or inconsequential without access to the main square of debate and discussion.
Most damaging is that all this censorship goes under the label 'liberalism' when it is directly opposed to the very spirit of liberalism. But labels matter, and as long as Jewish-Tribal illiberalism goes under the name of 'liberalism', so many people will be fooled into believing, "I support PC and censorship, and that makes me 'liberal'." What operates in the West is a kind of selective tyranny. It allows and even encourages total unfettered freedom in certain areas — foul language, anti-white hatred, tattoos & piercings, green/purple hair, globo-homo-tranny trashiness, black thuggery, white self-loathing, horny for Zion, video game violence, alcohol & drugs, sacrilege against Christianity, etc. — while suppressing the kind of freedom, no matter how soft-spoken or genteel, that dares to speak the truth about Jewish Power, black crime, deep state corruption, homo decadence, and tranny lunacy. Antifa can burn down police stations and BLM can riot and loot, but Jared Taylor cannot use Paypal and Stefan Molyneux can't have a channel on Youtube. Because certain expressions and actions are given free rein while others are censored or penalized on account of them being 'hate speech'(therefore not legitimate as expressions of freedom), the current West fools itself(and many around the world) that it is indeed free. Imagine an order where a white woman has the choice of having sex with a black man or not having sex with him. Such would be genuinely liberal. But suppose the New Order says she MUST have sex with him because to reject him would be 'racist' and 'hateful'. In other words, she no longer has choice and must accept even interracial rape while the very notion of saying 'no' to sex with a black man becomes 'hateful'. This is what has happened with the Homo issue. When the West was closer to the liberal ideal, one could choose to be homo or to support homo interests. But it was not compulsory. But then, 'gay wedding' was forced on all the nation, and all businesses must bake 'gay wedding' cakes. And politicians must march in 'pride' parades and praise homos to high heaven, just like all politicians MUST praise Jews and Israel. It's not a matter of choice. As such, the current West is really a rape victim of Jews, homos, and blacks. It cannot say NO, not even to illegal immigration-invasion. No matter what Jews, homos, and blacks demand, we must grovel and give. We don't have a choice. Jews want billions more in aid to Israel? It has to be given. Homos want the entire month of June as their month to take over cities and prance around? Roll out the pink carpet. And what is truly disgusting is that the great majority of Americans, even so-called 'conservatives', are fine with this or even impassioned about it. So much for individualism. If people in the West are indeed individuals, why are they so sheep-like and so easily swayed hither-thither? How did a nation that was mostly anti-'gay marriage' become pro-'gay marriage' in such short a time? How truly degrading.
Communist tyranny for the most part could be brutal, repressive, exasperating, torturous, and even murderous, but it wasn't generally degrading. It was like theocratic tyranny. In this, Godless communism had something in common with Christian tyranny and Islamic tyranny(the kind one finds in Saudi Arabia and Iran). It was intensely moralistic and placed great emphasis on basic virtues. It had little tolerance for decadence, degeneracy, deviance, and etc. It emphasized one's duty to society, social justice, and the basic necessities of man. It extolled human virtues. The problem is we are not angels, and we don't want to be scolded all day and night. It's like even most hardcore Christians don't want to live in a theocratic order and be preached endlessly. Even most Muslims don't want to live under Islamic tyranny. And the Middle Ages in Europe was a rather gloomy period under the power of the Church. And Catholic Spain under Franco was hardly a fun place. And some find the Neo-Christianism of today's Russia to be inching toward repression. However, all such are not degrading. They may be stultifying and boring — like what kids feel sitting in churches when they really want to go outside and play — , but they are not degrading. Today, UK that allows the 'freedom' of LGBT parades is degrading whereas the 'authoritarian' Russia that forbids such is not degrading. Today, 'free' Japan is a far more degrading place than repressive China that does NOT allow pornography, approve of globo-homo, or encourage green hair/tattoos/piercings on the national airwaves. South Korea and Taiwan under military dictatorships in the past were far less degrading than their current incarnations of globo-homo, K-pop degeneracy, hedonism, materialism, and etc. Like Shane said of the gun, freedom is only as good as the people who use it. 60s Counterculture proved how freedom can be used to degrade an entire population with indulgence in sex, drugs, and youth culture. And all those white working class folks who died of opioid overdose wallowed in self-degradation of substance-abuse. Terrible use of freedom. Of course, the rotten ruling elites didn't care. (If white goyim sold drugs that killed off innumerable Jews, the media would have been outraged, but goyim are mere sheeple to Jews who run the media. Whether white goyim or Arab goyim, they are expendable in service to Jewish profits and power.) Russia under globalist 'liberal democratic' rule during the Boris Yeltsin years was one of the most depraved and degrading places on Earth. Some would argue that Vladimir Putin hasn't been 'tyrannical' enough in asserting Russian values and Russia's place in the world. 'Free' Weimar Germany was far more degrading than dictatorial National Socialist Germany, at least until Hitler's pathology went into high gear and set off crazy wars.
Now, there were certain cases of communism that were indeed degrading for two reasons: Cult of Personality and the Politics of Hysterics. Cult of Personality, whether of Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Ceausescu, and etc. is always degrading because it demands that people look up to some person as god-like. If people must worship, let it be God, gods, or some holy stuff. When people look up to a person as an infallible godlike figure, right or left, it can only be degrading. This is why the MLK and Mandela cults are also harmful. It's one thing to say that those men achieved great things, but it's quite another to elevate them to near-godhood. It's of a childish mentality. And then, there is the Politics of Hysterics, with the Cultural Revolution in China being the most obvious case. Same goes for religious fervor. Christians and Muslims were most dangerous when they got into the mode of inquisition, crusade, or jihad. 'With God on ouqr side', they felt they could do no wrong; whatever terror or evil they committed was in the name of God. Same has been true of communism. While communist systems generally favored stability and order, they could turn rabid at times and unleash purges and mass hysteria like the one that rocked China in the late 60s, leading to mass destruction of peoples and property. Such hysteria can only be degrading because insane passions override any potential for reason and equilibrium. But such lunacies are not limited to communism or theocracies. In Jewish-ruled West, we've witnessed the hysteria of cultural degeneracy. In some ways, it's more disgusting than communist and theocratic extremes because, whereas communism and religions have moralism as foundations, decadence/degeneracy is inherently immoral or, at best, amoral; therefore, to turn an immorality or amorality into the highest moral passion is ludicrous. It's really a form of secular satanism. (Decadence has value as a freedom, not a virtue. In a free society, people should be allowed a degree of decadence and vice, as people are somewhere between animal and angel. Decadence is to be tolerated, not extolled. Besides, creativity flows partly from the darker and subversive side of man. If communism failed because it demanded people be angels, the current global order is failing because it mandates people be animals whose main passions are tattoos, piercings, porn, rap, globo-homo, Negro-worship. It's like the dynamics of truth and lies. Ideally, we should prefer the truth over lies. And yet, it's a tall order to expect society to be built entirely on the truth. People naturally lie all the time. Also, even if everyone were committed to the truth, no one can know the whole truth, and everyone has blinders on, no matter how sincere he or she may be in devotion to the truth. As such, a society that is wholly committed to the truth and nothing but the truth would be a bad one. Communism was such an order that insisted that the dialectical materialism of Marxism-Leninism was the scientific truth, and there could be no other. Many communists were wholly sincere in their beliefs, but such purist radicalization of Truth led to a reign of fear because anyone accused of spreading lies or falsehood, usually 'bourgeois' in nature, could be destroyed. But as history has shown, no man, no matter how intelligent-wise-or-visionary, could figure it all out and know all the truth. Karl Marx was not the last prophet who finally revealed the eternal truth no matter how much his acolytes were convinced of it. But it doesn't have to be communism. Any order that claims the monopoly of truth, even with utmost sincerity, is bound to go bad because it's pure moral hubris for any person or order to know everything. So, modern democracy came up with a system that is dedicated to seeking the truth but also tolerates 'lies' and 'falsehoods'. Part of the reason for tolerance is the acceptance of human nature as flawed — lying comes naturally to people, and everyone does it — , but the other reason is the 'lie' could turn out to be the truth while the official or conventional 'truth' could turn out to be the lie or falsehood. Many 'conspiracy theories' have proved to be true, while many conventional narratives have proved to be false. But, the West is no longer that kind of system, one that generally favors the truth but has room for lies. The current West is for favoring and even forcing the Lie while suppressing the truth. Unlike early communists who sincerely believed in the truth of Marxism, the current Jewish ruling elites don't believe anything they push. They surely know a man with a wig is NOT a 'woman'. They surely know that Jews were not guiltless through history, i.e. Jews were as often villains as victims. They knew Russia Collusion narrative was total baloney. They said Covid-19 is going to kill us all, but it suddenly didn't matter for the rioters, looters, and 'peaceful protesters'. They surely know BLM is based on an utter lie; why else did they reduce crime in New York with stop-and-frisk policies? In other words, the current Jewish Power is actively pushing what they know to be total lies. Not only are they pushing the BS but they are cramming it down our throats and ramming it up our arse. It's beyond mind-f***ing; it's more like mind-rape or mental-nakba as people are FORCED to swallow the BS... or else. And since truth, backed by honesty and courage, will mention that the Emperor wears no clothes, it must be actively suppressed. If a system that, in total commitment to the truth, forbids lies is bad enough, imagine a system that forbids truth in total commitment to the lie; alas, that is the state of the current West. People are now being 'canceled' left and right for having expressed a view, no matter how truthful, that stands in the way of what the Jewish elites know to be the Big Lie. If even systems devoted to the truth end up as an empire of lies, as were the cases with theocracies and communism, just imagine the future of a system that is fundamentally built on lies. This is why 'gay marriage' was so dangerous to civilization. It destroyed the truth of the most basic and meaningful bio-social-moral institution with the lie that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality, i.e. homo-fecal-penetration among men and tranny-penis-cutting-and-fake-vagina-attainment are the biological equivalents of the process that produces life and perpetuates the species. But then, that lie was the product of another big lie, the cult of moral perfection of Jews built on the Holocaust Narrative that spread the lie that, just because Jews suffered horribly in WWII, they were cleansed of all sins for all their past, present, and future behavior.)
Among communist regimes, the Cambodian and North Korean stand out. Khmer Rouge was more like a Jim Jones Cult. It took the ruralism of Mao and Gandhi and pushed it to the limit. North Korea was ruled more like a dynasty, and the father-to-son transition of power was more in keeping with the Chiang Kai-Shek's son taking power in Taiwan and Lee Kuan Yew's son taking the helm in Singapore. Also, their anti-intellectualism went beyond anything seen in other communist nations with the possible exceptions of China during the Cultural Revolution and Stalinist Albania. Cambodian and North Korean communisms were extreme opposites of one another. Khmer Rouge had no use for industry and relied purely on peasantry in the countryside. Also, its rule relied on quasi-anarchic gangs of brainwashed youths who roamed around to torture and kill anyone deemed heretical or tainted. It was a system of terror but decentralized. In contrast, North Korea emphasized heavy industry and total top-down control, a communist Sparta minus the style. Khmer Rouge-ism was inspired by Maoism at its zaniest(Great Leap and Cultural Revolution), whereas North Korean system was based on Stalinism and traditional Oriental Despotism. Still, even most communist nations loathed the Cambodian case; the Chinese supported it only to contain Vietnamese influence. And North Korea was so brainlessly Stalinist even after De-Stalinization in Russia that it became a running joke in Warsaw Pact nations. Also, even though irony wasn't much appreciated in communism, the Iron Curtain nations weren't without a sense of humor as a coping mechanism against authorities. In contrast, the more earnest and obedient mass mentality of North Koreans made for a more childlike and stupid trust in authority and the cult of personality of the Great Leader. As ruthless as Stalin was, he wasn't without intellect and culture, and there were cultural achievements in the USSR. Mao, though sometimes crazy, was a genuine visionary with a powerful sense of destiny. North Vietnamese leaders, though committed to a brutal ideology, were men of intelligence and talent. In contrast, Khmer Rouge guys were just nuts, and Kim Il-Sung was a third-rate hack with full-blown megalomania. In contrast, most Iron Curtain rulers were second-rate hacks with middling egotism; they had their own little cults of personality but within limits, and they had no intention nor the means to transfer power to their own children. (Oddly enough, the communist savagery of the Khmer Rouge was exposed by another communist nation, Vietnam. Generally, even as communist nations were at loggerheads with one another, they didn’t expose each other’s atrocities. Red China didn’t spill much ink about Soviet mass killings, and Soviets didn’t make too much fuss about mass deaths in China. But when Vietnam took over Cambodia, they made sure to expose the horrible crimes of the Khmer Rouge. It was a useful way to justify the invasion and to shame China as an enabler of this most loathsome regime. Even as the US acknowledged the evil of the Khmer Rouge, the CIA worked with China in the 80s to aid Khmer Rouge remnants in Thailand to ‘resist’ the Vietnamese occupiers. A total shi*fest.)
Aftermath of the Khmer Rouge madness
Ceausescu and Kim Il-Sung
Those on the 'right' have condemned the recent 'woke' mobs, BLM thugs, and antifa lunatics as 'communists' and the like, and there is certainly some similarity between their nuttery and radical excesses under communism, especially during the Cultural Revolution in China. But when it comes to iconoclasm, Christians and Muslims have been no slouches either. So many pagan temples were ground to dust by Christian mobs. Later, Catholics and Protestants went about slaughtering one another. Even now, Muslim extremists, aided by cynical US and Israel, destroy ancient temples and monuments all over Iraq and Syria. Also, the sheer lack of resistance to the current rampage in the West shows that capitalism has done its part in turning the masses into amnesiac zombies who've lost any meaningful connection to the past and feel no outrage in the destruction. And arguably, worse than physical destruction of churches is the spiritual desecration of them with globo-homo and BLM symbols. Do god and jesus serve homo degeneracy or worship black megalomania as the highest form of holiness?
At the very least, communism emphasized social justice for the masses, the workers who produced things and did real work. Also, communism didn't favor one group over another. While most communism was nationalist, it didn't say one nation of people was better than another nation of people. It was willing to put the past behind and let communist nations move forward together as a brotherhood of peoples. In other words, Russians were not good simply because they were Russian. Or Germans were not bad simply because they were German. This is in total contrast to what now prevails in the West with identity-idolatry, or 'identolatry', especially of Jews, blacks, and homos. According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are good, even holy, simply because they're Jews, blacks, and homos. It's not a matter of content of their character or validity of their actions; they are simply good because of their identities. So, we must support and praise Jews no matter what they do to Palestinians, what they do in the Middle East or around the world. Jews know best and are the best no matter what they do because of who they ARE. And look at the BLM madness. Blacks kill each other and other races. Blacks are top thugs and criminals. But blackness is to be eternally identified with what happened to Emmitt Till and in the Civil Rights Movement. So, never mind that blacks can do good things or bad things. Never mind that injustice can be done to blacks but blacks can also do injustice onto others. Never mind all that and just fixate on blackness as eternally tied to the Civil Rights Movement and 'We Shall Overcome'. So, if blacks don't want to pay at Starbucks, they must be extolled as angels. If blacks pull off one Hate Hoax after another, it's always a 'teachable moment'. If blacks cause all sorts of problems in schools and get suspended, we have the likes of Obama and others lecturing us that it's due to 'systemic racism'. As for homos, never mind that many of them serve in the Deep State and work as goons for CIA and Zion to spread wars all over the world. Never mind HIV crisis was the result of disgusting out-of-control 'gay' behavior. It doesn't matter what Homos do. They are to be celebrated and cheered simply for what they ARE. According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are great simply for what they ARE. They can never do wrong; indeed they are right even when they're wrong. PC says most non-whites(minus blacks) are to be judged by what they DO. So, if they do good, they're good while doing good, and if they do bad, they're bad while doing bad. As for whites, they are bad simply for what they ARE. It doesn't matter how much good they do because they ARE intrinsically bad, and therefore no amount of good done by whites can absolve them of their 'original sin' of black slavery and 'eternal sin' of the Holocaust. (But even this formulation of white sin is based on identity-idolatry. Why was American slavery worse? Because Northern Europeans enslaved BLACKS. And why was the Shoah worse? Because JEWS were killed. In other words, some victims are more equal than others.)
At the very least, communism didn't play such games with identity-idolatry. While recognizing Nazi-German crimes, it didn't turn Jews into Eternal Saints. Neither did communism condemn Germans as Forever-Villains who must atone til the end of time for what happened in WWII. As long as Germans were willing to work together with other nations, they could have their national pride. Also, the emphasis was on workers and basic virtues. Communism had nothing to do with globo-homo decadence, tattoos-piercings & other forms of degeneracy, skanky slut-pride, Afro-jiver neo-savagery, promotion of unfettered narcissism, mindless youth culture, and the like, all of which are the staple of Antifa, BLM, Western Feminism, LGBTQ nonsense, and etc. Antifa is more 'gayday' than Mayday. So-called Portland 'communists' are dominated by trannies with ties to rich capitalist oligarchs who did everything to undermine working class consciousness. Besides, the current BLM and Antifa violence got the green-light go-ahead from Jewish oligarch-capitalists who decided to stick it to Trump and White America.
In the two videos below, can anyone find anything remotely associated with Antifa anarchy, slut pride, 'gay' vanity, anti-white vitriol, mindless identity-idolatry of Jews-blacks-homos, and the Great Replacement? Notice East German nationalism was perfectly acceptable as long as Germans acknowledged the humanity of other nations. Also, communist feminism wasn't anti-male. It merely said women deserve same basic rights and could serve as labor force. It was about men and women having equal dignity, not about nasty Jewish bitches and lesbians spreading anti-male hatred for narrow agendas: Jewish bitches tell white bitches to hate white men, and lesbian bitches tell women that they should prefer carpet-munching to real sex with men.
As much as I detest communism, all of Europe would now be better off if it had come under Soviet rule after WWII. It's no accident that men like Viktor Orban emerged in former-communist Hungary. Now, to an extent, their patriotism is a reaction against the memory of communism(and Soviet domination), but it is just as much an extension of what had been socially conservative and nationalist under communism. Indeed, the future of Poland seems grim because the younger generation has been so 'pozzed' by Western capitalism. Many young Poles put their people & nation behind globalist priorities of appeasing Jews, celebrating homos, worshiping Negroes, and welcoming Great Replacement in the name of Diversity. They want to go the way of the Irish who now welcome the Great Replacement and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Likewise, even though communism put China and Vietnam economically behind Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which nations are now more independent and hopeful in the next 50 yrs? Japan, SK, and Taiwan are utterly decadent and demographically doomed; politically and ideologically, they are total whores of globo-homo US. Incredibly enough, as miserable as North Korea is, it may survive as a people/culture in the next 50 yrs while South Korea, along with Taiwan, becomes an Asian Ireland.) Ideally, a healthy traditionalism and conservatism should serve as balance against liberalism and progress. But the pace of change under capitalism has been such that the past has been left behind in the dust. For most people in the West and East, Pop Culture is the only culture left. How ironic then that communism, though a radical ideology, served as a substitute-conservatism against the tireless change wrought by capitalism that produces so many fashions that relegate tradition to a distant memory, if that.
"...there’s a small double portrait of Tito and Ceau?escu, the Romanian Communist dictator. Thanks to Jewish brainwashing, only right-wing despots are condemned, while genocidal Commie leaders are lionized as great leaders of 'the people.' Communism bred, challenged and inspired Fascism... As for Tito, he’s often depicted as not so bad, but any man who runs a country for nearly three decades without an election is clearly a dictator."
Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceausescu were not good guys and certainly not nice guys. But they have to be seen in context. Romania was a key ally of Nazi Germany in World War II and paid dearly for it. Naturally, the Soviets installed their communist puppet. Still, Ceausescu was able to forge a rather independent course for Romania. In 1968, he refused to join with other Warsaw Pact nations in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and he was wooed by the West as an independent kind of communist leader. His regime was rotten to the core, but some Romanians look back with certain fondness because their nation has benefited little since the fall of communism. In certain respects, things have gotten worse. (As bad as Ceausescu was, he was no worse than the creeps who run the Western Deep State. Of course, the difference was he had more power to imprison and kill people. Still, in terms of moral character, was he worse than George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist creeps at NYT & CNN, the goons at CIA & FBI, the scum that run Wall Street? Ceaucescu's wife was an idiot, but so is Michelle Obama the phony. And even though Western elites cannot do to their own people what communist regimes did, they sure have no qualms about killing countless people abroad. Look at Iraq and Syria. But in a way, even Ceausescu wasn't as evil and verminous as the current cuck-leaders of the West who push for Great Replacement against their own peoples. In my book, 'Mama Merkel' is worse. Emmanuel Macron who calls for the Africanization of France is immeasurably more evil. Justin Trudeau is a bigger joke. Boris Johnson who completed Brexit but welcomes endless immigration-invasion of UK by Africans and Muslims is many times worse.)
Communists came to power in Yugoslavia because the fascist Croats during World War II, as stooges of Nazi Germans, carried out all manner of atrocities, especially against Serbs. Naturally, under the circumstances, the pride of resistance fell to those on the Far Left. In contrast, as the Polish Right had rejected any alliance with Germany, it constituted the main resistance against both Germans and Soviets following the invasion in 1939. Tito is a strange case because he initially criticized Stalin for being too soft. Soviets condemned his 'adventurism', and to save himself from Soviet pressure(and possible invasion), he turned anti-Stalinist. Thus, Yugoslavian neutrality during the Cold War was mostly accidental. Still, the reason why some still have a soft spot for Tito is due to what happened AFTER communism. While the diverse makeup of Yugoslavia was always volatile, the US poured gasoline on the fire and ignited a 'civil war' to draw most of the newly formed republics to the West while isolating and destroying Serbia that remained close to Russia. Given the horrors that ensued and economic problems since, it's understandable why some look back to the relative stability of the Tito years.
While it's true that Jewish Power generally goes easier on leftist than rightist rulers, it's more a case of "Is it good for Jews?" Saudi Arabia could be deemed ultra-right as a theocratic state, but it's been protected by the Jewish-run media, more or less. Meanwhile, Assad of Syria has been far more liberal and modern but much condemned as a 'butcher' because Israel hate him as ally of Iran. Current Jewish Power hates the leftist rulers of Venezuela because of their ties with Russia and Iran. Meanwhile, Jewish Power works cozily with quasi-Nazi types in Ukraine. If Adolf Hitler had been kind to Jews, Jews would probably not hate him so much even if he had killed bushels of Slavs and Gypsies. Jews don't seem to be virulently anti-Mussolini because, for most of Fascist Italian rule, Il Duce was friendly with Jews and had many Jews in the regime; also, Jews tend to identify more with swarthy Italians. There are few Jews who still defend Stalin. Jews hated Stalin as the guy who purged Leon Trotsky and other Jewish Bolsheviks. Then, because of Stalin's defeat of Nazi Germany, he was much appreciated by Jews once again, but when Stalin and later Soviet leaders sided with Arabs against Israel, the World Jewry increasingly became anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet in general. From the 70s onward, Soviet regime was kinder to Russia nationalists than to Jewish Liberals. While Russian nationalists were ideologically rightist, they could at least be relied upon to be patriotic; in contrast, Jewish Liberals, though more on the left, were seen as untrustworthy cosmopolitans whose true loyalty was with the Global Tribe.
Ideally, rather than Liberal Democracy or communism, fascism should have dominated Europe. But, World War II happened. The good thing about fascism was it synthesized tradition with modernity and capitalism with socialism. And it infused them all with nationalism. But what it lacked was a strong sense of humanism, and this deficiency led to racial nihilism among Germans and hubris among Italians, and that led to problems that ignited World War II. If Hitler and Mussolini had been wiser like Kemal Ataturk and avoided war, it's likely that both the Liberal West and Communist East would have moved closer to the fascist model. Liberalism was too rootless while communism was too monomanical. But hubris led to war, and fascism got a bad name. Still, everything that works today is sub-fascist, a combination of nationalism with a useful blend of capitalism & socialism and tradition & modernity. Putin's Russia and Xi's China resemble this model. Iran too survives despite sanctions because of the fascist element. And the positive aspects of Israel(apart from the hubristic mode of Greater Israel and warmongering) owe to the fundamentally fascistic formulation of Zionism. https://www.bitchute.com/video/p3zUMUyBSHo/
Simply not true. Far fewer blacks were lynched than people were killed in a single major pogrom in Russia/Ukraine. From the end of the Civil War to the 1960s, a few thousand blacks were lynched and mostly for ghastly crimes. In any given year in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 30s, countless innocents were executed for NOTHING. The evil of lynchings plays a prominent role in the US moral narrative only because Americans have an overly idealistic view of their historical project. But lynchings have been common in all places and all times. It was often the primary way of justice in societies without strict enforcement of Rule of Law. Lynchings are and always have been commonplace in Africa. You can find all sorts of videos of blacks being lynched for stealing stuff in places like Nigeria and the Congo. Blacks know that nasty violence is the ONLY thing that blacks understand. Honor killings are common in the Middle East, Caucasus, and other parts of the world, and they can be as brutal as lynchings. And what was the American Indian form of justice? They tortured people to death in the most horrific ways. They made their victims sit on anthills and burned them to death. Now, none of this justifies the use of lynchings as means of justice. There should be courts and trials and all that. But much of US history was frontier history, and vigilantes sometimes took law into their own hands. Tragically, this led to innocents being killed or the guilty being killed in especially cruel ways. (But when we consider the fate of James Fields of Charlottesville notoriety, has American justice really improved? Talk about a kangaroo court. And what kind of a sane justice system allows 'gay marriage' while harassing bakeries to bankruptcy and ruin? And why aren't the war criminals and butchers of the US and Zion tried and executed like Saddam Hussein?) And in the South, whites resorted to lynching blacks because they knew blacks are tougher, stronger, and more aggressive. Whites felt that blacks needed a clear message that there will be serious repercussions for raping or murdering whites. Rough justice has been common in hard times. Take China. Big nation with lots of poor people. To keep the order, the government has been ruthless with crime. Executions by bullet to the back of the head have been common in China. In Philippines, the drug problem got so bad that Duterte promised to use death squads on drug gangs.
And while those who point out that there have been many race riots in the past are correct, they are fundamentally missing the key fact that the current 'race riots' are not 'just' race riots... The best proof of this... is that they have not only spread across the US... also spread to Europe and in Asia and Oceania... So what is going on here? ...we have to admit that what triggered this worldwide rash of protests is... second-hand exposure to a very specific narrative spread... by the legacy corporate ziomedia. I call this narrative 'Black is Beautiful'.
And this complicates matters. Outwardly, it would appear that good peoples of all colors and stripes around the world are standing up to the Evil Empire and calling out against American hegemony. They are resisting jingoistic White Supremacism! After all, they've been fed the Narrative that the US is controlled by White Privilege. For those who rely on the globalist Jewish Media, the Alt Right descended on Charlottesville and murdered innocent people. In truth, the US today isn't what it once was. Yes, the US was once ruled by what could be called 'white supremacists' by today's standards. (But give credit where it's due. The ONLY reason why people around the world want to come to America is because 'white supremacists' in the past conquered North America, imposed their will, and created a new order of industry, modernity, and rule of law. Who'd want to come to the US if it were still run by American Indians shooting arrows at bison or fleeing from Grizzlies? Or, who would want to come to the US if whites had allowed it to become like Peru or Venezuela, a mixed race hell-hole with whites as minority?) For some time now, the US has been controlled by Jewish Supremacists. But unlike the 'white supremacists' of yesteryear who said, 'We got the power', Jewish Supremacists are more like, "Yes, we have no bananas." It's like the fat Jewish guy in WOLF OF WALL STREET saying "It's not like that" to the question of whether he's married to his first cousin but then goes on to describe exactly that.
Woody Allen made a movie called BANANAS about a Banana Republic, but the US has turned into Yes-We-Have-No-Bananas-Republic.
Jews got the supreme power in the Empire, but they prop up the myth of White Supremacism. And that means so many dupes and minions around the world think Resistance amounts to railing against white supremacism as represented by the likes of Chauvin the cop when, if anything, those working-class cops(some of whom are indeed rent-a-thugs) are mere attack dogs of blue city urban elites(dominated by Jews and homos) who trained the police to be tough on crime, especially black crime, not least by learning a thing or two from Israeli handling of the Palestinian situation.
So, we have a surreal situation where even the so-called displays of defiance and resistance against the Empire are really just extensions of the Empire's agenda. When so many idiots wave the globo-homo flag and indulge in Negrolatry as forms of resistance against Americanism, it's downright hilarious because the two main agendas of Jewish-run US empire is Anno Sodomini and Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. If these 'anti-imperialists' were for real, they would have mobbed US embassies as retaliation for the economic rape of Russia, sanctions against Iran, Wars for Israel, tyranny over Palestinians, and etc. Instead, most of these people conceive of resistance against American Evil in terms of 'Orange Man Bad', Kiss the 'Gay' Butt, and Suck the Black Dic*, which are exactly what Jewish Power promotes via its media control, academic dominance, Hollywood, music industry, and pornification of culture. In a way, you gotta give Jews credit where it's due. They pulled off a brilliant trick on the dimwit goyim. They gained supreme power over the US empire and use American Power for nefarious Zionist-supremacist interests, BUT they managed to fool both proglodytes and the 'good peoples' of the world that US is ruled by the likes of evil 'racist' Chauvin while saintly Jews are on the side of the Resistance and 'Anti-Racism'. I mean the Anglo and Soviet imperialists were never this good in fooling the masses. They didn't fool half the world with their official tripe.
Still, Jews are playing with fire because Jewish Power depends on the prestige and legitimacy of American Power. By making Donald Trump look so bad and by spreading the image of the US as a hell-scape of police brutality and 'genocide' against blacks, the very justification with which the US enforces its will around the world is being called into question. If indeed the US is such a horrible place where white 'racist' cops routinely murder innocent and angelic black men, what right does the US have to serve as the Policeman of the World? Maybe someone will connect the dots and say US-Israel has its knee on the neck of Palestinians. (On the other hand, the Jewish moral preening about George Floyd has effectively given cover to Israel's current process of annexing West Bank. Jews feign sympathy for Floyd while IDF's knee is crushing West Bank to oblivion.) So, even though worldwide protests are going according to the Jewish globalist plan, it's not win-win for Jews as they are sullying the reputation of the US on the world stage, which plays to the advantage of Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and the like that can exploit the current crisis as moral ammo against Big Bad US. After all, if even leaders and elites of the US must take the knee and grovel before the mob, maybe the US isn't such an 'exceptional' and 'indispensable' nation but a vile and vicious one. Still, the global protests are mostly not spontaneous but have been orchestrated by NGO's around the world that take money and orders from Jews. If Hillary were in the Oval Office, I highly doubt if the mass media and NGO's would have spread the hysteria so far and wide and fanned the flames of violence.
The pernicious 'Black if Beautiful' ideological dogma. Black is beautiful began in the US in the 1960 and it has since become an integral part of the western doxa, an ideological dogma which cannot be challenged without immediately resulting in an accusation of 'racism'. Simultaneously, another ideological dogma was developed, the one which claims that 'all races are equal', but without ever really defining the terms 'race' or the term “equal”.
I disagree. Black Is Beautiful or BIB isn't pernicious, and its origins were justifiable and understandable. Also, it wasn't supremacist but egalitarian or perhaps nationalist. It wasn't saying blacks are MORE beautiful than other races. It was saying blacks should regard themselves as beautiful in their own way. Thus, it could be understood as egalitarian: all races are beautiful in unique ways, and this is no less true of blacks. Or it could be justified as a form of nationalism: blacks should prize and preserve blackness like other races prize and preserve what is special about themselves. 'White Is Beautiful' was deemed unnecessary because whiteness was the standard for beauty in movies, magazines, advertising, modeling, beauty pageants, and just about everything. 'White Is Beautiful' would have been redundant or overkill, like 'Sun Is Hot'. In contrast, 'Black Is Beautiful' was deemed necessary because blacks had been made to feel inferior for so long. Blacks themselves preferred light-skinned ones to dark ones. Black men and women used chemicals to straighten their hair. Blacks lost their original Sub-Saharan identities. Kunte Kintes were made into a bunch of Tobies. Cucumonga and Ugabuguga became Tyrone Smith and Leroy Jackson. For all its inaccuracies, the TV show ROOTS was a pretty decent dramatization of the Black Is Beautiful agenda. The stress was on the need for black identity, black pride, black memory, and black nobility. And a lot of soul music from the 60s and 70s could properly be called beautiful, like Marvin Gaye's album WHAT'S GOING ON, Lou Rawls' "You'll Never Find", and Chi-Lites' "Oh Girl".
But BIB went out of favor, and blacks got shameless in what could be called Black-Be-Ugly-Mugly-Badass-Crazy-Trashy-Savage-Wild-And-Shi*-And-Damn-Proud-of-the-Tomfoolery. This has especially been the case with the rise of Rap Culture when black youths took over the culture from black adults. While black communities were falling apart in the 60s and 70s, one saving grace was that black pop culture, especially in music, was controlled by adults than by kids. So, while white rock got stupid with ugly punk and demented heavy metal, black music was classier and more adult in emotions. But then, rap culture happened, and blackness got defined by young street punks of da Hood. They wore baggy pants, used 'ni**er', 'mothafuc*a', and 'bitchass ho' as primary lyrics and wallowed in wanton shameless vulgarity. Take a song like the 70s classic "Me and Mrs. Jones". It's racy but also stylish, subtle, and mature. But if a rapper had written it, it would have went, "Jones you bitchass ho, come suck muh dic*."
BIB was a rejection of the "Credit to One's Race"(or COR) mentality that had once defined the respectable black bourgeoisie. COR was premised on black inferiority, i.e. blacks had to show that they could be as good as whites. Whites were high, blacks were low, and blacks had to make a special effort that they were worthy of respect and the same rights as those held by whites. BIB called for an independence of black identity and spirit. Still, it had one thing in common with COR in that it emphasized the need for black dignity and pride based on nobility of spirit. In other words, it had standards. It kept with the motto, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" of the Negro College Fund.
But the Black-Be-Ugly-Mugly-Badass-Crazy-Trashy-Savage-Wild-And-Shi*-And-Damn-Proud-of-the-Tomfoolery mentality, or to put it more simply, the 'Blacks Gone Wild'(or BGW) mentality had no use for standards of any kind. Instead of 'a mind is a terrible thing to waste', the attitude became 'mind is a great thing to get WASTED'. Rollo-ism won out over Lamont-ism. In an episode of SANFORD AND SON, Lamont is worried about marijuana growing on his property. In contrast, Rollo just wants to smoke it.
Whatever one may say about BGW culture, it's not beautiful. It's not dignified. Granted, look closely at any people and culture, and they're pretty corrupt. MLK was really Fartin' Poother Bling. Sam Cooke who sang some wonderful songs and whose "Change Is Gonna Come" became an anthem of the times died running naked after a woman. She shot him. LBJ was a slime-ball. GOP, the family values party, has been a den of homos and degenerates. Mormons are really hypocritical Mammonites. Still, civilization is about the effort and the struggle to favor the noble over the ignoble. Given humans are really hairless apes, they sure aren't angels. Still, they don't have to be shameless demons either. But black culture, given the innate savagery of black nature and with egging on by nasty Jews, became brazenly ugly, trashy, and demented to the max. The music turned filthy and obscene. And black dance went from bumping-and-grinding to 'twerking'. This surely isn't a continuation of BIB but a break from it. BIB favored the Afro and rejected blacks imitating whiteness, but BGW is all about the 'weave'. BIB favored black men sticking with black women in the name of racial solidarity and appreciation of black females, but BWG is all about "We ni**az now be masters over fa**oty ass white boys who cuck at our feet while white biatches suc* our dic*s". BIB was assertive but not supremacist. It was about changing black self-image, not about making the world see blacks as superior. BWG is vulgar supremacism that says, because blacks are kings of NBA, rap & holler, invent dances like 'twerking', worship theyselves, and got bigger dongs, they should be worshiped and emulated by the whole world. It's supremacism based mostly on things that used to be disdained by civilization. Why do Jews promote it? Jews control black bodies like they control globo-homo. Jews figure they will serve as the minds of globalism while blacks will serve as the body and homos will serve as the fingers. Jews got the wit and vision. Blacks got the prowess. Homos or Tinkerbells got the style and flair. All three groups went from self-assertion to supremacism. Jews once insisted on a fair shake in the Western Order and an end to 'antisemitism'. Blacks demanded an end to 'white racism', and homos said they wanted the freedom to be 'gay'. But, the three groups couldn't be content with equality for long because they realized they have certain notable advantages. Jews, as the smarter people, got richer and more powerful and figured they have the right to rule over dimwit goyim. Blacks, as they gained prominence in sports, went from insistence on racial equality to looking upon whites as 'fa**oty ass white boys who should serve da black master'. And just like white G.I.'s in postwar Japan came to despise Japanese men when Japanese women became willing whores of American military men, black men began to despise white men with the rise of Jungle Fever and cuckery. As for homos, their advantages in design & creativity and concentration in elite fields put them in contact with lots of rich and powerful people. As such, their attitude became neo-aristocratic. As homos love to cater to the rich and powerful, they became the favorite darlings of the Jewish Elites.
But then, to understand these changes of consciousness, we need to consider HBD and the reality of race and group differences. The change in attitudes among Jews, blacks, and homos owes to genetics. After all, would Jews have moved into supremacist mode if their average IQ were 100 or 90? Would blacks have gone from BIB to BWG if their genetics didn't favor them in sports, funky music, and fighting? Imagine if most blacks were like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman. Would homos have become nasty and haughty pricks if they didn't possess an edge in design, aesthetics, and style? Suppose whites were smarter than Jews, stronger than blacks, and more arts/culture obsessed than homos. The Empire would essentially be white supremacist even if the official ideology were egalitarian. Ideology is shaped by the factors of quality and quantity. Jewish communists were committed to egalitarian principles, but their quality of talent led to Jewish-domination in the early period of the USSR. Later, Soviet Union became more Russian-dominated due to the demographic-quantity advantage of white Russians. In quality, Jews were better than Russians, but in quantity, there were more Russians who gradually wore down Jewish power.
Because far from promoting real 'equality' the modern liberal ideology really preaches Black superiority – a special status for Blacks which cannot be symmetrically granted to White (or any other) people.
Actually, the official ideology preaches equality and 'race is just a social construct'. What is behind the cult of black superiority is Liberal IDOLATRY. One may even argue that idolatry colors the ideology, turning it into 'idology'. Same was true in communist nations. By ideology, all were equal, even the leaders. But the idolatry or the cult of personality of Stalin(or later Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, etc.) meant that idol > ideal. Most people, even smart ones, are slaves to emotions and sensations. The Stalin cult was intoxicating to the millions who came to worship him as a god. So, it didn't matter that communist ideology said everyone was equal. Emotionally and viscerally, many in the USSR revered Stalin as a demi-god. Ideologically, so-called Liberals may believe all lives are equally precious, but why do they favor Jewish lives over Arab ones? Jewish lives have been idolized by the cult of Anne Frank and other famous Jews. Arab lives are faceless. Again, idol > ideal. What Jews learned from advertising and electronic propaganda is that idols often trump ideals. Jews came to realize that Christianity had one tremendous advantage over Judaism and Islam. Whereas Judaism and Islam forbade idolatry, Christianity(especially Catholicism and Orthodox) employed it as propagandist tools of the Faith. (One reason why Protestantism has fared worse in the electronic era could be due to its drabber nature.) So, secular Jews were mindful to take over the power of idolatry. Therefore, Hollywood became the new vatican of globalist idol-worship. And all nations have been impacted by Negrolatry and Globo-Homo as just about every TV show and movie now must feature holy homo or jungle fever/faith. And of course, there is the obligatory Holocaust movie every year, not only from Hollywood but European nations.
Now, why have Jews chosen blacks and homos as the main idols? It's because both groups have natural advantages that are especially appealing in our age of vulgarity and licentiousness. Homos are shameless in their vanity, narcissism, and hedonism. They are naturally exhibitionist. Just like aristocrats loved to wear fancy things and strut around at dance parties, homos love to take over streets and show off their high heels and act whoopsy-doopsy. Buns-and-Funs is the new bread-and-circuses. While the Jew-Homo alliance wasn't inevitable — Jewish culture was traditionally the most anti-homo in history, and there was a time when Jewish Leftists tagged Hitler as a fruit — , the two groups have common biases and interests. Both have seen Christianity and traditional morality(of goyim and straights) as obstacles to their liberty and/or power. Both are minorities in almost all societies but with special talents. Both are heavily represented in arts, letters, and creative areas. Both tend to be more shameless than other groups. The Jewish reaction to Russians saying NO to globo-homo gave the game away. LGBTQ nonsense is proxy-power of Jews. Jews supported lesbians and homos to destroy Christianity by befouling churches with 'gay' colors that celebrate homo fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. In a way, homos should be anti-Jewish. After all, the pagan cultures that were most tolerant of homos were the ones condemned most by traditional Jews. The anti-homo position of Christianity has its roots in Judaism. St. Paul denounced the homosexuality of the Greeks. But times change, and Jews have gone from traditional faith in God to a kind of neo-Satanism where they are into self-worship and care only about Power. In some ways, homos today are a weird bunch. They are usually associated with the 'left' and 'diversity' and 'equality', but homos are nothing if not elitist. Homos, with their obsession with aesthetics, are closer to Nazi beauty cultists. Homo nature isn't in sync with egalitarianism or humanism. Homos want the very best. They are into caviar and fancy jewelry. This is, of course, why the corporate capitalist elites hired homos to transform 'leftism' from class struggle ideology to ass-hustle idolatry. Indeed, consider the ways of Andrew Sullivan and Milo. Why are both into getting bung-donged by Negroes? Because they see black men as superior studs, and so their white bungs must take black dongs. Indeed, the fact that Milo is Jewish, homo, and into Jungle-Bungle-Fever makes him a perfect representative of the current supremacy. Then, why was he attacked by the Establishment? Because he spelled it all out. The Power promotes supremacist Idolatry(that Milo so colorfully represents) but still maintains the smokescreen of egalitarian ideology. After all, if like Milo, the Power spilled the beans on what is really up, its message to the world would be, "Jews should rule over dimwit goyim cuz they're smarter, homos should lord over you lame straights cuz they're more creative, and blacks should be worshiped by inferior non-blacks cuz they got more muscle and bigger dongs." And then, peoples all over the world would have to think about the contradictions between supremacist idolatry and egalitarian ideology of globalism, and the scales would soon fall off their eyes. Why would the Power want that? The Power knows it's more effective to push equality ideologically while celebrating supremacism 'idolatrically'. Stalinism did the same thing. Soviet ideology said Stalin was a humble servant of the people. As such, he was no better than any Soviet citizen... ideologically, that is. He was a good communist. But in terms of idolatry, he was superman, he was god, he was the sun. Assure everyone ideologically but intoxicate them 'idolatrically'. Ideologically, we are told Jews and Arabs are equal in worth. But in terms of idolatry, it's always about Israel, Israel, Israel, Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust, Anne Frank, Anne Frank, Anne Frank. Idolatry gives Jews a face while leaving Arabs faceless.
Indeed, one reason why the US used to be 'white supremacist' even when its ideology sincerely strove to be 'egalitarian' was because whites were the main idols in advertising, movies, and etc. For much of Hollywood history, even non-white parts went to whites, e.g. Marlon Brando as an Okinawan in TEA HOUSE OF THE AUGUST MOON. And in Latin America, despite all the egalitarian ideological sermonizing, the idolatry is usually 'white supremacist', what with mostly white actors and stars hogging the TV shows, movies, and advertising. Part of the reason is white control of media there, but it could also be there's something about white aesthetics that has greater appeal the world over. In India, the 'Aryan'-looking types with lighter skin are usually favored in movies and advertising. Japanese culture is dominated by anime and manga where most characters are caricatures of whiteness idealized. South Korea has become plastic surgery capital of the world, and many dye their hair blonde. And blacks, despite all their yapping about black identity, go for hair-straightening or wigs. Black men prefer white women, and one reason why blacks welcome race-mixing is they want to appropriate more white looks for the black race. And Jewish men have long preferred blonde 'shikses'.
In the past, the ideology had no problem with white idolatry as the West was mostly white and proud of it. The problem today is whiteness is much denounced by the Narrative — "White Privilege is the product of whites having had it too good by exploiting and oppressing others(even though, in truth, widespread white affluence only became a reality AFTER World War II)" — but still remains the most desirable traits in the world. For example, despite the rise of Jungle Fever and black male idolatry, white males are still most sought after. (Affluent women of all races who seek sperm donors usually go for Nordic men.) And despite the success of black women in pop music, white women still top the charts in female desirability. Even non-whites who bitch about the white race all the time often seek out white mates. So, some black guy who is howling about evil whiteness could have a white ho or wife. A nasty yellow bitch spewing filth at whites could have a white boyfriend. Or a Latino who poses as a person-of-color and rails against the Gringo could actually be as ivory as any European. Furthermore, when we look at immigration patterns, the movement of countless feet indicates only one thing: Non-whites prefer to live as minorities in white worlds than as majorities in their own. So, they are closet-white-supremacists who prefer whiteness over their own kind, and so, their anti-whiteness is paradoxically a therapeutic exercise to conceal their slavish pro-whiteness. They are ashamed to admit they prefer whitey over their own kind. It's the same with Jews. They carry on and on about how 'whites suck, whites are bad, whiteness is evil, and etc', but if they really feel that way, why don't they all emigrate to non-white nations and live in harmony with wonderful non-whites? Whiteness in so many areas is most desired but also most derided. Indeed, it is most derided because those who desire it most are shamed to admit it. It's about time whites sang the Fleetwood Mac song to non-whites: "You Can Go Your Own Way". But of course, they don't want to because non-whites know they never had it so good as under or with whites. Sure, whites did lots of bad things around the world, but the reason why even savages in Africa have cell phones is due to whites. The only reason why China and India are now modern nations with airplanes and electronic communication is because of the West. And where would Jews be if they'd never moved to white nations?
Those who have read me in the past know that I don’t even accept the notion of “race” which, in my opinion, is wholly non-scientific.
That's insane. While the theory of race is problematic as the definition varies widely(and has yet to develop a scientific meaning), who can deny the existence of general human groups? Europeans and Asians evolved separately, and there are noticeable differences in appearance and temperament. Even among blacks in Africa, we can tell general differences among Somalis, Bushmen, and Nigerian Bantus. The peoples of the Americas may have originated in Asia, but over time, developed into separate 'races'. Scientifically, we can define race to mean 'subspecies', but unfortunately, 'race' is often used to mean just about anything. It is sometimes used as 'species', as in 'human race'. Sometimes, different nationalities are called races. Race isn't an exact category because subspecies can mate with one another. Whites and blacks can mate and produce mulattoes. Does that mean whites and blacks don't exist as races? But mulattoes are possible only because different races exist. You can't create a mulatto by mating a Swede with a Swede or by mating a Nigerian with a Nigerian. Likewise, Mestizo is the product of white mating with browns. Polar bears and brown bears can mate and produce fertile offspring. So, should we not consider polar bears and brown bears as different races of bears? Though they are categorized as different species of bears, they are really different subspecies because they can mate and produce fertile offspring. This is also true of wolves, dogs, and coyotes.
Racial differences are real and deeply impact the world. Chinese are rising in power because their racial characteristics allow for education, industry, and development. It's not just geography but geo-genetics. Different geographies and conditions led to different genetics. Why do Jews control the West? Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ due to cultural selection that favored scholar and merchant genes. Why do blacks now dominate sports in France and UK, and what are the ramifications of white worship of black idols in athletics and music? It's Jungle Fever/Jungle Faith. Why do Jews own NFL teams while blacks play in them? Why did Simon Mol, one Negro, spread HIV around so many Polish women? How did one Negro Mol nearly turned Poland into Moland? Because races are different, and Negroes got bigger dongs that turn on white ho's. If Russia let in tons of blacks, blacks would soon take over Russian sports, and Russian boys and girls would be like white boys and girls in the US, UK, and France who now worship black idols. RACE IS REAL. Even among white groups, we can tell general differences due to genetic separation. Though Russians are white, why are they more likely to have Sluggo-heads than other white groups? Genetics. Look at the heads of Vladimir Putin, Fedor Emelianenko, and Yuri Gagarin. Though not only Russians have Sluggo-heads, more of them do than even other Slavs like the Poles. Why did Jews dominate the Russian economy in the 90s? They are smarter and savvier. What will happen if Russians take in lots of blacks? Blacks will become the idols of Russia, and Russians will become Russcucks. It's the truth.
The Empire is universally hated, and not just for its (very real) racism. This would all be rather harmless and even comical if it weren’t for the 'other side of the ideological coin': the AngloZionist Empire has totally and comprehensively lost any kind of moral or political authority, both in the US and in the EU (as well as in the 5 Eyes nations and other US colonies like Germany or Japan).
But has it? Aren't you contradicting yourself? If the new religion of the Anglo-Zionist West is Negro-Worship, then George-Floyd riots all around the empire would seem to be validations of Imperial Authority. If the ruling elites of the US, the Donald included, honor the Tragic Magic Negro and IF all those subjects of vassal states do LIKEWISE, it suggests the US empire remains the trend-setter for minions all over the world. In a way, what we are seeing is akin to Roman Empire going from pagan rule to Christian rule. Romans used to be pagan and oppressive toward Christians. But when the Roman elites knelt before Jesus as the King of Kings, the new narrative/message was spread far and wide throughout the empire, and everyone had to bow down to the Messiah(who'd once been derided as a dead Jew on a stick). US power was once about Anglo-American prestige and Christian missionary might. But Jews took over and made themselves, blacks, and homos the new holy trinity. And it seems the US is very effective in disseminating this new official state religion. So, when all those in vassal states go into hysterics over the Magic Negro, they are really just bowing down to the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Of course, some sovereign nations — like China, Iran, and Venezuela — are cynically fanning the crisis, but that's not the case in nations like UK, Japan, Germany, France, and etc. If the ruling elites in China and Iran are merely exploiting the crisis to their advantage, the masses of brainwashed minions in vassal states are pouring into the streets in mindless worship of the Tragic-Magic Negro as the new christ. Thus, their supposed Resistance is just Obeisance to the Empire and its Deep State that is hellbent on totally destroying white America and Trump.
Btw, Zio-Angluck(or Anglo-Cuck) is a more accurate characterization of the US empire than 'Anglo-Zionist' because, while Jews constantly demonize 'white supremacism'(and even mere white identity, as in "It's Okay to be White"), whites and Wasps are always sucking up to Jewish identity, Jewish heritage, Zionism, and Israeli hegemonism. When blacks accuse whites of 'white supremacism', Jews cheer them on, and so do the white cucks in the GOP. But when blacks make a fuss about Jewish Power, white cucks are the first ones to bark at blacks. White dogs get riled up at blacks ONLY WHEN black dawgs bark at the Jewish Master. When lack dawgs attack white dogs, the Jewish Master rewards the former with doggy biscuits, but when black dawgs yap at the Jewish Master, white dogs are the first to come to the defense of the Jewish Master. Anglos are now Anglucks. Pathetic.
In the past, the AngloZionist Empire was just as evil as it is today, but at least it had the means to provide a high degree of material welfare to its citizens, but now that the Empire is falling apart and in a major economic crisis, more and more people are turning their rage against their own government or, maybe even more accurately, against the obscenely wealthy ruling classes which have a total control of the US and/or EU political scene.
Not so. Blacks are rioting for free video games and gym shoes. Antifa are just degenerates who like to smash things, even when times are good. Blacks have been acting blackity-black forever, and most white protesters are not acting like Antifa. They are mostly cucks who just love to virtue-signal. There is NOTHING genuinely moral about their sanctimony. If they are truly moral, why were they silent about all those working class folks killed by opioids? Or all those innocents killed by Wars of Israel under Obama? For many of them, it's just another opportunistic political rally against Trump.
Also, due to dollar supremacy, high-tech dominance, tons of natural resources, and best farmlands in the world, Americans will never starve. Unlike past empires that were threatened with loss of empire, the US can lose all its imperial holdings around the world and still have a good life just by living off the fat of the American land.
Remember how George Orwell wrote in his masterpiece 1984 "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever"? I believe that a lot of people, Black and White, felt something similar when they saw the appalling footage of the slow murder of George Floyd by a gang of clearly stupid White cops.
This makes little sense. After all, those who make the biggest fuss about George Floyd are on the side of the Deep State, more repression, more censorship, more suppression of freedom, more Political Correctness, more witch-hunts. They were the ones who were FOR Covid-lockdowns and attacking those who called BS on the mass panic. Blacks, Antifa, and globalists are not for more freedom. They want the state to pull a coup on Trump, take guns away from whites, deny financial services to people they disagree with, shut down free speech(as 'hate speech'), and force globo-homo propaganda up everyone's bung. They are the red guards of Zio-Angluck capitalism. These are the same people who denounced Trump for daring to pull troops out of Syria. They didn't shed a tear for all the dead in Libya. They are for the BOOT. They want the BOOT to be on the face of whites forever. Steven Spielberg began LINCOLN with a black man's foot on the face of a dead white soldier. That is the message of these progs who cheer on Antifa that actually does the bidding of the Power.
Here's a foot on someone's face. Does anyone care? No. People care about George Floyd because a Negro turns magic when killed by a white cop.
The Empire is taking a knee. This is not unlike what happened to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s when basically the entire ruling elite felt that it had lost any will to stand up against the opposition and when it became trendy to bash everything Soviet (much of which very much deserved such bashing, but not everything!). That state of affairs led to, first, the collapse of the soviet society Soviet Union in 1991 and, second, the collapse of the Russian society in 1993.
The Empire is taking a knee to whom? No, the empire is trying to knee Trump's balls by making him out to be the 'racist' bad guy, thus making blacks stick with the Democratic Party. Also, the Jewish elites, by pretending to care about George Floyd, are trying to cover up the fact that Jews led the way in tougher policing and gentrification to make cities safer from black crime. And they are getting away with this BS. The Deep State and Zionists aren't taking the knee to anyone. They are just pulling a Color Revolution against Trump. They are just indulging and manipulating the childish black mind. The really goofy thing is Trump himself is a puppet of Zion, but Jews will not tolerate a 99% puppet. They demand a 100% one. The worldwide unrest is being used by Jews and globalists to push the Narrative, "Good peoples all protest Evil Trump and the white 'racists' who support him." And so many people, even Trump, are cucking to this Narrative.
The comparison with the fall of the USSR doesn't make much sense. After all, the problem of the USSR wasn't merely political. It was EVERYTHING. The store shelves were empty or stocked with inferior goods. People came to rely on the black market for essentials. The entire system was in turmoil and disarray, especially as Gorbachev's reforms only made things worse by localizing the economy without proper incentive structures. Under Gorby, Soviet people found out that half-hearted communism is worse than full communism, and they had yet to figure out a way to transition to a market economy with property rights backed by rule of law. In contrast, the US has no problems with production. If anything, the current problem around the world is glut. Too much of everything. For all the talk of poverty, obesity among the poor is a bigger problem than hunger. There would have been no riots if the store shelves were empty. Negroes looted cuz there were lots to steal... and it's only a matter of time before the shelves will be filled with goods again. So, any comparison with the USSR is dubious.
The problem with the US is the crisis of authority. Jews got the power but won't admit it. Whites cuck to Jews, and one of the Jewish Demands is that the myth of 'white supremacy' be perpetuated. Jews need the myth to (1) hide their dominant power and (2) to keep whites paralyzed with shame & guilt, therefore subservient to Jews(and their allies). But this arrangement is close to surreal. Even though Jews got supremacist control over whites in reality, whites who cuck to Jews like pathetic dogs must pretend they got white privilege built on white supremacism that must be expunged from American politics and society. Whites must play the roles of both 'white supremacists' and hapless toadies to Jews. The problem is further complicated by Negrolatry that says blacks got the most moral authority due to American History(never mind the American Indians) and therefore deserve to rule as the children of MLK, BUT they seem unable to. The real reason for the black lag is, of course, that too many blacks aren't high enough in IQ or apply themselves to schoolwork, but the official reason is always 'white supremacism', even though whites spiritually cuck at the altar of Jungle Faith and grovel at the feet of Jewish Supremacists.
For all the financial problems, the US economy still produces more than enough food. The global economy fills American shelves with all sorts of stuff, cheaper than ever due to low labor costs in China, India, Mexico, and world over. However, there is a crisis of authority and accountability because so many people are clueless about who has the real power and what is really going on. Consider. There was three yrs of totally nonsensical Russia Collusion Hoax, but so many people, from deep state elites to cat ladies watching Rachel Maddow, either pushed it or swallowed it. When Obama was the puppet monkey of the Jews, whole bunch of conservatives worried that he might be a 'Stealth Muslim'. Right, a 'stealth muslim' who pushed 'gay marriage' and waged more Wars for Israel. At the very least, the people of the Soviet Union knew who were in charge during communist rule. Today, too many people have no idea who is in control. It's certainly not the Orange Man who got just about nothing done except to shovel more money at Wall Street. The official narrative says Blacks are so wonderful and should rule, but most prominent blacks are either puppets, tokens, or symbols. So much is said of the specter of 'white supremacy' haunting every facet of American Society, but whites in deep state and elite institutions are worthless cucks who do as Jews order them to. If white supremacy really did rule America, people would at least know who's in control. But despite all the talk of 'white supremacy', all we see is white cuckery. Maybe the homos are in control, but homos are nothing without Jewish Power. Jews are, of course, in control, but they use their power to hide their power. With such political Houdinism, there is bound to be a crisis of authority in the US. And in Europe as well. Even though European nations seem led by European leaders, they are all vassals of the US empire that is the property of the Empire of Judea. If white Americans are cucks, Europeans are double-cucks who must cuck to white Americans who cuck to Jews. But since the Narrative says that whites suck while blacks are holy, all these white cuck elites make a big show of 'checking white privilege' while extolling the virtues of blacks who, as yet, haven't shown the proficiency to rule or govern anything. So, the power game in the West is like the scene in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST where no one wants to come out and take the blame for the ruckus.
So what can decent people do next? Well, for one thing we don’t have to chose between White and Black racism. In fact, the only logical (and moral) stance today is to reject any and all forms of racism, very much including the Hollywood-promoted anti-White (and, I would add, anti-family, anti-male and anti-Christian) and pro-Black racism.
What people need to do is choose nationalism over globalism. They need to choose rational race-ism and reject radical racism. If you're white, you should have white racial consciousness while respecting other races and their identities. The real and realistic choice is not between 'racism' and no-racism but between radical/supremacist racism and sane/rational race-ism. First of all, whites must reject the term 'racism'. So much confusion owes to the misuse of the term. If people understand 'race-ism' to mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences, scales will fall from their eyes. For instance, there is so much talk about how so many blacks fail in American schools because of 'racism'. Liberals and blacks blame the system, while many Conservatives say, "No, blacks fail not because of racism but because they don't apply themselves or because Liberals pushed bad values on the black community." Or, dissident right will say, "No, it's not due to racism but due to lower IQ and less impulse control among blacks." Such unnecessary confusion is due to using 'racism' in a misguided way. Ism means belief, so why should race + ism mean "evil white supremacists making it worse for other races"? Race + Ism should mean belief in the reality of races and the differences among races. So, in response to the charge that too many blacks fail in school due to 'racism', the answer should be YES, the reasons are race-ist. Races are real. Racial differences are real. Evolution made black genetics more oriented to warrior, hunter, and thug activities. Evolution is race-ist because it led to the rise of different races. Why else do blacks dominate French sports? It's evolution that made for racial differences. Why else do Jews dominate Wall Street? It's race-ist evolution. Why do blacks act more violently in schools? Because race-ism is true. Blacks are racially different and more prone to fighting and aggression. Ism means belief, Ism means belief, and Race + Ism, properly understood, explains so much. But the term has been willfully misconstrued to sow confusion in our minds.
The thing about race-ism is it will not ignore you even if you ignore it. Race-ism is the truth. Race-ism is what nature would believe if it had a mind. Nature practices race-ism because evolution is about divergences. A single species can diverge into various subspecies(races) that, over time, can develop into separate species. At one time, the apes that eventually evolved into humans were a different race within the same ape species that spawned the chimpanzees. The apes that eventually became humans and the apes that eventually became chimpanzees belong to the same species. But over time, they diverged further and further and became separate species. One bunch of apes became the chimps and another bunch of apes became the proto-human apes that eventually became human. So, race-ism is a process within evolution. As one species cannot instantly turn into another species, it must go through intermediary processes of 'raciation' that eventually lead to the rise of a new species. Though all human races still belong within the same species, the differences are as notable as the differences between brown bears and polar bears or among wolves, coyotes, and various breeds of dogs. Compare the Lapps of Finland with the ghastly Negroes of South Africa or Sudan. Compare the Swedes with the Amazonian Indians. Compare the Tibetans with Australian Aborigines. Compare the Japanese runts with the Maori savages. So, we can ignore race all we want, but it will not ignore us. Europeans can ignore the factor of race as rising numbers of monstrous black African savages flood into Europe. But it won't be long before they realize the impact of Africanization. It's like one can ignore cancer as reality but it won't ignore the one once it begins to spread.
All peoples must know these facts: Jews are smarter. Blacks are tougher. So, if your nation takes in Jews and blacks and then allows inter-meritocracy for all peoples, the result will NOT be equality but domination of elite institutions/industries by Jews and domination of sports, pop music, & sex culture by blacks. Don't we see this pattern all around? Do Gypsies control finance in UK? Do Vietnamese dominate sports in France? Every people should know of their own race, its advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis other races. And they should do whatever is necessary to protect their institutions, industries, iconography, and idols from the Other.
What must whites seek above all? Liberation. Whites are so used to ruling and dominating the world that their mindset is still stuck in old habits and old ways. In that way, there is still a legacy of 'white privilege'. But today, whites must think more like Algerians & Vietnamese under French rule, Hindus under British rule, Poles under Russian rule, Russians under Mongol rule, Greeks under Turkish rule, and etc. They must think in terms of liberation, or white liberation or white national liberation. Best way to counter the charges of 'white supremacism' is that your side is seeking white liberation. Liberation from what? That is when you explain that whites are now under the tyranny of Jewish globalist finance-media-deep-state and black thuggery, terror, & violence. There is no other way.
