The Radical and Conservative Spirit of Communism — Illusion of Western Liberalism & Problem of Self-Degradation — Historical Communism vs Current Western Compulsory Degeneracy called 'Progressivism'

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/jewish-shell-games-mind-rapes-and-final-solutions/

"...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/

On Memorial Day, Americans Must Not Only Mourn the Fallen but Remember that US Soldiers Died in Wars of Empire and Genocide — US Military Is Now the Death Squad of Zion

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/05/25/97596/

Paul Craig Roberts:

In a Memorial Day editorial, the ignorant, white-hating editorial board of the New York Times wrote:

“Bases named for men who sought to destroy the Union in the name of racial injustice are an insult to the ideals servicemen and women are sworn to uphold – and an embarrassing artifact of the time when the military itself embraced anti-American values.”

The ignorance in this statement is extraordinary. The South left the union because the South was being economically exploited by the North. The South fought because the North invaded the South. The North invaded the South, as President Lincoln said repeatedly, to “preserve the union,” that is, the empire. Lincoln said repeatedly that the South could have slavery forever if only the South would stay in the union.

Notice the selective moral outrage at the New York Times.

For true moral outrage, we don't even need to dwell on the distant past. Since the end of the Cold War, the US military has been involved in Wars for Israel that destroyed entire nations on false pretexts. Judeo-Nazis, aka Neocons and other Zionist swamp creatures, were behind this. And the US military backs Israel, the actions of which against Palestinians would count as 'genocide' by UN definition.

And what of US imperialist wars? We've been told over and over that all those US soldiers died defending US freedom. By dropping bombs and killing millions overseas? Apparently, those US imperialist soldiers in Philippines were dying(and killing the Filipinos by the bushel) to defend freedom at home!! US has a strange idea of defending freedom. America cries out in pain as it strikes other nations. It surrounds Iran but accuses Iran of aggression. Its navy confronts China in Chinese water but China is accused of belligerence.

Because the US was never invaded, most fallen US soldiers either died killing one another(in the Civil War) or killing foreigners in imperialist wars. They had NOTHING to do with defending US territory or US freedom. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not a prelude to some grand plan to invade, let alone defeat, the US. It was to forestall US naval power in the Pacific so that Japan could secure its dominance over Asia.

The vile cliche or trope about US soldiers having given their lives in defense of US freedom must be laid to rest. US soldiers did NOT die defending US freedoms. US role in Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with defending freedom at home. Was American democracy threatened because China fell under communism? No. Then, why would it have mattered what happened to Korea and later Vietnam? Also, by dividing those nations in the first place, it was the US that planted the seeds for horrible civil wars there.

When the US attacked and invaded Iraq on bogus grounds, we heard the mantra yet again. Oh say can you see, those American boys and girls with bombs and missiles were defending US freedom! Or, we were told the US had to fight terrorists over there so it wouldn't have to fight them over here. Except that Iraq, like Libya and Syria, became infested with terrorists ONLY BECAUSE of US intervention. Looking further back, who'd done most to create the lunatics who did 9/11? It was US allies, especially Saudis and Pakistanis. And, US and Israel had been encouraging and using Jihadis, directly or indirectly, to undermine the region for dominance. And there should no longer be any doubt that Israel covertly egged on those Muslim radicals to attack NY and DC so that the US military could be used to fight more Wars for Israel. As most Americans have been dumbed down by Hollywood movies where ALL Muslims are 'terrorists', most Americans couldn't distinguish one bunch of Arabs from another bunch or one sect of Islam from another. Hussein had nothing to do with it, but he was a 'muzzie' too, and that was good enough for so many Americans to support the invasion. Clever Jews exploited goy ignorance and apathy on foreign affairs. Indeed, US and Israel continue to play this game to keep Syria in a state of war and destruction.

Because soldiers believe in patriotism & did as ordered and because so many young men died before they could start families and fulfill their dreams, every nation should honor their fallen, even if those soldiers fought in unjust wars. This goes for Japan and Germany as of the US.

But let's face facts. Majority of US soldiers died in imperialist wars, some of which were almost genocidal in nature. Why does NYT focus so much on the Evil Slavery Narrative when the US military carried out imperialist or semi-genocidal wars against the American Indians, the Mexicans(who lost the SW territories), Asians, Arabs, and etc.? The body count is in the millions, and no, those wars had NOTHING to do with 'defending freedom at home'.
So many idiot Americans thank US soldiers for defending American democracy, but just how did the US military do that by bombing and destroying impoverished or developing nations thousands of miles away? Did Americans lose their freedom when the US withdrew from Vietnam? Would US democracy been endangered if US didn't invade Iraq in 2003?
Actually, if the US has become less democratic and more oligarchic over the years, it's because goy America lost the civilian war of institutional power(and the culture war) to Jewish supremacists, Zionist-globalists, or Judeo-Nazis. The war that really must be fought is OVER HERE, and the best weapon is Truth and Courage. But clever Jews still have so many dimwit goyim believing that US freedom can only be preserved by US soldiers marching off to war to destroy and degrade whomever Jews hate. Jewish Hate is the driving force behind US foreign policy and belligerence.

Of course, NYT is run by Jewish supremacists who now fully endorse US imperialism, as most wars in recent yrs have been Wars for Israel. Who cares if all those Arabs and Muslims died? There's no moral outrage about any of that in the Paper of Wreckage. Precisely because Jewish supremacists at NYT need whites to remain as servile cucks, they keep cooking up this 'white guilt' BS about the special evil of the South.
But if the South is guilty of slavery, why isn't the North blasted for its 'genocide' of the American Indians? Isn't genocide worse than slavery? (Of course, as mass immigration and eradication of American Indians turned out great for Jews, never mind all that.) And it was the dominant North that led US into imperialist over-reach that piled up so many dead bodies around the world. And recently, Jews have lots of blood on their hands as they've led US into Wars for Israel. And sanctions are a form of war too, and they've destroyed countless lives, mostly Arab and/or Muslim, to quench Jewish supremacist blood-lust. So, in observations of future Memorial Days, let us shame the Jews who've turned and abused the US military as a semi-genocidal war-mongering machine for Zion. JKK or Jew-Klux-Klan is the real terrorist power of the US. Or, at the very least, Americans should thank US military men for being such stupid whores of Jewish Power. Such gratitude would at least be honest in spelling out what the American War Machine is all about.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/apology-day

On Memorial Day yesterday, Americans were called upon to remember the American soldiers who have been killed in America’s many foreign wars. U.S. interventionists should have also used the day to apologize not only to the families of those veterans but also to the families who lost loved ones as a consequence of U.S. interventionism in their countries.

What Happens When the Weak-of-Survival Are Favored over the Strong-of-Survival? The Western Conundrum under Jewish Supremacism.

Suppose there are organisms in a certain environment. They compete with other organisms and even face the invasion by foreign organisms. Within these native organisms, there are those that react strongly to threats and act accordingly. They fight or build defenses. And then, there are those that are passive, weak, or even welcoming of rivals or invaders. Over time, what will happen? The Law of Survival will weed out the weak members as they'll be conquered and devoured by rivals or invaders. Meanwhile, the strong members will survive with their tenacity and fighting spirit. In time, the organisms will be defined by the survivors with the spirit of warriors. That way, the organisms will remain strong.

But what if a different set of dynamics takes hold of this environment? Suppose there is a Power that coddles and protects the weak-willed members of the organism while hampering the strong-willed members that are exposed to constant attacks and invasions. The weak-willed survive because they don't have to fight under the protection of the Power. In contrast, the strong-willed come under ceaseless pressure. Furthermore, they are prevented by the Power from using all means at their disposal to counter the attacks and invasions. What will happen over time? The strong-willed will wither, fade, and eventually be forced to cower before the enemy. After all, even the strongest bear or biggest bull can eventually be brought down by a pack of wolves; even a giant lizard succumbs to a massive killer ant attack. Meanwhile, the weak-willed members survive and even thrive... but as pathetic puppets and minions of the Power that protects them(and subverted the defensive capability of the defeated strong-willed members).

Imagine an environment with lots of chimps. Among them, there are strong-willed chimps and weak-willed chimps. Strong-willed chimps are vigilant, always on the lookout, and ready to fight for territory, females, and food. Weak-willed chimps, on the other hand, are passive and kindly toward outsiders, be they rival chimps or dangerous animals(such as leopards). Now, when crisis breaks out, the strong-will chimps will prioritize survival and go into fight-or-flight mode. Fight those that can be defeated, take flight from the stronger, and set up a wall of defense. In contrast, the weak-willed members will be slower to flee from danger. They may even move toward danger as a 'friend'. They'll act like the dufus scientist in the 1950s sci-fi horror THE THING, a naive brainiac who seeks to commune with and 'understand' the fearsome and ruthless creature from another planet. Over time, as the weak-willed chimps will be weeded out by murderous enemy chimps and predators, the chimp community will have more strong-willed members.
But suppose a Power takes over the chimp community. It creates a well-stocked sanctuary for the weak-willed chimps that thus become favored in the game of existence. Despite possessing traits disadvantageous for survival, they are favored and coddled by the Power. The strong-willed chimps get no such protection and are therefore disadvantaged in survival. They must fight and struggle to survive, and tough as they are, some are destroyed or devoured by rival chimps and predators. But there is worse. The Power decides to make things more difficult for the strong-willed apes. Their fangs are ground down so their bites are far less effective. Also, they are supplied with narcotics, and many succumb to addiction. Under such organizing principles, the weak-willed members survive(but essentially as chattel dependent on the protection/mercy of the Power) while the strong-willed members dwindle in number and eventually become destroyed.

In a way, the favoring of the weak-willed over the strong-willed is the story of civilization. It is also a strategy of power. It can be advantageous to a people if they control the terms of 'domestication', but it can be disadvantageous(and eventually fatal) if the terms are controlled by another group.

There are parallels between humans and dogs, though some human groups and certain dog breeds became more domesticated than others. The Golden Retriever became more domesticated than the Alaskan Husky that, despite living with man, still came under tremendous natural pressures in freezing climates and in proximity with dangerous predators such as polar bears and wolves. Dogs are weaker and smaller than wolves, their ancestors. They are also weaker-willed and more prone to trust and be friendly with other organisms, especially humans. As such, humans favored and protected dogs. But humans also owned dogs as property, as pets and servants. Thus, even though countless dogs led far safer and happier lives in the protective human realm than wolves did in the wild, they were at the mercy of their human masters. But humans didn't merely favor dogs over wolves but made a concerted effort to make things difficult and often deadly for the wolves. Therefore, even though wolves have greater survival skills than dogs if both were placed in the same wilderness — indeed, it's likely that most, even all, dogs will be destroyed in the wild — , the Power of Man has made it so that weak-willed dogs have far greater chance of survival than wolves in the wild(that has been limited to wilderness preserves). The interference of the Power made it so that the wolf's natural advantage became a disadvantage whereas the natural disadvantage of the dog became an advantage under Man. After all, mankind naturally prefers the trusting, submissive, and friendly dog to the ferocious and proud wolf. Dogs have done better under humans than in the wild but at the loss of all pride, autonomy, and independence. Still, as they are animals, pride doesn't matter much to them. But what about people who've lost pride and independence?

But then, can real pride and independence exist in civilization? After all, if people, as truly free individuals, decided to do as they like, civilization would fall apart. Imagine a world run over by Alexes of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Despite all the talk of freedom and individualism, the main reason why modern civilization holds together and continues is because most or majority of the people support or serve the hierarchy and adhere to the 'values' and 'narratives' pushed by the Power. Also, the Power enforces the same sets of laws, language, and lore over the vast populace. Under communism in the Soviet Union, the law was Marxist-Leninist. The language of the empire was Russian. And all children were raised on the lore of communist saints and heroes. There's been far more freedom in the West, but the system cannot be sustained unless enough people submit to the existing Power Structure. For most people in the West, there is a measure of freedom in their personal lives but hardly any freedom or means to change the workings of the existing power structure. Only a handful of people with the means to enter the inner sanctums of power can make a real difference. Also, even personal choices are shaped, even dictated, by a handful of big players. Most movies are made by Hollywood, or Movie Inc. People choose from what is offered to them by mega-corporations, just like voters choose from a bunch of politicians vetted by the ruling power, i.e. people vote for puppets, not leaders. People may select from various media outlets that create the impression of choice, but most of media are controlled by a handful of Jewish oligarchs. People may choose the kind of music they like, but pop trends are dominated by a few entertainment oligopolies. There was talk of how the internet would unleash an era of citizen journalism and alternative views, but the biggest platforms are dominated by Zionist Jews who shut down what they deem as 'hate speech'. Jewish oligarchs at Google also manipulate algorithms so that Jew-run news are favored in search results over voices critical of Jewish Supremacism. Therefore, what is called 'free press' and 'free speech' are highly proscribed and controlled in the Free West. Indeed, paradoxically enough, people in a democracy might be even more clueless as to what's really happening because the conceit of 'liberty' and 'freedom' blinds them to the fact that they aren't so free. At least, people in Iran and China know their freedoms are restricted by the State. In the West, many are still under the delusion of living in a 'liberal democracy' when, if anything, they are minions of a Jewish Supremacist Oligarchy. Labels can fool a lot of people. It's like the 'fat-free' label that fools so many people who don't realize that the fat has been replaced by more sugars. Same with 'progress' and 'conservative'. So much of what is nowadays labeled as 'progressive' or 'conservative' is anything but. So-called 'progressive' Democrats are totally in cahoots with Wall Street that push globo-homo to replace May Day with Gay Day. And so-called 'conservative' Republicans are now into chanting 'gay marriage and trannies-in-washrooms are conservative values.' How the world loves a label than the reality.

In a way, this loss of true freedom and independence is the price we all paid for civilization. A civilization can be more free or less free, but when push comes to shove, it must be about most or the great majority submitting to the power, the status quo. Those in power may change — American Power went from Wasp Rule to Jewish Rule — , but regardless of who are on top, most people must go along. So, Russia went from the people obeying the Czars to obeying the Commissars to obeying the oligarchs. And most Germans went from obeying the Kaiser to obeying the Weimar Republic to obeying the Nazis to obeying the bureaucrats in West Germany or East Germany. Even if many people are cynical about power and disrespect the ruling elites, they've no choice but to go through the daily motion of working for the system. In other words, even the disobedient find they've no choice but to obey to make a living.
And even when the people do rise up and overthrow the existing system, as in the case of Shah's Iran, the only way civilization can continue is if most people support or comply with the new order. Civilization cannot tolerate too many wolves. It needs lots of dogs. As for controlling the power, it usually goes to the weasels. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM illustrated how the banishment of humans only led to the rise of Pig Tyranny. But then, as bad as the pigs are, can the animals govern themselves? Besides domestication means to become part of a system, an order based on organizational principles. It is then the nature of domesticated organisms to long for the iron hand, albeit so-called Liberal Democracy learned to cover it with a velvet glove. As individuals, we can only be so free. After all, we don't want to live in a world of chaos where everyone, as an independent maverick, makes up his or her own rules. This is so many manifestations of 'rebellion' and 'difference' in a 'liberal democracy' are manufactured as a chimera by the Power. Have the 'rebels' conform to officially tolerated or approved forms of 'rebellion', like cheering loudly at Rock concerts, piercing one's nose, or turning one's hair green, all of which are harmless to the Power(while harmful to the pride of resistance). All these 'differences' lead to new conformist communities than truly independent turns of mind and spirit. It's like the Power's idea of 'dark web dissident right' turned out to be Zionists like Ben Shapiro & Dave Rubin and shills of Zionists like Jordan Peterson. But then, even if dissident rightists were to come to power, wouldn't they prop up their favored Norms and Sacraments as the governing principle in the new order?

Civilization must favor the mild-willed over the strong-willed. While weak-will is too sappy, strong-will is too contentious. While society gains something by having some strong-willed leaders and alphas, most people must be less-strong-willed if people are to get along and go along. (Also, if two civilizations are defined by mild-mannered-ness, they may find ways to co-exist and cooperate than remain locked in terms of conflict. Mild-willed outlooks can serve as roads and bridges between civilizations.)

If everyone were strong-willed, it'd be an endless battle of egos. Therefore, most people must be mild-willed, somewhere between weak-will and strong-will. And the meritocratic system is geared to favor mild-willed over strong-willed, that is unless the strong-willed happen to be particularly gifted in intellect, creativity, or leadership qualities. After all, what is required to do well in school, gain credentials, and find good jobs? One must be patient and diligent. One must be reasonably obedient to teachers and authority figures. Despite the American mythos of the cool rebel, most people who succeed play by the rules. No wonder women and Asians are favored in the current order. Both are more mild-willed than white males who tend to be a bit more adventurous and cantankerous in spirit.
Obama certainly understood who's boss(the Jews) and did as told to be handpicked to be president, or cuck-in-chief of the Jews. One reason why Jews can't stand Donald Trump is the way he became president. He howled too much like a wolf than acted the well-heeled canine in a dog-show. Though a total dog to Jews in substance, he was wolf in style, and the Jewish Masters of America took this very badly, and the whole Russian Collusion Hoax and other nonsense were a means to punish the Bad Doggy.

Anyway, precisely because civilization favors the mild-willed over the strong-willed for most of its managerial positions, there is the real danger of a survival-deficit in elite ranks of society. Consider nations like Sweden. Well-ordered and well-run, peaceful and prosperous Sweden elevated mild-willed individuals to upper levels of government and institutions. Indeed, its military is run by a bunch of mild-willed women who did the homework and did as told in their student days. So, is it any surprise that the Swedish state is so soulless, gutless, and bland? Its managerial class may be well-educated, diligent, and competent on the technical level, but they lack patriotic passion, survival instinct, and requisite ruthlessness toward potential threats and enemies. If anything, it is most 'triggered' by the emergence of strong-willed Swedes who see what is happening and demand that something drastic be done to stop the invasion and great replacement.

Since individuals can't be truly free and independent within a civilization, the only way for a people to be free is as a collective. While Me-the-Person can only be so free within the Order, We-the-People can be free from the control of Other Peoples. It's like Asian Indians gained independence by rising up against British overlords and expelling them. The Vietnamese gained national liberation by resisting French Colonialism and then American Neo-Imperialism. And it was as a collective that Russians pushed back against Napoleonic France in the 19th century and Nazi Germany in the 20th century. Freedom for the Motherland couldn't have been won by Russians as individual wolves. They had to cooperate and fight as Russian dogs in defense of the Order.

While ideally the freedom of we-the-people should expand the freedom of me-the-person within the Order, it hasn't always been so. Textbook examples are Tokugawa Japan, Red China, Castro's Cuba, Islamic Iran, and North Korea. Though politically independent and relatively free of foreign influence, their suppression of me-the-person either intensified or hardly eased despite the autonomy. The reason was either for the survival of the Order or survival of the elites. In certain cases, the Order had to suppress considerations of me-the-person because it was under threat and at a great political-economic-military disadvantage. After all, patriotism and willingness to die were essential among the Vietnamese IF Americans were to be driven out. With excessive freedom of me-the-person, too many Viets might choose not to fight or even join with the other side as collaborators. In Sam Peckinpah's STRAW DOGS, David Sumner(Dustin Hoffman) decides he must force his wife to obey him if they are to defend the house from marauders. She is forbidden from collaborating with the Other side. She is forced to choose we-the-people over me-the-person despite her temptation otherwise.

Castro's Cuba also had to be repressive in order to survive. As the US had so much more money, it could have bought off so many Cubans to do the bidding of US interests. Indeed, Cuba had essentially been a CIA-mafia-Jewish-run plantation/casino before Castro led an army of spartan patriots to take power. But, of course, the downside of repression in favor of we-the-people over me-the-person has been downright Orwellian. The system threw the baby out with the bathwater in its purge of turncoats, traitors, spies, and collaborators. Worse, over time, the invocation of we-the-people can become an excuse to perpetuate a system of we-the-elites.
This is why a system has to find a balance between me-the-person and we-the-people. One thing for sure, history has shown time and time again that an order that is independent of foreign tyranny can be rife with domestic tyranny.
While all systems must maintain order with some degree of repression and control, some take this to extreme measures due to radical ideology, excessive paranoia, or just plain greed of rulers who stingily hog all the power and privilege. As profoundly different as North Korea and the US are in just about every way, if they have anything in common, it's that both are ruled by elites who will do ANYTHING to maintain their supremacist or absolute grip on power. Even though North Korea seems like a fossilized hermit kingdom whereas the US seems a dynamic country constantly reinventing itself, both are essentially governed by the principle of elite-stasis. In other words, the reason why Jews are trying to make America so different is to keep same the power equilibrium, i.e. Jewish Supremacism must define American Power. As Jews are a minority-elite, they fear that stability in America will eventually lead to people realizing they're ruled by Jews. For that reason, Jews stir up the impression of constant upheaval and transformation to misdirect the American Gaze from the one true constant in American Power Politics: JEWS RULE, JEWS GET RICHER, JEWS EXPAND THEIR CONTROLS.

Anyway, if civilization ordains that people must be servile dogs than defiant wolves, at the very least human-dogs can be ruled by their own kind than by another kind. In other words, English dogs should be ruled by English masters, Japanese dogs should be ruled by Japanese masters, German dogs should be ruled by German masters, Italian dogs should be ruled by Italian masters, Russian dogs should be ruled by Russian masters, Iranian dogs should be ruled by Iranian masters, Jewish dogs should be ruled by Jewish masters(though, to be sure, every Jew feels as a master than dog), and etc. After all, there is greater likelihood that master A will feel greater affection and sense of obligation for dogs A, and master B will for dogs B. Granted, it may not always be so. Master A could be cruel and abusive of Dogs A, and it's possible Master B has more sympathy and heart for Dogs A. But generally, rulers of Nation A will have more feelings for the people of Nation A than for the peoples of Nation B, C, D, E, F, etc. Do Jewish rulers in Israel have more feelings for Jewish people or the Arab people, the Palestinians?
Now, one may point to white elites who seem to care just as much, if not more, for non-whites as for whites, but his anomaly is the result of Jewish conquest of the white mind/soul. Jews made it anathema among white elites to care about fellow whites because they want white elites to primarily serve and obey Jews. In other words, to convince white elites to favor the Jewish Other over the White Brother, Jews indoctrinated white elites(and even many among the white masses) that there are few things as evil in the world as whites caring for whites. It's NOT OKAY to be white. Another problem with elites of one nation excessively caring for other peoples than for their own is they will end up ill-serving both. After all, it is a full-time job to govern and take care of a nation. A national elite that tries to save the world as well as govern its own people is like a dog that loses the bone in his mouth for the one reflected in the water. It's like a parent who tries to take care of all the kids in the neighborhood. He'll just fail with all the children, including his own. Also, it makes the elites of other nations lazy and corrupt. Suppose if the elites of Nation B came to depend on elites of Nation A to provide food and aid for the people of Nation B. Why would the elites of Nation B clean up their own act when Nation A is providing Nation B with free stuff? And why would the people of Nation B try to replace the existing elites when they get by on handouts from Nation A?

While all of us must be more dogs than wolves within civilization, the ideal should be for the dogs and masters to be of the same identity. English masters for English dogs. That way, even if civilized man cannot be truly free and independent like a wild wolf, he can still be part of a people that are free and independent of rule by other peoples. The problem with the current West is that white folks are not only dogs of civilization — a necessary condition for social order — but dogs of a foreign master, the Jews. Worse, Jews are not even good masters over the Other. Jews look upon goyim as mere cattle, commodities, or cuck-dogs. The way Jews look upon goyim is far more contemptuous than how British Imperialists looked upon Hindus and Africans. At the very least, the Christian element of Western Civilization reminded whites that non-whites are also precious children of God. In contrast, Jews look upon goyim as barely human. Jews believe a single Jewish life is worth more than a million goy lives. Just Ask the Palestinians! Under Jewish rule, whites don't even have the freedom, pride, and power of We-the-People. They've been reduced to We-the-Cucks.

The black African threat to Europe makes things much worse. Blacks are barely domesticated as dogs; they are more like wild dogs, almost like wolves. As such, a sane West will do everything to protect European mild-willed dogs from African wild dogs. But three factors are forestalling this most necessary course of action. (1) Jewish globalist supremacists who control (((Western))) media and academia have elevated Negroes to god-like status. So many whites worship MLK and Mandela more than their own national/racial heroes, even over God and Jesus. And Jewish Power vilified 'racism' as the worst of all sins, and 'racism' is deemed most wicked when harboring negative feelings about blacks. Political Correctness demands that whites must love and honor blacks NO MATTER WHAT blacks do. (2) Even though blacks have thug supremacy over weaker whites and cause havoc in white nations, the fact remains Europe is rich while Africa is poor. Therefore, many Europeans still have this image of themselves as all-powerful and of blacks as helpless/harmless children. Thus, they fail to grasp the threat posed by black thugs on Western Civilization. (3) Even though civilization did wonders for non-black mankind, it also turned robust human-wolves into less impressive human-dogs. Though civilization can be maintained only by human-dogs, there is still the wolfish element in human-dogs that hankers for wolf-like glory and excitement. Because blacks are more impressive in sports, dancing, hollering, and fist-shaking, many white dogs are in state of awe of the wild black dawg that seems so badass.

The result is that the Current West not only favors mild-willed white dogs(those who go-along to get-along) over the strong-willed white dogs(those with the most survival instincts and fight/flight reflexes, problematic in peace time but essential in times of crisis) but also favors wild black dogs over strong-willed white dogs. This fatal alliance of mild-willed white dogs(and weak-willed white dogs) with wild black dogs against strong-willed white dogs will be the lethal formula that will bring down the West. In times of crisis, the strong-willed dogs must come to the fore to defend the order. In such times, the mild-willed dogs must look to the strong-willed dogs. (However, beware of the ultra-strong-willed dogs like Adolf Hitler. While Hitler's strong-will led Germany in its recovery of lost lands and resurgence in pride, he wasn't content with German affairs and embarked on wolf-attacks on OTHER nations to create a Greater Germanic Empire. This is why strong-will must be limited by Universal Nationalism — respect other nations as you expect them to respect your nation — and humanism that reminds people of their all-too-fragile humanity. Fascism elevated man to mythic hero while communism reduced man to a unit of History. In World War II, the German ubermensch rediscovered their humanity in defeat and humiliation. And the story of communism is the danger of sacrificing human lives as so many units in the service of History.)

Communism's Appeal to the Third World & Russia prior to post-WWII New Capitalism that Allowed Greater Participation of the Non-West

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/plastic-recycling-and-jousting-jews/

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:

Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.

In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.

So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.

Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.

I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.

And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.

The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.

The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.

Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.