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'.
A century ago, America loved eugenics and was obsessed with protecting its “superior” Anglo-American stock from the threat of immigration. Out of this nativist vortex, the first computer was born.
Why do Jews always project their obsessions onto others? Yasha Levine bitches about 'eugenics' , but the very concept of Jewishness is based on eugenics. It's based on the Covenant, a conviction that God blessed Jewish blood uber alles. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which are matters of creed, Judaism is about God and Blood. It says Jews are special because of their blood and ancestry.
Furthermore, there's a theory that posits that higher Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is the result of breeding. Richest Jews married their daughters to the sons of the most renowned rabbis. Thus, business smarts were matched with scholarly smarts. Even Steven Pinker the Jew thinks there's something to the theory:
As for immigration(hailed by Jews as the ultimate good) to the US(and other Anglo- and/or white-made nations), it's always been about White Supremacism, especially of the Anglo kind. First of all, waves of White Immigration to the US, Canada, and Australia spelled doom, often genocidal in impact(if not always of intent), of the native populations. (And of course, the Spanish & Portuguese wiped out 95% of natives in South America. Granted, that was more due to the spread of diseases than anything else.) At any rate, whites(Anglo and Latino) wanted the lands & resources and expelled native 'savages' whom they encountered on their path of relentless conquest. So, Mass Immigration was almost synonymous with 'genocide' in the New World.
And, what did Mass Immigration(of Zionist Jews) do to Palestine? By UN definition of genocide, the Zionist Project has to be recognized as genocide against Palestinians who were mass-expelled(aka ethnically cleansed) and culturally & historically erased from their historical homeland.
In the New World, Jewish merchants fully participated in the Immigration-Genocide of the Native Folks, aka the 'Red Man'(in North America) and Indigenous Browns(in South America). Key mega-bankers who funded Anglo-imperialism were Jewish. Rothchild Dynasty played a significant role in Anglo expansion into America and South Africa. And, the Jewish Sassoon family were the main pushers of opium on the Chinese, thus destroying millions of lives(just like the Jewish Sackler Clan silently quasi-'genocided' 100,000s of white working class folks[defamed by Jewish media as 'white trash' slated for Replacement] via opoiod addiction. Talk about mass eugenics!)
In the Western Frontier, Jewish merchants sold supplies, guns, and ammo to white settlers who were in the ruthless & relentless process of wiping out native Indians. Jews felt ZERO sympathy for American Indians, just like current Zionists regard Palestinians(and Arabs in general) as subhuman. Jews made no effort to stop waves of Immigration-'Genocide' to protect and preserve the remaining Indian community. Jews only cared about their own kind and fully supported the white supremacist immigration-'genocide' that led to Indians losing all their lands to whites, Jews, and immigrant-invaders. Emma Lazarus said "Gimme your huddled masses, wretched poor, etc." but the real people who were reduced to huddled wretched masses rotting in reservations were the American Indians. (The so-called 'huddled masses yearning to be free' had their own nations or places in the Old World of the 19th century. By arriving in America, they came to deny the 'right' to homeland for the indigenous folks.)
And look at all those huddled wretched masses in Gaza and West Bank. They sure do yearn to be free, but Jews say NO. Zionist Imperialism, the reigning ideology of US foreign policy, says all support and sympathy must go to Jewish invaders and NONE for Palestinians who were robbed of their homeland. In Gaza, IDF death squads mow down women and children. In West Bank, Palestinians face apartheid and face the looming threat of expulsion into Jordan or Syria. If indeed Donald Trump is 'Literally Hitler'(as so many Jews claim), he is most Hitlerian in support of Zionism and Jewish supremacist hatred and/or mass-murder against Iran, Syria, and Palestinians.
At any rate, just like Jews provided financial services for slavery in the American South -- most Jews fully supported the slave system and economy -- , they also served as merchants-of-death to further the conquest of American Indian lands. They supported white supremacist immigration-'genocide' of the Indians. Jewish merchants profited from blood money. Besides, Jews wanted the 'savage' Indians gone to make way for more of their own kind from the Old World. It's like Jews want Palestinians gone to make more room for Jews. And lets not forget Jewish-controlled Hollywood made all those 'white supremacist' and 'genocidal' Westerns about how glorious it was to wipe out Red Savages. In America or Israel(which was once Palestine), Jews act the same way: Sacrifice any number of goyim for Jewish aggrandizement.
But now, immigration is 'white supremacist' in another way in the 21st century. Look all around, and notice that Immigration Patterns are mostly about non-whites favoring white nations, esp. Anglo-made ones, as immigration destination. It is premised on the sense that white people are the best and do everything better. Since superior whites made the best nations, non-whites try to move to white nations for the good life. Why don't they stay in their own nations to make them nice as white nations? They feel they are hopeless for or incapable of such undertaking on their own. They must be with whites to have good stuff made and managed by whites. They look to whites as the Savior Race.
These non-whites admire, envy, and yearn for white made nations to such degree that countless numbers of them are resolves to permanently reject and leave behind their own peoples and cultures to go to white-made nations and become 'American', 'Canadian', or 'Australian', templates essentially of Anglo-founding-and-conception.
Imagine that. Tons of Chinese would rather come to the US, marry white people, learn English(and forget their own language), and live as minorities than be with their own kind in their mother nation. Same goes for Asian-Indians who, for all their talk of pride in their culture and history, despise their countrymen and prefer to emigrate and resettle in white-made nations. And browns in Latin America would rather come to America and live under the Anglo-made system of rule and economics than deal with their own problems. Browns prefer 'gringos' as elites over Latin whites who are considerably more corrupt. And Latin whites would rather come to America and live with 'gringos' than be stuck with browns whom they regard as incompetent and hopeless. The top immigration-destination nations among non-whites are all Anglo-made: US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Or the UK itself. Even as they resent Anglos and bitch about 'white supremacism', their actions speak louder than words: White people and white nations are superior to their own, and they want to be with Winner whites than with their own Loser kind.
And let's look at Jewish immigration past and present. Vile and nasty Jews love to nag and berate Anglos about 'white supremacism', but Jews always wanted to follow where Anglos go and be where the Anglos are. Jews were always most attracted to whites and to Anglos especially. If indeed Jews were truly appalled by white supremacism, Anglo-arrogance, and all that, why did they chase after Anglos? Why did they tirelessly pursue Anglos as the Goose that lays the Golden Egg? Why did Jewish bankers invest heavily Anglo imperialism and colonization?
Of course, the greatest Jewish success was made possible back of Anglos. If Anglos hadn't created American Civilization, Jewish power around the world would be much less. Anglos had talent, vision, and better governance to forge and form a great nation with a sound political, legal, and economic system, especially for their own kind. And Jews knew it and wanted access to Anglo goodies because, deep down inside, Jews knew that Anglos(and Germanic folks) were the most talented goyim in the world. Therefore, whenever Jews sought to emigrate, they always hoped to make it to Anglo-made nations. If Jews really love non-whites and hate Anglos(as they claim to in their endless diatribes), they should move out of white nations and relocate to Africa or Asia. But talk in cheap. If we judge Jews by walk than talk, they all favor white nations, esp Anglo-made ones. Latin American nations were made by Spanish and Latinos, but Jews don't much care for them either because of corruption, incompetence, and chaos(resulting from messy Diversity that breeds distrust, resentment, and hostility). We are told Diversity is so great, but then, why are the countless hordes fleeing diverse Latin America and India for white-majority nations, especially ones made by Anglos?
If not for Anglo achievement(on which Jews piggybacked), Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were the only people nice(and naive) enough to pass the reins of power to Jews who, as it should be clear by now, show no gratitude and only vicious animus. Jews are an envious people and hate the fact that Anglos than their own kind built the finest civilization. Also, as rulers over whites, they must spread 'white guilt' to paralyze whites into obeisance and submission to Jewish Supremacism. And even though Diversity will lead to tons of social problems in the US and EU, Jews push it just so they can play divide-and-rule among the Gentiles.
If we judge Jews and non-whites by what they DO as opposed to what they SAY, they are white-supremacists in the sense that they believe whites do everything the best. Their immigration patterns amply illustrate they prefer whites and white-nations over their own(and over other non-whites and their nations; we don't see too many Asians or Latin Americans scrambling to move to Africa or India, and if some non-whites move to Mexico, it's only as a way-station to the US; and notice how black African migrant-invaders pass through North Africa and even southern European nations to make it to Anglo-Germanic nations). After all, why else would non-whites reject their own nations and peoples in the hope of becoming 'American' or 'Canadian' if they didn't believe whites are superior and make & manage superior civilizations? Some will say it's entirely economic, but why have Anglos been far better at creating and managing nations where governance is cleaner and more efficient? The reasons are surely cultural and historical, genetics is also part of the equation. Just like genetic factors give Jews an edge in brains and give blacks an edge in brawn(and sports), white genetics were better suited for certain tasks, such as creating functional civilization with possibility for advancement in various fields. Of course, hurt pride among non-whites prevent them from being candid about why they immigrate to white-made nations. To assuage their own butt-hurt feelings, they claim a right to leech off whites since Western Imperialism stole everything from them. This is totally hilarious to anyone who knows about the state of Africa, Asia, Middle East, and etc. prior to Western domination over them. They were either savage, backward, or mired in stasis/stagnation. But because Jews like Yasha Levin control the Western Narrative, too many whites have bought into the Lie of 'white guilt' that says whites are uniquely to blame for all that is wrong in the world. Of course, some whites take a perverse kind of pride from 'white guilt'. By posturing as 'good whites' committed to redemption and compassion, they think they are angels for giving away their legacy to leeches.
Non-whites admire Anglo-nations as the best. They also regard whites as the most beautiful and want to have sex with them. Jewish men prefer white women, the 'shikses'. So many Jewish men have married white 'shikses'(Jewish term for filthy whore) because, in comparison, they find Jewish women to be ugly(and nasty in personality). So many black men prefer white women over black men. Asian women prefer white men over dorky Asian men.
Race-mixing or Interracism is also a kind of eugenics to make one's race look more white. Jews prefer 'Aryanized' Jews over Semitic-looking ones with hook-noses. In Israel, 'Aryan'-looking Jews are favored over Semitic or darker ones. Asians have plastic surgery and dye their hair blonde to look white. Asians want to mate with whites and create Eurasian kids whom they regard as more beautiful. Even in Latin American nations where whites are a minority, most celebs and stars are white or mostly white. Even Hugo Chavez, the champion of brown people, dumped his former wife and married a blonde. One might think Tiger Woods, being of mixed race, would seek out mixed-raced women. No, he only goes after Nordic Aryan types. Also, interracism is pushed by globalism as 'progressive' eugenics of creating a superior people. Jew-run media tell us that mixed-race people are more intelligent, more beautiful, and better in everything. (That must be why race-mixed Peru is the peak of world civilization. It must also be why Mexico is filled with the superior race of Mestizos. But if those race-mixed Mestizos are so superior, why do they want to run from others like them and start a new life in gringo-made US?)
The fact is most non-white immigrants or wanna-be immigrants are 'white supreamcist' in their preferences and aspirations. When so many of them desperately seek to leave their own people, culture, and land to come to Anglo-made nations, they are voting and saying with their feet, "Anglos are better, they do things better, and we would rather live in Anglo-made nations than in our own that suck so bad."
It's likely that the reason why Jews like Yasha Levine try to shame and browbeat white pride & white consciousness is to force whites into submissive mode at the altar of Jewish supremacism, the power that now rules America. Jews want to permanently seal their domination over goyim. All these Wars for Israel, endless giveaway to Israel, condemnation of noticing Jewish perfidy as 'antisemitic', unrelenting Hate News against Russia, Syria, Palestinians, Christians, and Iran(simply because Jews hate them), and etc. Jews know that Jewish Supremacist Power can be sustained only atop the White Horse. Therefore, the white horse must be reined and saddled. It must fear the Jewish whip and spur. Even as Jews beat on whites, whites must pledge total allegiance to Jews. Jews are the massuh who cannot tolerate uppity-ness among whites. If whites refuse to kowtow before Jews and instead speak truth to Jewish Power, Jewish supremacist massuhs demean those uppity whites as 'white supremacist', 'anti-Semites', and 'nazis'. If Jewish Power cannot be criticized on account that Jews are a perfect people, then it's sign of Jewish Supremacist Ideology. After all, humans are not gods, but if we must worship Jews as the god-like race, it means Jews think of themselves as beyond criticism or reproach... like they are indeed God himself. The chutzpah of these nasty people is unbelievable. In Jewish Supremacist mode, they rabidly & virulently defame and dehumanize whites(along with Russians, Iranians, and Arabs), but if whites dare to talk back and point to Jewish corruption and rottenness(or if whites merely mutter "It's Okay to be White" in meek David Copperfield mode), Jews blow their top and fume about how the Nazis are back in town again. What foulness!
In truth and by all evidence, Jews and non-whites do feel that white people are the most attractive and that white nations are most promising(because they were created by and are managed by white people). Now, if white people were conscious of their worth & value, they would naturally try to keep their achievements for themselves and keep out leeches and parasites. And then, Jews and non-whites can't get their hands on all the white goodies. By making non-whites join in the plunder of White Wealth, Jews seek to create the impression that they aren't the only usurpers and takers, but in fact, the people who have gained by far the most from the parasitism have been the Jews. Jews get the white bread and butter, others get the crumbs and margarine.
Jews and non-whites want access to white nations because, deep in their hearts, they know whites have done everything better(and will continue to do so until White Wealth has been bled out of existence). Therefore, in order to lower white defenses against Jewish & non-whites invasion and parasitism, Jews and non-whites cynically and/or fanatically push this notion that 'whiteness' is evil while 'diversity' is great. But if diversity is so great, why are people fleeing diverse North Africa for Europe? Or fleeing ultra-diverse India and Latin America for whiter nations? Hmm. Why did Jewish immigrants favor whiter US over brown Latin America for immigration destination? Facts speak for themselves: Jewish immigrants were white-supremacist or white-preferist in their migratory preferences.
If Jews really hate Anglos, they should just leave Anglo-made nations. Sooner the better. If Jews really love non-whites and people of color oh-so-very-much, they should pack up things and move to India, Africa, or nations like Bolivia. But we know they won't. Jews have always chosen white-nations, esp Anglo ones, as their main destinations. And when Anglo-Americans were wiping out Indians, Jews didn't protest such exercise of white supremacism. If anything, Jews fully took part in it. Jews were like jackals trailing lions to feed on the kill. Jews trailed whites to feed on white bounty.
Jews need to look in the mirror. Jewish identity has long been about supremacy. The notion of the Chosen People. And higher Jewish IQ owes to selective breeding of merchants and scholars. And Jews didn't care one iota about Chinese who died of opium addiction. Jews profited from the Opium Trade, just like Jewish Globalists raped and plundered Russia in the 1990s, creating socio-economic conditions that led to the deaths of millions.
Jews need to get off the high horse. They need to stop projecting THEIR own hatred and supremacism onto others. Or if they fed on white supremacism, they must share in the blame. Jewish merchants who sold guns to white cowboys are just as guilty.
In some ways, religiosity is stronger than ever. Indeed, paradoxically enough, the reason for the decline of traditional religions is because they no longer offer the moral high and high ground of religiosity. People are abandoning them not because they are rejecting religiosity but because they can find it or more of it in something else.
Now, religiosity is not the same thing as religion. Religiosity is the state of strong commitment, righteousness, and/or moral outrage. Religiosity can be gotten from anything, even non-religions. Marxists and Maoists were surely riding high on religiosity as they firmly believed that history, humanity, truth, and morality were on their side.
A religion has power only if it retains the element of religiosity. Consider so many religions that have fallen by the wayside. Zoroastrianism for example. Today, it is mostly a matter of scholarly, mystical, and/or theological interest. Almost no one gets worked up over it.
Some people seek out Eastern Mysticism, but it will never gain power because it lacks religiosity. Buddhism, Taoism, and such religions are about peace of mind, the search for the Way, the harmony. This was one reason why the East was less dynamic than the West, the culture of which was driven by Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. According to the Greeks, if there is A and B, the two must duke it out. Thus, the philosophical and historical pendulum swings violently back and forth, left and right. It causes a lot of friction and even trouble, but it also sets off lots of sparks. If both A and B remain viable, the dialectics continues and keeps shooting off sparks, some of which are destructive, some of which are constructive. But if A or B were to overcome the other or arrive at synthesis, it goes up against a new force: C, D, E, etc. As for Judeo-Monolithics, it says the ONE idea is absolutely true and all the power must be exerted to spread that idea far and wide. This is the core of Western Messianism and puritanism. Greco-dialectics made for dynamism, and Judeo-Monolithics made for commitment, aggression, and expansion. The Crusading or Jihad Mentality.
In contrast, Taoism and Buddhism seek to rise above conflicts. Taoism seeks the Way, or the hidden harmony behind all chaos. It urges people not to involve themselves directly in world conflicts and instead to recede and contemplate with a cup of tea. Buddhism says everything is an illusion, and people should meditate to reach Nirvana and eternal extinction. With such spiritual outlooks, it's no wonder the East was less dynamic(though it allowed for longer stretches of peace and stability, albeit of the repressive kind by today's standards).
Modern religiosity thrives on psycho-cultural legacy of Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. Pat Buchanan loved politics all his life as a kind of sports. Political season is like sporting season. And so many people see the world in terms of 'we are right, and you are wrong'. Most people don't seek the middle-ground or the Way. They savor the dialectical bloodsports of politics. This owes to the pagan Greco-dialectical tradition. But Greeks and Romans, with their many gods, weren't really into the cult of self-righteousness. Through endless discourse, they believed somethings were more right than others, but they didn't believe there was anything or any people that was the holiest in the world for all eternity. They regarded everything, even the great gods, being in a state of flux.
In contrast, Jews did see the world in absolutist and monomaniacal terms. They weren't just another tribe, but the Tribe, the Chosen, and their God was the only true God, and they were blessed by the true God. So, Jews were filled with sanctimony and (self)righteousness, and this mindset flowed to the West via Christianity. If Greeks politicized conflicts, Christians spiritualized and moralized them. In the Athens vs Sparta conflict, both sides knew that it was all about power, economics, and influence. Sure, each side called on their gods for favors, but it was a conflict of 'mighteous' than righteous. It was dialectical politics. In contrast, infused with the mindset of Judeo-monolithics, Christians saw their conflicts in strongly moral and spiritual terms. So, there was a greater sense of moral outrage in conflicts involving Christians(which is why the US tries to morally justify everything it does around the world, a factor that blinds so many Americans to the true nature of what is really going on). Each side among Christians was totally holier-than-thou, even though many of the wars were triggered by political or economic factors than spiritual or moral ones.
The Thirty Years War was even more destructive and harrowing than the Peloponnesian War because of the sense of spiritual outrage. If Spartans and Athenians were merely seeking political advantage over the other, Catholics and Protestants, armed with Judeo-monolithic moral outrage, was trying to totally crush the other for all time. When Spartans finally won, they let Athens survive. But if either Catholics or Protestants had gained total victory, the losing side would have been totally crushed and rubbed out. But as it happened, the stalemate finally led to some kind of understanding, and the art of Greco-dialectics prevailed over Judeo-monolithics. Catholics and Protestants would have to co-exist in lively conflict and not try to crush the other totally in the spirit of moral/spiritual absolutism.
Why did Christian religion lose its religiosity in the 20th century?
We know the usual suspects. The rise of science undermined religion, especially among the elites. Around the time the US was founded, many of the most intelligent people in both Old World and New World still believed in God, sought meaning in God, attended religious schools, and spread the Gospel. Religion back then had spiritual and moral authority, from top to bottom.
But with the rise of modernity, most intelligent people abandoned religion, and if they did remain religious, it was on the personal level than on moral, spiritual, and social one. With best and brightest eschewing the religious life, the leadership came increasingly from the less intelligent segments of the population. Also, as religious authority lost prestige, fewer men were willing to give up worldly happiness for God. Back when the Catholic Church was like the Harvard of the West, many intelligent men were willing to sacrifice sex and good times to serve God. As priests, they had much respect in society. But when society no longer regarded priests as anything special, what was the point of giving up sex, marriage, and good times? So, an increasing number of priests came from eccentrics, derelicts, perverts, and homos. Some homos sought repentance for their sinful ways by serving God. Other homos figured they would take over the Church and make it 'gay' to serve toot-toota-loop homo vanity.
Mainline churches replaced saving souls with saving the world with good work. But what is 'good work'? As worldly matters and issues were defined by secular forces, Mainline church's idea of 'goodness' came to be defined by academia and media. Then, it's no wonder than Mainline churches now think god is all about the 'gays'. After all, Ivy League, Hollywood, and NYT said so. Evangelicals were more traditionalist and moralistic, but they were dumb, and dummies lose out to smarties. Being dumb and childlike, Evanjellies could easily be manipulated by the Power. It's no wonder so many Evanjellies are into 'muh Israel' and 'Jews are holy' even though Jews despise them and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Also, Evanjellies put emotions before dogma. It's all about the FEELS. Then, it is no wonder that homomania is making inroads even among childlike Evanjellies. Also, as most Evanjellies, like Mormons, suffer from inferiority complex of status and class, they tend to suck up to the rich and powerful. Look how Mormons are changing full-steam ahead toward homomania because the rich and powerful now worship it as their main cult. And many Evanjellies are suckers for televangelists whose shtick is 'god made me rich' and 'Jews are great cuz they are so rich'.
As for the Catholic Church, it shot itself in the foot by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. While some of the reforms were good and necessary, others presented the Church in the position of weakness, especially via Jews and modernity. The main mode was of concession and contrition, and this put the Church on the moral defensive than offensive. Instead of judging the world with the One True Faith, it sought forgiveness from the world. Thus, being a Catholic came with less religiosity and more perplexity.
While people may be drawn to religions for metaphysical or philosophical reasons, religion has power ONLY WHEN it has the element of religiosity. Religious or secular, people are more prone to organize, unite, and rally IF they the run the fever of religiosity. This is why the anti-homo voices tended to come from the religious. There are non-religious people who oppose the homo agenda, but they feel less worked up because they just believe it is wrong, not an affront to God. There are secular people who are anti-abortion, but again, they see it as ugly and wrong, whereas religious people see it as a grave sin. Because of their element of religiosity, the religious often united to push for or against certain issues.
This is what Jews hate about Christian religiosity. (They hate Islamic religiosity too, but at least in the West, they make alliances with Muslims against Christians.) Those armed with religiosity are more likely to leave the house, meet with others, gather together(esp in churches), and protest. Even when people dislike or oppose something, the chances are they are not gonna do anything about it unless they are armed with religiosity. They see it as a personal matter -- "I don't like it" -- than as a grand moral/spiritual one -- "It is an affront to God".
But Jews fear Christianity far less now because it's either been bled of religiosity or infected with neo-religiosity of PC, e.g. all those churches that are now all about Diversity, Globo-Homo, Anti-Whitey, Holy Negro Worship, and Jew-Worship. Catholic Church is no longer a force of religiosity because it's in cucky-wuck apologetic mode. "We are sorry so many of our priests buggered boys". "We are sorry for having aided and abetted imperialism, genocide, etc." "We must fill up Europe with Africans and Muslims because Christians have so much to atone for." There is no moral pride or spiritual authority. It now even has what looks like closet-homo pope, aka the Poop, who says Europe must be Afro-Islamized as fast as possible. Because the Church is still officially opposed to 'gay marriage' and abortion, progs still eye Catholicism with disgusts and trepidation. But because it is so cucked and wussy, traditional Catholics feel nauseous about sticking with the Church. There is hardly any real religiosity found in Catholicism anymore.
But people love religiosity because it's like a drug. It gives them the high of moral sanctimony, the rush of holier-than-thou rage, and a sense of unity with 'history is on our side'. The thing is religiosity can be gotten from anything: Ideology and 'Idology'(or idolatry as ideology).
Those Red Guard lunatics during the Cultural Revolution were surely filled with righteous religiosity. Incidentally, the Cultural Revolution showed that religiosity had little to do with truth and more to do with control of information and indoctrination. After all, Mao's policies had killed tens of millions in the Great Leap Forward. He should have been disgraced forever based on historical facts, but with control of propaganda and the military Mao and his gang were able to instill countless young people with fever of religiosity and set them loose to smash 'class enemies' in ruthless abandon and righteous rage.
It's like no amount of destruction done by Black Savage Reversion, Crazy Jewish Supremacism, and Nutty Homo Perversion has made any real dent in the holiness of those three groups. Given all the black crime and thuggery, one might think Americans would have wised up to the fact that blacks are the crazy savage race, but Jews control the media and they keep rerunning the Emitt Till and MLK narrative over and over. And come Superbowl season, white cucky-wucks are back to worshiping blacks as sports hero demigods. And given what Jewish Power has done to the US in terms of financial distress and foreign Wars for Israel(that created WWII situations in Middle East), you'd think people would have wised up to Jewish power by now. But every year, it's Holocaust this, Holocaust that, and "Jews are eternally holy holocaust people" and "If you notice Jewish power, you're an anti-Semite." So, even 'literally Hitler' Trump spends most of his time with his lips wrapped around Netanyahu's pud. And given the HIV mess caused by deranged homos, you'd think people would have woken up to the danger of homo influence and practice. But Jews(who run the media) 'sacralized' homos in movies, TV shows, and advertising. And Jews associated homos with the 'rainbow', and whore politicians just can't get enough of pontificating about how the New Normal of morality is all about celebrating homo fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting.
If Rob punched you but has the megaphone and says that you punched him while he makes himself out to be the poor poor victim, people will side with Rob and denounce you and maybe even punch you. Worse, even people who saw Rob punch you may not come to your aid because Rob's megaphone can attract many more people to his side. Or, even those who witnessed Rob punching you may believe you deserved to be punched because you're a bad person. This is what Jews are doing with 'punch a nazi' meme. They are saying that if Jews, Antifa, or blacks attack whites who happen to be 'nazi', then the righteousness belongs to the puncher because 'nazis' are evil and deserve it. This is how religiosity works. It's not so much about objective definition of right or wrong or legal or illegal. It's about holy vs unholy. It's about blessed vs the wicked. Just like Christians in their hyper-religiosity could be inspired to carry out violent acts against heathens, the PC crowd can be driven to rages of religiosity to attack any people and feel good and righteous about it.
As Jews control academia, media, entertainment, and whore-politicians, they control the levers of religiosity. Academia writes the sacred texts, the canons of officialdom. Media relay them as 'news' and sermons. Entertainment turns certain figures and narratives into idols. And whore-politicians use oratory to push the acceptable narrative.
People are leaving the church and flocking to PC, Homomania, and Afromania because most of the hottest religiosity is now to be found there. PC slogans and chants about 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' are the new mantras and catechisms. And 'gay rights' became Gay Rites, a neo-religion. There was a time when NO ONE was worked up over homo issues. At most, some supported the legalization of homosexuality because they figured homos were born that way. Also, they figured homos are deserving of individual rights too. It was a legal matter, not a moral one. No one thought there was innately holy about being a homo. No one felt he was holier or more righteous because he was pro-homo.
But Jewish media spun the HIV crisis to make homos out to be victims of something akin to a holocaust even though homos did it to themselves by acting like a bunch of butt-bang-boys in bathhouses. Movies like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN made homo lust the highest and most tragic kind of love. Homos were made into saintly icons. Such ploy would have been thought outrageous when the US was more religious and moral, but in Boomer-dominated America of the 1990s and 2000s, it went over with post-religious people and young people raised on degeneracy. Also, as Bush II was such an awful posterboy of the Christian Right, young people turned away from religion. Furthermore, what with religions being so cucked & apologetic while AND homomania got more judgmental & aggressive, young people realized that there was more religiosity points to be found on the holy-homo side than on the religious side. While homomaniacs are passionately and aggressively sure of their cause and position, the Religious Right seemed confused, cowardly, and castrated. As Jews came to dominate the GOP and bought off most top church leaders, NO ONE on the Right mounted any counter-attack against homomania. They kept their heads down like the worthless Rich Lowry lest they offend Jews as allies of holy homos. Also, young people, raised on celebrity culture, were addicted to the cult of the cool. So, what some pop star or famous actor said mattered more to them than what some crusty religious type said. Mormons for one are really a bunch of Mammonites who will sell their mothers down the river for thirty pieces of silver. Look at those worthless piles of shit Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.
Now, it may well be that the current religiosities of PC may blow away. After all, where is Maoist religiosity today? Where is Stalinist fervor? Secular forms of religiosity have short-shelf lives because history proves them wrong. History proved communism wrong. All the icons and altars to Marx and Lenin came to mean nothing to Eastern Europeans with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Hitler, who was once the much revered icon of glory among Germans, has been disgraced. In contrast, God cannot be deposed and may yet win again in the long run. That said, in any given MOMENT in history, those with more religiosity win over those with less. And the fact is religions have lost the fire of religiosity either because people lost faith or because the religions have become cucked and apologetic. There was a time when to become a Christian was to be filled with a sense of salvation, glory, and pride. Now, joining the church means you should kneel before a homo and apologize for the church's 2000 yrs of 'homophobia' against guys like Butt-gigs who thinks dicks-up-my-ass is great because 'god made him gay'. Using such logic, a fatso should take pride in his gluttony since god made him want to pig out like a hippo. And I suppose a drunken Irish can argue that his alcoholism is a wonder to behold because god made him want to hit the bottle.
Ideologies can be full of religiosity because they offer a formula for understanding history and fixing humanity. As such, they are more than mere ideas but a worldview of 'what REALLY happened' and 'what must happen'. It has an element of prophecy, and so, ideologues are armed with religiosity. In time, ideological religiosity may fade as people get tired of the same-old-same-old and/or because the promises don't come true. This was true enough with communism.
Or, even if the ideology does succeed -- such as the Americanist individualist-capitalist ideology -- , it can lose its righteous luster if critiqued endlessly by radicals and subversives. Notice how the very founders and makers of the American nation have been so drastically 'discredited' by Jewish use of PC that now says MLK is the true 'founding father' while all those 'dead white males' were a bunch of hypocrites who owned slaves. (Never mind Jewish bankers funded much of 'white supremacist' imperialism around the world, and Jewish immigrants worked alongside whites to wipe out Indians and enslave & exploit blacks.)
In our increasingly post-literate age or what Christopher Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion, the power of 'idology' or neo-iconography may now matter more than ideology. Why are so many people reverential toward rappers even though all they ever say is 'muh gun', 'muh dick', 'muh bling', 'muh ho', and etc? Because idolatry makes them look cool and badass, and that's enough for neo-worship in our deracinated and degenerate age. But then, because of the narrative and iconography of the Noble Negro as victim of 'white racism', the image of black cool is fused with image of black tragedy, and this makes them even more potent as idols for young people to worship and that means a lot of religiosity points in the 'idolic' worship of the Negro. And of course, nothing is holier to SWPL crowd than the holy holy of the 'rainbow' valley. Compared to that, what does the current Church have to offer except butt-hurt apologetics and "I'm sorry".
And what would then happen if the Democrats simply held the House, added three Senate seats and defeated Trump in 2020? An all-out effort to abolish the Electoral College that is integral to the historic compromise that created our federal Union. Puerto Rico and D.C. would become states, giving Democrats four more Senators and making America a bilingual nation.
Donald Trump has turned out to be useless. GOP is cooked demographically. It's only a matter of time before US turns into a one-party state like Japan, China, Turkey, or California.
That being the case, it is about time to end the GOP, and all Goppers should join the Democratic Party in a one-party America. The future politics mustn't be about party vs party but about masses(of all colors) against the globalist elites.
And Goppers should go full socialist to hurt Big Capital.
The problem with Goppers is twofold:
White Goppers are for capitalism even though capitalists have pushed for social degeneracy and demographic transformation. Capitalists have certainly NOT been better on the immigration issue. If anything, they've often been worse than the socialists. Also, capitalist monopolists(especially of Jewish ethnocentric bent) are denying free speech and financial services to conservatives(especially in concert with Jewish Supremacist groups like ADL and SPLC).
Why should Goppers be for capitalism against socialism when capitalists use PC to shut down white patriots and POC(people of color) to replace white Americans with? It makes no sense. It is time for Goppers to side with socialists to bring down the capitalists. If that leads to civil war and riots, so be it. It might do some good as many non-whites will flee from a nation racked with economic and social problems. Also, an America without a dominant elite will clear the path for new revolutions that must happen.
Even a bigger problem is the matter of white attitudes about Jewish Power.
Indeed, the single biggest pathology of US politics is this:
Jews use POC(people of color) against whites but whites try to protect Jews from POC in the hope that Jews will appreciate the gesture and side with whites.
Imagine a Jewish guy using a pitbull to maul a white guy, but the white guy tries to protect the Jew from the pitfull that he is using against the white guy. Even though the pitbull is mauling the white guy at the behest of its Jewish master, the white guy goes out of his way to persuade the Jewish guy that the dog is dangerous and may turn on its master; therefore, the Jewish guy should work with the white guy against the mad dog. The white guy, being even more servile than the dog to the Jew, never mentions the fact that it is the Jew who is using the dog against him.
So pathological and pathetic.
Here's a better solution. If Jews use POC against whites, whites should return the favor and use POC against Jews. In any Jewish vs POC conflict, whites should side with POC. See how Jews like it. Let them have a taste of their own medicine. Even a 'white advocate' like Jared Taylor is stuck in this pathetic rut. Even though Jews treat him like they treat Palestinians in West Bank, Taylor goes out of his way to support Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and to protect Jewish Supremacist Power from criticism within his 'white advocacy' camp.
Just look at the pathetic Gopper cucks. Ilhan Omar talks about Jewish power, but Gopper cucks all side with Jewish Power against her EVEN THOUGH Jews have been fanning Muslim-American hatred against whites forever. And even though Jews are working 24/7 to flood white towns with Muslim 'refugees', white Gopper cucks serve the Jews by voting to shut down BDS. What a pathetic strategy. Zionists take over Palestinian towns in West Bank, and Jewish-Americans do everything to flood white towns with Diversity Invasion, but the priority of white Goppers boils down to "How better can we serve our Jewish masters?"
While Jews are using rabid POC dogs against whites, whites are praying for the political conversion of the Jews and beseeching God to protect Jews from POC. So, what good has all this pro-Jewish cucking done for white Americans? Zilch and nada.
GOP is cooked because of demographic changes pushed mostly by Jewish Power. In an insanely diverse nation with no majority group(the America of the near future), should whites side with POC or with Jews?
Well, we know what Jews will do. Jews will keep using POC as attack dogs against whites. Obviously then, the most logical thing for whites would be to use POC to maul Jews in turn. Fight fire with fire.
If a Jew uses a club to beat you, should you try to defend the Jew from the very club that he uses to beat you with? Sounds retarded, doesn't it?
But, that is how retarded whites have become.
Imagine if whites had fought WWII this way. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and all US politicians pledge to defend the noble and wonderful Japanese nation from the Japanese navy while totally overlooking the fact that it is the Japanese nation that is using the Imperial navy against the US.
Sounds surreal, but that is EXACTLY what whites are doing while Jews kick them in the ass with the POC boot.
One may wonder why ‘Cultural Marxism’ is so offensive to some? Because ‘Cultural Marxism’ is obviously truthful and precise in its capacity to encapsulate a crucial and disastrous transition in the evolvement of 20th century Left thinking. As opposed to traditional Marxism that theorizes over the necessary condition toward social change by means of class struggle, ‘Cultural Marxism’ aims to introduce a change by cultural shift. At a certain stage some (neo) marxists and socialists were clever and honest enough to accept that the revolution wasn’t going to happen. The working class couldn’t be bothered and even if they could, they were too busy attending their jobs. The revolution had to be facilitated by different means.
Meaning of Cultural Marxism has changed over the years. There's a lot of misunderstanding because people conflate today's brand of 'Cultural Marxism' with Antonio Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony. Such is misleading.
The fact is Gramsci was a genuine communist. He believed control of culture would play a significant role in the revolution, and this revolution would ultimately lead to prole victory.
As for the Frankfurt School, they were more about Marxian possibilities than certainties. They preferred Marx's earlier works when he was searching for an answer in 'critique' mode than his later works when Marx the Prophet pontificated as if he'd figured it all out. Frankfurters wanted to return to the spirit of the early Marx when socialist radicalism hadn't yet hardened into dogma and decree.
And they were increasingly sure that the Soviet Union wasn't the answer and maybe communism wasn't either. But one thing for sure, they were ANTI-CAPITALIST and seeking out new social theories and experimentation to arrive at what they hoped would be a better future.
Fast forward to today, and what goes by the name 'cultural marxism' has NOTHING to do with Gramsci and little to do with the Frankfurt School. Gramsci was a real communist, whereas today's 'cultural marxists' aren't. The Frankfurters and today's so-called 'cultural marxists' may have something in common in their fixation with psychology, esp of the sexual kind. But the decidedly anti-capitalist stance of the Frankfurters made them hostile to much of popular culture and advertising, which were deemed to be 'commoditizing' and cheapening the true meaning of humanity. Their idea of sexual liberation was more on the personal level, not something to be mass-marketed into pornography or vice industry.
Also, Gramsci and Frankfurters were first-rank intellectuals, agree with them or not. The book about German cinema, FROM CALIGARI TO HITLER(by Siegfried Kracauer, affiliated with the 'School'), is very impressive even if you disagree with its conclusions.
In contrast, today's 'cultural marxists' are superficial and infantile. In some ways, the higher quality of past intellectuals owed to bourgeois repression and the fact that Jews and women didn't have it so good back then. Bourgeois norms pressured people to be mature and serious about stuff and grow up. If Pauline Kael and Susan Sontag had been raised as millennials, they could have ended up like Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz. Also, the fact that many Jews weren't so privileged back then meant that they had really had to work hard and prove their worth. And women back then had to really prove their mettle in men-dominated fields. No one coddled them, and they had to be tough, like female characters played by Katharine Hepburn, Rosalind Russell, and Barbara Stanwyck. There was no OLEANNA-ish bullshi* back then. In contrast, so many of today's Jewish elites and women writers have been coddled all their lives in rich homes and/or by PC culture. They are easily triggered princelings who can't fight for themselves and immersed in precious bratriarchy.
Also, there is no interest in communism among today's 'left'. Rachel Maddow and her ilk incessantly badmouth Russia's communist past. They also side with right-wing Israel while denouncing left-wing Venezuela. (In the past, many liberal and certainly leftist media people at least sympathized with Cuba and China and faulted the US for making the Cold War worse than it needed to be.) Some college professors do claim to be communists, but it's all a joke because their MAIN obsession is 'man with a wig is a woman' and 'we must work with uber-capitalists to destroy the white working class'. Gramsci was a communist, and the Frankfurters were, if not hardline communists, at least anti-capitalist and deeply troubled by materialism and pop culture.
Today's 'cultural marxists' are totally with capitalism, oligarchy, materialistic decadence, commodification of humanity via advertising & pornography, gluttonous infantilism(of piggery, tattoos, piercing, and etc), neo-aristo self-indulgence with homo-celebration, narcissism(with slut pride), racial supremacism(worship the badass Negro), deep state & pro-imperialism(calling for more Wars for Israel) via the military-industrial complex, and etc.
Now, some on the Right use the term 'cultural marxism' to imply that today's 'leftists' gave up on economics(socialism or communism) in favor of 'culture wars', but such has to be seen as a deviation from(and even betrayal of) the original intent of both Gramsci and Frankfurters, for whom the culture war was a means to either bring about communism or to seriously undermine capitalism. In contrast, today's so-called 'cultural marxists' are immersed in trashy pop culture(concocted by super-capitalists), vanity & narcissism, spoiled-brat tantrums, and celebrity worship. They are not communists or Marxists. And their feeble idea of 'socialism' is NOT about justice for workers but "Give us free stuff so that we can lead happy hipster lives sipping starbucks and listening to reggae & hiphop(and a tattoo on my arse)." Their idea of justice has less to do with ideology or principles than idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos as propped up by media and academia mostly controlled by Jews. (Jews are having some troubles though because they count as white and are rich as hell. Also, PC psychology is getting awfully neurotic on the issue of holy Jews beating up on POC Palestinians. So, even some Jewish 'leftists' are beginning to denounce Zionism and Israel because the contradiction between Jewish abuse of power and Jewish image of victimhood is getting more problematic.)
When Gramsci and Frankfurters were devising cultural strategies, they weren't about wallowing in pop culture but offering a counter-culture to the dominant one controlled by the 'bourgeoisie'. But today's so-called 'cultural marxist' are delighted with junk-trash culture. For them, pop culture is the END than the means. (For many, pop culture is their only real passion.) Now, they do believe that pop culture must be politicized to serve the 'resistance', but what are the 'values' and 'dream's that they aspire to most? Stuff that are loved by oligarchs, capitalists, privileged decadents, deep state goons, and etc. They love homomania, a tool of rich Jewish capitalist hegemonists. Their reverence for blacks has less to do with Civil Rights Movement than rap music, sports, and sex. And they blabber about platitudes like 'diversity' and 'inclusion' via endless immigration-invasion without understanding that such actually undermine mass unity(to take on elite power). They fail to see that 'diversity' is a ploy used by elites to shift moral advantage from the working class to the elite class. Because working class types tend to be more tribal(by instinct if not necessarily by ideology), the 'compassionate' privileged elites can hug immigrants and minorities and morally condemn the native masses of 'racism'. Thus in the UK, the moral advantage went from white masses making demands on white elites to white elites sneering at white masses as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. Of course, the elites get 'good diversity', whereas masses get 'bad diversity'. Rich whites are more likely to rub shoulders with the Obamas, whereas poor whites are more likely to be punched by Mike Tysons. Elites the get the prime cut of diversity whereas the masses get the entrails.
And naturally, there isn't much CRITICAL discussion of Jewish power(that is so supremacist, hegemonic, and ultra-capitalist) since the controllers of the elite institutions are largely Jewish.
Naomi Wolf is a ditz, but she was good enough to notice that today's 'cultural marxists' are actually working with the War Department to conflate 'empowerment of women' with US imperialism. Today, many 'cultural marxists' are totally on the side of US war-making because their idea of the highest value is globo-homo stuff. Since the US is now homo-metropole of the world, hell yeah, US should seek hegemony to spread hegehomony. And 'cultural marxists' support new cold war with Russia cuz... Russians won't bend over to 'gay pride' stuff(funded by super capitalists and Hollywood and Wall Street).
Today's 'cultural marxists' should really be called 'cultural capitalists'. It wasn't so much that Marxists took over the culture of capitalism but that capitalism totally transformed or subsumed the character of the Left so that there was no longer any real left left anymore. A 'cultural marxism' that is at home in the pages of Us and People magazines hardly has any moral value as an ideology.
A typical face of 'cultural marxism' is the atrocious Laura Dern in the latest STAR WARS fiasco. You see, the new rebellion is in a life-and-death struggle with the new empire, but notice she obviously spent many hours on her hair and dress to take command of the starship in the most crucial of times during the battle. It's all fantasy. The difference is when STAR WARS and SUPERMAN came out in the 70s, people took them for fantasy and nothing else. But now, we have 'cultural marxists' acting as if the real future of humanity hangs in the balance of what happens in STAR WARS, which is why it is so heavily politicized. It used to be, people got serious ideas from books(and some serious movies) and treated pop culture as escapist fantasy. Now, pop culture fantasyland is regarded as the main battleground of politics. As Chris Hedges said, we live in an empire of illusion where idolatry reigns over ideology. As 'cultural marxists' rule most of pop culture, it is said they have won the 'culture war'. But they won it for super-capitalists, neo-aristo homo narcissists, and tribal Jewish supremacists. The victory has nothing to do with real culture or anything resembling Marxism(or even classical progressivism).
In the radical films I AM CUBA and BATTLE OF ALGIERS, we see real revolutionaries putting their lives on the line for real world struggles. For them, it was not a game of Peter-Pan-ish fantasy. But what passes for 'cultural marxism' today is about taking control of Archie's Comics and STAR WARS franchise to churn out fantasies where the 'good guys(and gals and million other genders and intergalactic species)' come together to fight the 'bad guys' who look like MAGA people. And notice that the STAR WARS universe isn't so much about ragtag rebels vs the empire than about empire vs empire. So, the ultimate message is that militarism and blowing up the world is AWESOME and EXCELLENT as long as it's 'woke' according to Hollywood, Pentagon, Deep State, and the homo-hegemonic community.
One major difference between the US and China is this:
Chinese state violence has a relative free hand within China but is almost non-existent outside China.
Chinese government will brutally crack down on dissidents and use whatever means necessary to maintain control over Tibetans and Uighurs in Xinjiang. But around the world, Chinese state policy is, "You do your thing, we no intervene in your political affairs. All we want is do business." Chinese will use economic muscle but will not play 'policeman' or 'serial killer' of the world.
In contrast...
American state violence is severely proscribed within the US. The biggest abuse of state violence in recent history was in Charlottesville where the Unite the Right attendees were denied freedom of assembly and free speech. The state-and-media complex colluded to spin a false narrative, use lawfare, and virtual kangaroo courts to deny justice to Unite the Right people and railroad certain members with trumped up charges that led to long sentences.
Still, that was mild compared to the kind of tactics used by the state in China. If Tibetans had tried to pull a Unite the Tibetans rally, many more heads would have been cracked and its leaders would be sitting in jail or working in labor camps.
In the US, blacks can run wild and burn down cities, but the police mostly stand on the sidelines. Illegals jump across borders, but the US must treat them 'humanely'. Tea Party or Pussy March can fill up the mall in DC, but the state allows massive protests. Though Occupy Wall Street was finally shut down by state power, the means were restrained compared to the kind of violence used by the Chinese state.
While America has a huge jail population, blacks commit lots of crime and some get caught. It can't be helped. It's not political violence though.
But when it comes to foreign policy, US is the #1 terror-spreading nation. With drones, it blows up entire villages. It has invaded and bombed nation after nation. It has set up military bases around the world as 'traps'. (If Russia gets into a conflict with neighboring nation with a military base, the US media and Pentagon can spin it as "Russia attacks US soldiers.") The US deep state funds and backs terrorist proxies as 'freedom fighters' to attack any nation hated by Jews(the ruling elites of the US) and Israel. It has used sanctions to starve entire populations. It has engineered coups to topple democratically elected governments in Ukraine and Egypt. The death toll from US foreign intervention since the end of the Cold War is well over a million. Some might say it's in the millions if we count those indirectly affected by the wars and violence.
Chinese government is like a strict father who uses domestic violence to keep order in the house but is courteous to others in the neighborhood.
US government is like a cuck dad who is helpless to stop his wife and daughter from behaving like mudsharks and indulges his worthless whigga son, BUT outside the home he gets to play Jack the Ripper and makes a big bloody mess of things in the neighborhood.
The Mandate for Palestine was a dress rehearsal for something much bigger.
Mandate for the West(and then the Rest).
Mandate for Palestine led to eventual Jewish demographic takeover of Palestine to be reconstituted as Israel, the Jewish state, the only part of the world deserving of national identity and right of territory. Jews are mono-nationalist. Only their nationalism is true nationalism. All other nationalisms are false and must be dissolved. Jews denounce on poly-nationalism like Jewish monotheism reviled all pagan idols as false gods.
Mandate for the West is to eventually replace native-whites(in Europe) and founder-whites(in North America & Australia) with masses of non-whites. How does this benefit Jews? Diversity will make cohesive nationalism impossible in white nations. Diversity will create cracks and fissures, and Jewish elites get to pit various sides against one another while taking the lion share of the prize.
Imagine a nation as a Spartan military unit. United and strong, standing together with shields and spears. Very difficult for outsider-enemy to penetrate the phalanx. But imagine a rag-tag bunch of troops of diversity. They would never stand and fight together. As they push each other, cracks form among them, allowing for easy penetration by the enemy.
Mandate for the West thus favors Jewish power in the long run.
Finally, there is Mandate for the Rest. As non-whites flock to the West(the Metropole), they take on PC ideology and globo-homo POZ and export them back to their home countries. In time, even the nations of their origin turn globo-homo and worship diversity. They too allow massive immigration-invasion, and diversity leads to divisions and cracks, and Jewish power can penetrate, exploit the differences, and take over. After Europe, it will be smaller East Asian nations that will fall, esp Japan, S Korea, and Taiwan as yellow dogs are most imitative of the West as model.
Jews think big. With prophetic minds, they look ahead to their grand chess plan for the world.
Audacious Epigone:If the new populations view them as especially egregious examples of the old population and the old population views them as traitorous backstabbers, I’m not sure that works out particularly well for them in the end.
It works out because 'new populations' are diverse. Even if they come to envy and resent Jews, they will be at loggerheads with one another. Browns, yellows, and blacks don't see eye to eye. Neither do Chinese and Hindus. And even among browns, there are so many gradations of identity and color(flimsily held together only by shared resentment of higher-achieving 'gringo' or 'yanqui'). Puerto Ricans don't have much in common with Indios from Guatemala. So, they will be more divided among their own kind than against Jews. Also, as Jews are on top and will remain there due to higher IQ, non-Jews know they must suck up to Jews to gain access into the uber-sphere. Besides, Jews can exploit the 'new people vs old people' dichotomy indefinitely as immigration-invasion is to be endless. So, even as new people settle and evolve into old people, there will be ever more new peoples.
As for old people, Jews only need the collaboration of the elites. Masses don't count for beans UNLESS there is a massive populist revolt with pitchforks(which is rare in history like asteroids hitting the earth). The fact is white elites are willing to sell their souls to Jews for financial gains and on insta-moral grounds. If you're a white cuck and serve Jewish Power, there are lots of prizes. Paul Ryan will make a killing as a lobbyist. Also, as Jews are the Eternally Holy People of Shoah, white cuck elites feel 'cleansed' and 'baptized' by rubbing shoulders with Jews, especially as the Jewish-controlled media and academia made whites out to be uniquely tainted by history. As the result, whites need atonement and salvation, and one quick way to get it is by sucking up to holy People of Shoah. "Look, I got some Jew Magic on me!" Since white elites suck up to Jews more than the white masses do, it creates the impression of 'good whites' at the top and 'bad deplorable whites' on the bottom. This has the effect of making 'good white elites' serve Jews than represent 'bad white people', who Jews say must be replaced. It divides whites along class lines.
Mass-Immigration-Invasion of non-whites is the final nail in the Jewish Strategy for Total Power.
Jews had the unique potential of rapidly gaining the dominant position in the US. Now, how could they when they were only 2% of the population? I mean there was no chance that the Jewish 2% of US could elect a Jewish president. The Irish had the numbers to take over many big cities. Jews didn't. Even in NY, they are like 20% of the population. Jews gained power not by elections but by taking over elite institutions. Only they could have done this due to combination of high IQ, chutzpah, and big think. Also, they could pass as whites, which made it more acceptable to the white majority(than if Asians tried it, but then Asians lack chutzpah and are less intelligent than Jews). So, Jews used the bypass method of power. Just gain control of elites, and you gain control of society. Selection than election. With Jewish control of media, law firm, finance, entertainment, vice industries, real estate, and etc, they could buy off any politician of either political party. Also, with control of media, they could smear and destroy anyone. And, Jews spread the notion of 'antisemitism' that says anyone who notices nefarious Jewish influence is a 'nazi' while anyone who serves Jews 24/7 is the most wonderful goy. Since the Shoah Narrative made Jews out to be holy and since flattering Jews could be rewarded with blessings of approval from the holiest people, it became De Rigueur for whites to roll over before Jews for pats on the head. So, everyone in power became cucks to Jews.
But Jews still felt nervous because having elite power alone doesn't secure permanence. This was evident in the history of the British Empire. The Brits gained control of non-white territories by bullying and buying off the local elites. So, if the Brits could control their puppet leaders in Asia, Africa, and Middle East, they had control of all the territories and all the populace as most people are sheeple. BUT, there was the chance that a real national leader might arise and challenge the cuck-collaborators and the Empire. Such a leader may rouse up the masses... like what happened in Cuba. The US had TOTAL control of most of the political and economic big-shots in Cuba. By scheming with the cream at the top, US could effectively milk all of Cuba. But Fidel Castro and others came along and they led the national masses to victory against the Cuba elites... and this spelled doom for American influence as well because US had put all its eggs in the elite-basket. Once the Cuban elites fell, US influence was gone as well.
This is why Jews aren't content with elite power alone. If white masses reject the current white elites, they also reject Jewish power that is mainly attached to white elites than to white masses. At least in the past when US was ruled by white Christians, there was a connection between white Christian rulers and white Christian masses. But will white Christians, for the long haul, accept Jewish rulers? For the time being, it seems whites are pro-Jewish and support Israel, but could this last indefinitely, esp when there's mounting evidence of vile and nasty Jewish behavior in so many sectors, not least against whites who, besides, are often berated by (((fellow whites)))? What if white masses lose confidence in their own leaders as a bunch of 'cuck-collaborators' and long for an American Castro or Putin? This is why Jews hated Donald Trump with such virulence(even though he turned out to be just another cucky-wuck). Trump ran on America First that implicitly said a white guy like him should reconnect with and protect the traditional (white) American nation. Jews called Trump 'literally Hitler', and even though that is hysterical, there is a kernel of truth to the notion that Trump is figuratively Hitler. After all, there was the nationalist element in Hitlerism that called for unity of German elites and German masses(a good idea before the pathological nut decided to shift into imperialist mode). Hitler was a bad example of it, but there is nothing more effective against imperialism than national unity between leaders and masses. US went from empire to colony of empire. During the Cold War, it was USSR empire vs US empire. After the Cold War, US became a colony of an even bigger empire: Empire of Judea with networks all across US, Canada, Latin America, EU, Russia, Israel, and etc. So, EOJ(Empire of Judea) wants the white elites to serve the empire -- like British expected Hong Kong elites to serve the British Empire than represent Chinese nationalism -- than reconnect with their own kind.
The way Jews see it, AS LONG AS there is a white majority in the US, there is a 'chance', even if a slim one, that white elites and white masses may unite against the Jews. Or, a new white elite will arise(like Castro and others did in Cuba) to reject the cuck-elites. (Alt Right had this chance, but idiot Richard Spencer allied with neo-Nazi morons and yammered endlessly about a need for Faustian white neo-imperialist supremacism.) Jews believe that securing elite power isn't enough. If white elites stop collaborating with Jews or if they are rejected by white masses who demand a new white elite that is actually responsive to white needs, Jewish elite power will fail like American power in Cuba. As the existing cuck-elite falls, so will its master and sponsor.
So, Jews feel that they must secure demographic power as well. But how can they when there's no way Jews can be the majority of any nation except Israel? This is where Diversity enters the picture. Jews know from the Austro-Hungarian Empire that Diversity can be useful to Jews. Recall that most groups in that empire distrusted and even hated Jews.... but they also hated one another and were thus unable to unite against Jewish power and influence. Diversity means Jews can pit whites vs blacks, whites vs yellows, whites vs Hindus, whites vs Muslims, whites vs browns, blacks vs browns, blacks vs yellows, blacks vs hindus, blacks vs Muslims, browns vs yellows, browns vs Hindus, browns vs Muslims, etc. Sure, there is some POC talk about unity of non-whites against whites/Jews, but it's mostly empty noise because non-whites don't see eye-to-eye on many subjects... such as Affirmative Action.
Imagine the NY Giants playing a team made up of players of various teams. All the Giants are playing for their side against their opposing team. In contrast, the diverse players of the other team, while playing against the Giants, are also playing against one another, which makes it impossible for them to form a cohesive team. Giants have a huge advantage.
Jews are masters at splitting the goyim between elites and masses. Jews did this with whites and can do it to ANY goy group. White elites like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Beta O'Dork do NOTHING for whites. Their main priority is being part of the Privilege Club, and so, they suck up to Jews.
The same can be done with ANY group. Notice how Hindu- and Chinese-American elites in the US are total suck-ass dogs of Jewish Power. Once they've been let into the Power Club, their main priority is to BELONG(be an insider), and that means sucking up to Jews while snubbing their own people. Look at Fareed Zakaria. This non-white brownie has been let into the Power Club, and he beats the drums for Wars for Israel. The one time he praised Trump was when missiles were fired into Syria.
It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.
So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.
But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.
Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.
That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.
Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.
Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.
And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.
Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.