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'.
Alas, it also has a darker side: imperialism, racism, genocide, slavery, religious and political persecutions and, of course, two world wars.
Hardly different from rest of humanity.
By the way, race + ism should be defined as belief in reality of race and racial differences. ISM means belief, after all. Using 'racism' to mean 'mindless or groundless racial hatred of supremacism' is to fall into the trap of the enemy. Everyone is race-ist, explicitly or implicitly, because it's impossible not to notice racial differences.
But what the so-called “collective West” (aka the AngloZionist Empire) is showing today is the exact opposite of what the West is supposed to stand for. Here are just a few examples
When has the West, or any civilization, ever practiced what it preached?
I will grant that the hypocrisy is louder than ever under globo-homo Zionist control, but it's a matter of degree than substance.
International law: with the US/NATO aggression against the Serbian nation, a major feature of western civilization died: international law.
True to an extent. Serbia was targeted because it was the strongest state in Yugoslavia and because it was closest to Russia. Also, Jewish power, by coming to the 'rescue' of Muslim Albanians, wanted to propagandize itself as 'pro-Muslim' so as to prepare for wars against Muslim nations. Nice shtick: "Gee, how can WE AMERICANS be anti-Muslim when WE bailed out the Albanian Muslims?" Of course, Jews were being rank hypocrites. Jewish logic says the West had to help Jews take back the Holy Land BUT Serbians had no right to take back their ancient homeland from Albanians who'd come invading under Ottoman rule.
That said, US/NATO intervention in Serbia was a mixed bag. For most of the 90s, NATO had done little or nothing to stop the slaughter, just like the UN did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. There was a sense that SOMETHING had to be done to end the bloodshed and cycles of violence.
In retrospect, it was handled badly, but INTERNATIONAL LAW means that nations around the world must work together to stop excessive mayhem in a part of the world. In a more perfect world with a better superpower than the US, maybe something good have come of it. But the US had no credibility as it had used sanctions to kill 100,000s of kids in Iraq.
Law of War and Geneva Conventions: same here, the US is gleefully ignoring many of the most sacred provisions of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions
What of massive civilian bombings in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, and etc. US support of right-wing death squads during the Cold War. 100,000s, possibly millions, slaughtered in Latin America.
It was always like this. Soviets backed their own bloody regimes in Asia and Latin America. Chinese backed the loathsome Khmer Rouge. The world didn't suddenly suck just now. It was always a mess.
Respect for alliances and partnerships. The AngloZionist Empire has no allies – only vassal states, puppet regimes and comprador 5th columnists.
One of the benefits of being an empire. Puppets are more reliable than allies. Allies can break off he alliance. Puppets always do as told. In that sense, we can't blame the US for preferring puppets to allies. Better off owning a trained dog than partnering with a lone wolf with a streak of independence.
When the Neocons finally came out and showed their true face, they did more than just affect the image of the US abroad, they also gave a signal to their colonial administrators that all pretense of decency could now be dropped.
Jewish tribal supremacist takeover of US empire has been most unfortunate. Though both the US and USSR got their hands dirty and bloody in the Cold War(and supported murderous proxies), there really was a clash of big ideas and visions relevant to much, even the majority, of humanity. It was a world conflict for world-ideas. Big power engaged in big action for big isms.
But, we now have the US as lone hegemon using its immense power and influence to serve the narrow interests of a single tribe(allied mainly with homo supremacists). There is so much tensions around the world to indulge the Jews, a tiny percentage of world population, and homos(the cherry-picked allies of Jews): Jewish King and Homo Queen. Since Jews know that it's too much to ask all the world to risk WWIII, IV, V, and etc. for Jewish interests, they couch their chosen conflicts in terms of 'human rights' and 'spreading democracy' and etc, but it rings so hollow. Or Jews try to spin the conflicts as holy crusades to spread homomania, which actually goes over well with many people in the West for whom queertianity is their new missionary-fairy faith.
Many Russians living in the West (such as Dmitri Orlov) have noted the numerous similarities between the late Soviet Union (especially the so-called “stagnation years”) and the modern US . I myself made such a list of similarities as far back as 2014 when I listed the following: A bloated military budget resulting in an ineffective military
I dunno. US seems to be pretty effective in smashing nations. Just ask the Libyans, Iraqis, and Syrians. Maybe US sucks at nation-building, but it is an expert at nation-wrecking.
A huge and ineffective intelligence community
Ineffective? It seems very effective. US was able to mess up computer systems in Iran. It has hidden devices in computers all over the world. Also, Intelligence works closely with Jews and Israel, which means all the political dirt are known to Jews who can blackmail anyone.
A crumbling public infrastructure
Depends on where you look. Certain big cities are richer than ever. And even now, most roads in the US are better than roads in Russia or China.
A world record in the per-capita ratio of incarcerated people (US GULag)
Blacks. Evolution made them meaner and tougher. Have blacks, will have lots of inmates.
A propaganda machine which nobody trusts any more
I wish this were so, but plenty of morons trust every word of snakes like Rachel Maddow and S.E. Cupp. And all that anti-Russia hate news must have worked because the great majority of Americans now hate and fear Russia more than ever.
An internal dissident movement which the regime tries to keep silent
True of any society.
An industry whose main exports are weapons and energy
Isn't that Russia NOW? In contrast, the US is also a huge exporter of high-tech, medicine, media, entertainment, chemicals, foods, and etc.
A population fearful of being spied on by the internal security services
Sadly, most Americans have learned to stopped worrying and love the spying. There was some fuss from progs about the Patriot Act during the Bush II presidency, but when Edward Snowden spilled the beans, the entire elite and proggy class denounced him. Conservatism Inc, the arm of the war state, didn't defend him either. It took mavericks like Glenn Greenwald and Oliver Stone to come to his defense. Progs claim to stand for ideology, but 'idology'(idolatry as replacement for ideology) is bigger among them. One of their main 'idological' obsessions is the Magic Negro. As Obama was a Magic Negro, progs just venerated him as a 'historic president' and turned a blind eye to all his warmongering. Progs are more 'Catholicist' than 'Protestantist'. They are more dazzled by 'idolic' symbols and spectacles than true to the letter of progressive ideology.
A financially catastrophic over-reach of the empire across the planet
US is financially over-stretched, but I don't think its overseas empire is the main problem. It's bankers privatizing profits and socializing losses, and it's the masses hooked to entitlements.
An awareness that the entire planet hates you
Nothing new here, but there was always love/hate between US and the world. After all, the world still wants to come to the US and become Americans. Few Americans want to move to Russia, but plenty of Russians want to come to US and become Americans. Even Muslims whose nations have been blown up by the US want to come to US and become Americans into rap and burgers.
A young generation which believes in nothing at all
That wouldn't be so bad. It would at least mean that young people are skeptical. But in fact, too many young people truly and really really believe in globo-homo, Afromania, and Jew-Worship, or the Holy Three. Young people worship MLK, Diversity, Inclusion, 'gay' rainbow, and etc.
In this, they are different from latter-day Soviet youth who really were jaded and felt that they were being lied to about the richer and more advanced West.
In a way, the sheer superficiality of current Western ideology and 'idology' makes them more effective. One problem with Marxism-Leninism was that it just seemed boring, dull, worn, same-old-same-old, and tiresome as the years went by... like someone reading Church dogma for the umpteenth time. In contrast, even as current Western ideology and 'idology' are pretty idiotic, they are always changing color and shedding (snake) skin according to fads and fashion. The conceit of novelty, newness, and 'change' keeps young idiots excited and thrilled: 'gay pride', 'slut pride', BLM, Pussy March, MeToo, tranny-mania, Green New Deal, climate change, 'migrants welcome', 'microaggressions', etc. It's 31 flavors ideology/idology. In contrast, Soviets had only one flavor: Red. Most young people are idiots and care more for pizzazz than meaning. As idiotic as the current Western ideology/idology is, it knows how to hook people to a 'vibrant' sense of 'celebration' and 'happening'. The Revolution has been Advertised. This is why so many youths are indeed 'passionate'(or childishly excited) about whatever flavor they're obsessed with at the Moment.
An educational system in free-fall, (the Soviet one was much better, btw)
Many schools are a mess because of blacks and maybe some browns. And of course, lower-income whites do poorly. But US education is pretty solid for Jews, Asians, and white middle class. If we compare US whites with whites in Europe and Russia, they usually come off better.
A massive and prevailing amount of corruption on all levels of power
This is problematic, mainly due to blacks and Latin Americans/Muslims/Asians who bring their norms to the US. Also, diversity increases distrust.
Anyway... one big difference between US and old USSR is this: The MAIN reason why USSR collapsed was not due to all those problems listed above. It was because its elites got tired of managing the system and taking care of the 'lazy' masses. They wanted to end communism and become super-rich oligarchs. And THAT is why the system collapsed. It was blown up from the top.
In the US, the top elites are super-rich oligarchs. Why would they collapse the system when they already have it so good? During the days of USSR, the Soviet elites envied the capitalist elites of the West who were richer, freer, and had more stuff. The only way they could have it all was by ending communism, which was destroyed from the top than from the bottom.
The elites have it better than ever in the West. Why would they do anything to end the system? Trump made noise about draining the swamp, but it looks like he's been totally co-opted by now. Trump is Scump, saying nasty shit about Queen Ann(Coulter).
Also, as problematic as diversity is, it is actually to the advantage of the elites(esp minority Jewish elites) because diversity makes it impossible for the various racial/ethnic folks to unite to challenge elite power. Also, as at least 50% of whites are totally for diversity & homomania and see 'white supremacy' as the biggest threat, they work with Diversity and globo-homo elites to suppress any effective white mass challenge to elite power.
Judging by today’s crazy standards on ‘gender’ issues, just about every actor, artist, director, and etc. in the not-too-distant past was a ‘homophobe’ and definitely a ‘transphobe’. Or, more accurately, 'homo-disdainer' and 'trans-ridiculer'. Even 90% of Liberals in the 60s thought homosexuality was deeply problematic. Even most Liberal publications dared not to broach the subject. Psychology department was convinced homosexuality is a mental disorder. Susan Sontag's piece on Camp was controversial(even in an ultra-liberal magazine like PARTISAN REVIEW) because it discussed homosexuality. So, there was nothing strange about what John Wayne said on that issue.
As for Wayne’s ‘white supremacist’ view that blacks need to undergo further civilizational process before fully partaking of democracy, is it really all that outrageous? After all, how is it all that different from Samuel Huntington's theory that Third World nations would do better to undergo process of modernization under iron-fisted Enlightened Autocrats before gradually transforming into functional democracies? If anything, even many Liberal political scholars came to the same conclusion. Many social scientists and political scholars came to believe that sudden democratization can actually do more harm than good among peoples who are as yet culturally and economically unprepared to take on burdens of electoral politics(that can only work with rule of law and civic responsibility). Such dictator-supremacist theory became quite vogue in political science departments. That is why many came to appreciate Deng over Gorbachev following the implosion of the Soviet Union. Deng maintained Party supremacy and worked on economic development, whereas Gorbachev favored political reforms. Russia did even worse in the 90s when it fully went ‘liberal democratic’ without the institutions and attitudes necessary for a functional liberal democracy. And after the Rwandan disaster, the West enthusiastically supported the iron-fisted autocrat that kept tight order in that troubled nation.
Denial of democracy in such nations doesn’t seem to bother Westerners. Indeed, Obama aided Egyptian military against democracy headed by Muslim Brotherhood. The idea was that Military supremacism was better than democracy in a nation that was, as yet, not ready for democracy and freedom. Also, after the debacles of Iraq and Libya, many(on both left and right) came to the conclusion that some nations are better off under the supremacism of an Iron-fisted leader than with experiments in ‘liberal democracy’. While democracy may be ideal for modern nations, not all nations and peoples have the values, habits, knowledge, and developmental levels to make democracy work. They just aren't cut out for it. In such cases, iron rule is often preferable to democracy. Indeed, that was precisely why Fidel Castro’s Cuba got favorable press from American Progressives during the Cold War. They admitted he was a dictator and that Cuban politics was about One-Party Supremacy, but they also emphasized that Cubans were better off under a tough ruler than many people in willy-nilly Latin American democracies where ‘leaders’ are are little more than shills of transnational corporations and organized crime. It’s oft-been duly noted that blacks in Cuba lived healthier lives than blacks in freer Latin American nations(and even in the US).
So, John Wayne’s views were along similar lines. There was not ONE America but TWO Americas. White America was sufficiently advanced for full democracy, but blacks had yet to attain full civilizational outlook to function properly in a free and democratic society. They had to undergo a process of modernization, not unlike peoples in pre-democratic developing nations, before they could take part in democracy.
Granted, this line of argument was somewhat disingenuous because whites had had lots of time to civilize blacks since the end of the Civil War but mainly used political muscle to keep blacks down and marginalized. But then, as we’ve witnessed since the 1960s, even with best intentions of progressive whites, liberated blacks tend to use their freedom to act wild and destructive than sound and constructive. With blacks, you can’t win. If you keep them in line with an iron hand, you are the oppressor. But if you give them freedom, they run wild and degrade society.
Indeed, even Wayne’s civilize-the-blacks idea wouldn’t have worked in the long run because black problems are less cultural than biological. Blacks evolved in Africa over 100,000s of years to be warriors, hunters, and jivers. With freedom, even civilized blacks eventually revert to their ugabugery.
Now, there may have been another reason why Wayne argued for denying blacks full freedom. Though he didn’t say it, he surely noticed that blacks are more muscular, more macho, and got bigger dongs. As a famous tough guy, he couldn’t honestly say, “We white guys will lose our manhood and our white women to the muscular and bigger-donged Negroes if we give them full freedom.” He had too much pride. But in fact, his ‘white supremacism’ was really a crutch against the threat of black supremacism. The 1970s movie MANDINGO with Ken Norton shows that black men are tougher than white guys, and white women get jungle fever the moment their eyes set upon some big Negro with more muscle and bigger dong. So, biology is black supremacist when it comes to raw manhood. Nature favors black manhood over white manhood in the thumping-and-humping department. But Wayne, like most white men of his period, had too much pride to speak honestly and say, “What I’m really freaked out is about black supremacism over us white guys. Did you see Woody Strode? I’m a big strong guy, but he’s twice as muscled and probably has a dong twice the size as mine. And that’s why we need segregation cuz integration will mean black supremacist manhood turning us white guys into a bunch of wussy white boy cucks.”
But it would have been better for the white race and the truth if he had said as much. All stable and lasting orders are based on truth, not fantasy.
After Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar made an obvious point about Jewish power influencing American foreign policies, she was forced, by that same Jewish power, to recant, thus confirming, to all those who can still think, the awful influence of Jewish power.
ROTFL. Same happened with Chuck Hagel hearing. It was as hilarious as it was humiliating.
Maybe Jewish Power figures, paradoxically enough, that it will be ‘noticed’ LESS if it is brazenly out in the open. After awhile, people may just get ‘used to it’, even endeared to it as the New Normal. Imagine you have a spacious room, but suppose a bomb drops from the sky, falls through the roof, and sits in the room without exploding. You are told there is nothing that can be done about it. Indeed, trying to remove the bomb may set it off and then kaboom! So, you must accept its presence and work around it. Day in and day out, you grow accustomed to it, and it becomes regarded as part of the room. You hardly notice it because it’s always there. After awhile, you get so used to it that you can’t imagine your room without it. Eventually, if someone says there is a nasty bomb in your room, you get all triggered and denounce him for casting negative aspersions toward something that is so essential to what makes the room so special.
Maybe when something is made so ubiquitous, people not only get used to it but inured and 'habitualized' to it, indeed to the point where the they cannot conceive of normality without it. It’s like the changes in a society's response to the building of a dam that profoundly transforms the environment. There is the initial shock and disgust, the sense that it is a crime against nature, what with the flooding destroying so many plants and animals. But over time, a new flora and fauna grow around the water, and people become accustomed to the new reality. The dam, which had been denounced, has become essential to the new reality. People now defend it and oppose destroying the dam to restore the original landscape.
Or consider the pre-modern Chinese who were forced to wear queues(aka pigtails) as a sign of submission to the Manchu invaders. The draconian policy was to humiliate and subjugate the Chinese. But over time, Chinese got so used to the queues as a part of their image and style that, when the moment finally arrived to cut them off in defiance to the waning Manchus, many Chinese felt hesitant. As queues had become a part of Chinese culture for generations, many felt trepidation about discarding the 'tradition'.
Well, it now seems like all these White Cucks of Zion in the US have become accustomed to wearing their Jew-queues or Jueues.
There are no scientific or even documentary proofs of the Holocaust, so the six million figure is just as much nonsense as the human skin lampshades and human fat soap.
There are lots of lies and fabrications and tall tales about the Holocaust. And 6 million figure is almost certainly false. But there are mountains of evidence that Germans committed mass killings, esp in the Eastern Front, and many victims were Jews(though most were killed by bullets than gas). David Cole is probably right that around 3 million Jews were killed. So, while Jewish Power has grown corrupt and crazy of late, there is no sense denying the reality. It’s like Chinese may yet grow arrogant and dangerous, but there is no sense belittling Japanese atrocities in China that were all-too-real(though often exaggerated in sensationalist accounts of the Nanking Massacre).
Linh Dinh should be careful about pushing in the other direction too far. After all, he’s Vietnamese, member of the Tribe that was butchered in millions by US war machine. If the US, which stood for democracy and freedom, could commit industrial slaughter on such a massive scale, imagine what the Nazi War Machine would have been capable of in the East. Nazis were brazenly ethno-supremacist and felt justified in expending countless Slavic and Jewish lives to fulfill their dream of empire. So, the mass killings of Jews and Slavs were no myth. If Holocaust is a total myth, then Slavocaust must be too. In fact, Nazis committed both on a massive scale in the East.
The great irony is that Jewish globalist imperialists have become a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Their attitude is hardly distinguishable from that of historical Nazis. They believe any number of Arab, Muslim, Iranian, and white Christian lives should be sacrificed to actualize the dream of the 1000 yr Judeo-Reich. Just look at the state of Ukraine and Middle East because of the influence of Judeo-Nazism. Entire areas look like Poland during WWII. Or consider the white death by Opioids(peddled by the sinister Sackler Family), which is reminiscent of the impact of the Jewish monopoly of opium trade in China.
For several years, I’ve posted reports from a German friend, describing his country in crisis, so below is his latest. Burdened by Holocaust guilts, Germans are shamed into accepting millions of refugees, many of whom are Muslims fleeing from wars triggered by Jewish power.
Germany was reasonably sane until the end of the Cold War. For example, it still had blood-based citizenship. And there was moderate pride in having overcome its dark past. Also, West Germany was much praised as a model for all of Europe, not least for East Germany that lagged under Soviet rule.
As long as the Soviet Union remained a threat, there was a limit to guilt-baiting Germany and spreading the ‘poz’ to weaken Europe in general. Europe had to remain moderately stable and secure to keep the Soviets at bay. But once the Soviet Empire collapsed, a new set of priorities came into play(as devised by New World Order).
At the same time, a most profound shift in the reins-of-power was finalized in the US, the boss over Europe. The US went from Anglo-elite rule to Jewish-elite rule. Why was this significant? Even though Anglo-America and Germany had fought bitterly in World War II, white Christian-Americans and white Christian-Germans were willing to bury the hatchet and work together for a better future for both sides. A movie like ENEMY BELOW(where Germans are portrayed as men than monsters) would be unthinkable today(when hysterical Jews label ANYTHING as 'nazi' or 'far right').
Vengeful Jews resented the rapprochement between White America and Germany following the war, but they couldn’t do anything about it because the top power back then was with the Wasps. In those days, even Liberal Wasps were more conservative than Conservatives today(who embrace ‘gay marriage’ and all forms of sappy cuckery). Indeed, nationalism was seen generally as a good thing during most of the Cold War. Both the new right and new left defended nationalism against imperialism. Soviets and the Left supported Cuban and Vietnamese nationalism against the US empire, and in turn the US supported Polish and Hungarian nationalism against Soviet Empire. And both the US and USSR sought to win hearts and minds in the Third World by supporting nationalism against fading European imperialism. Also, following WWII, much of Europe, both West and East, was reordered along nationalist lines, sometimes involving mass relocation of peoples, such as expulsion of Ost-Germans from Poland and other places. Such policies led to greater homogeneity and national consciousness. As for Imperial European nations like France, Great Britain, and Netherlands, the loss of empire left them with nothing but nationalism.
Even if there developed a school of thought that saw nationalism as deeply problematic, the fact is both US and USSR were fine with moderate nationalism around the world. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and with the triumph of the US as the sole superpower, mindsets began to change. The change owed especially to the Jewish takeover of the US. Perhaps if Wasps had retained power and kept Jews at bay, the US would have been more accommodating of other nations and systems. But with Jews at the helm, the lone superpower went into hyperdrive against all nationalisms(except that of Israel of course). Granted, Jewish-ruled US cynically supported particular nationalisms for political opportunism: Stoking ethnic hatreds in Yugoslavia, inciting anti-Russian animus in Georgia and Ukraine.
The reason for Jewish eagerness to weaken goy nationalism had to do with the nature of Jewish Power. Jews have very little national power. Their power is essentially globo-hegemonic: More about Jewish networking around the world than about unity of national elites and national masses. People say Israel is so powerful, but its influence depends utterly on the far greater power and wealth of Jews in US, EU, Russia, Latin America, and etc. It is globo-Jewish networking and coordination of power that favors Israel for special treatment.
Now, if Jews had a gigantic nation of their own, they might be more tolerant of nationalism as a general principle. Suppose Israel or some Jewish-majority nation were the size of Russia, China, or India. Or even Iran. Jews might feel secure in their impressive national power of great land mass, abundant natural resources, and large population. But the only national power that Jews have is Israel. Israel is an advanced affluent nation but ain’t much on its own. It’s like Britain as a GREAT POWER depended on its imperial expanse. Without the empire, Great Britain could be well-off and a nice nation but NOT a great WORLD power. In contrast, the US, China, or Russia can be great powers even without control of foreign territory. They have land, population, and resources all on their own. Because Jewish World Power depends on networking and maintaining control of key goy-majority nations and peoples, it must declaw and neuter them of nationalism(that may well awaken goy identity and interests against those of Jews). Now, Jews, as a Normal People, could have it pretty good without imperialist hegemony over other nations, BUT Jews are now addicted to supremacism(just like Brits got and Japanese were once addicted to empire). It’s like the ring in LORD OF THE RINGS. Once one tastes power, it’s hard to let go. Just like Germany-as-normal-nation was too humdrum for the Nazis, Jews-as-normal-people is too boring for Jewish globo-supremacists who must have it all.
The triumph of Jewish Supremacist power is why the world really began to change after the Cold War. With control of media, finance, academia, law, and deep state, Jews pushed the New Globalist Narrative on all the world. (Globalism differed from internationalism, which was about sovereign nations respecting and cooperating with one another. Globalism demanded the surrender of national sovereignty for all nations except Israel.)
We know about the fall of the Soviet Union but no less monumental was the fall of Wasp rule in the US around the same time. Ethic Coups took place in both US and Russia in the 90s. Because of the Rule of Law in the more stable US, Jews were able to manage the takeover more smoothly and efficiently over here. In contrast, the relative lack of Rule of Law in Russia was both a great boon and bane for Jews. It made for a great opportunity to steal and rob over thereas fast as possible in the decade of Shock Doctrine or Shylock Doctrine. Jews could steal more and faster in Russia of 90s than anywhere else in the world. But precisely because Russia was without Rule of Law, Vladimir Putin and FSB national-gangsters could move against Jewish globo-gangsters in the style of THE GODFATHER. Just like Adolf Hitler chewed more than he could swallow in the invasion of Russia, overeager Jews tried to swallow all of Russia in one big gulp but ended up puking all over(just like Cronus in his plan to devour his children).
Still, Jews checkmated for total power in the US and its puppet EU. As most white people lack prophetic will, they rely on the Official Power for permission on what is what. Jews are like adults and big-thinkers. Whites are like children and students. (Whites are to Jews what Asians are to whites. Mental Dogs.) Also, because the West had elevated Shoah into a secular faith, white people came to look upon Jews as sages, saints, and wisemen. For most of post-war period, such philosemitic sentimentality was less harmful because Jews didn’t have dominance over US and EU. It’s like we can be sentimental about American Indians as ‘noble savages’ without negative consequences because Indians do not and will never have control over us. But by the time the Cold War ended, Jews had amassed immense power and grown arrogant & megalomaniacal. They were the new supremacist-imperialists. But because whites had been indoctrinated with Holocaust Cult for couple of decades, they absorbed every Jewish word as the holiest wisdom or most brilliant insight. Of course, devious Jews were only too happy to oblige goy expectations(though originally concocted by the Jew-run media) and role-play as wisemen and sages and tragic victims. But in fact, George Soros and others of his kind weren’t trying to spread human rights and progress. They were trying to mentally, politically, and financially enslave goyim so that the globo-homo supremacists could rule over them-as-sheeple. But because whites had become enamored of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, they earnestly lent their ear to every Jewish advice, no matter how ridiculous.
And Jews didn’t just direct agenda this at Germany but at ALL goy nations. Consider how the UK(the proud victor in WWII) is just as far gone as Germany and for similar reasons. London is now majority non-white, and its upcoming ‘conservative’ candidate for mayor is a black guy running against the current Muslim, the Pakistani Sadiq Khan. There is no greater sin in the UK than 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. Sweden and Norway had NOTHING to do with WWII -- if anything, Norway was occupied by Germany -- , but they are just as far as suicidal and self-loathing as Germany. Or, if there is pride, it is about demonstrating virtue via national/racial suicide. Indeed, Jews rigged the Narrative so that all of Europe is deemed more-or-less equally responsible of WWII and Shoah. If Germans must lose their nation to atone for WWII, others must lose their nations to demonstrate they are morally superior to Germans. In any case, both Germans and other Europeans must prove that they are oh-so-good in the eyes of Jews. Moral logic and values flow from the main premise, and the current premise is, "Holocaust is the greatest crime of all time, Holocaust = 'racism', and 'racism' = 'xenophobia'. So, if you oppose mass migration-invasion, you are 'xenophobic' = 'racist' = Nazi = pro-Holocaust." Unless Europeans reject this insane premise, they are a cooked goose in the Jewish pot.
Because smaller powers usually follow the lead of bigger ones, what happens in US and UK & Germany shapes what happens in smaller European nations as well. In some ways, Sweden is even more far gone than Germany.
The fact that Jews target all goy nations — victim nations along with villain nations of WWII — goes to show that the real Jewish motive is not about War Guilt or the Holocaust. It is about Jewish Supremacist takeover and control. Poland was invaded in WWII, and its resistance heroes were nationalist. So, one might think its national consciousness would be praised and be associated with anti-Nazism. But nope, Jews say even moderate nationalism in Poland and its desire to remain Polish are ‘neo-nazi’ and ‘far right’.
Also, Jewish globo-homo pressures on Japan and South Korea are the same even though Japan was aggressor nation and Korea was ‘aggressed’ nation. The same Globo-Homo propaganda is pushed on both nations, and the result is young peoples there now consider nationalism and homogeneity to be vile notions, which is one reason why Japan and South Korea are going the way of suicidal Ireland. When the US was Anglo-Christian-ruled, moderate nationalist feelings in Europe and Asia were tolerated and even encouraged. White American Christian elites thought, “We have America, Russians have Russia, Germans have Germany, Japanese have Japan, etc.” Each people have a base nation of their own. Such formula was deemed ideal for most of the world. But Jews think differently. Even though Jews rule the US, they don’t feel, “We have America” because, after all, 98% of Americans are goyim. Jews can’t really own America because they feel no connection to goyim. Jews can only rule as elites. In contrast, when the white elites ruled, they felt a bond with the white masses. So, the unity of white elites and white masses led to a sense of national ownership, and whites respected similar sentiments in other nations. But Jews in the US only see themselves as ruling over the filthy goyim. Jewish elites feel connection not with goy masses but with fellow Jewish elites around the world. Jews fear goy nationalism because it might reignite the idea that the goy elites of a nation are supposed to represent, defend, and serve their own people… like what the Jewish elites do in Israel and what Viktor Orban is calling for in Hungary. Now, Jews are totally on-board with such arrangement in Israel but revile it in Hungary. Why? Because if national goy elites primarily connect with national goy masses, they won’t serve the super-globo-elites(the Jews). It’s like the political dynamics of Vietnam under French rule. French imperialists suppressed the idea of Vietnamese elites bonding with Vietnamese masses. They demanded that the comprador Vietnamese serve the Franco-super-elites of the great French Empire. To drive a wedge between goy elites and goy masses, Jews push for Diversity. As the US and Germany turn more diverse, the white elites are pressured to care about ALL peoples than about white people. Thus, the bond between white elites and white masses is severed. (And since it is impossible for white elites to bond with ALL the masses, they just choose to serve the Jewish elites above them.)
With Jewish rule over the US, the New Message is all goy nations must forsake nationalism, promote diversity, welcome mass immigration, and etc, the kind of crazy stuff rejected by Israel. Look how globo-homo corporate Japan is celebrating its mulatto athletes born of black men and Japanese women. Japan is total Cuckpan now. Globo-Japan is a mere puppet of the US as puppet of the Empire of Judea or EOJ.
In the end, it’s not about the Holocaust because Jewish demands on all goy nations are the same regardless of whether the nations were villains or victims in WWII. Germans were villains and Poles were victims, but notice Jews pressure both peoples to comply to globo-homo national suicide. As for the Palestinians, they had NOTHING to do with World War II in any shape or form, but notice Jewish policy on them has been no better than on Germans; if anything, it's been worse. What does that tell you? Jewish Supremacist Power will destroy and sacrifice ANY people and nation to serve Jewish supremacist interests. It’s like how the Spanish behaved in the Americas. Or how Germans and Japanese acted during WWII. The radical supremacist sickness has now passed to Jews, and it has to be stopped.
Not sure Stalinism offers the best understanding of what is going on.
Communism had to be simple because it was about the pride of work, dignity of labor, simple virtues of proles. Back then, the bourgeoisie had all the privilege. Workers were barely literate or semi-literate. More literate in places like Germany but still less educated than the bourgeoisie with fancy taste and refinement. In the story of the princess and the pea, the girl notices the pea because she is really of royal background. If she were a true prole, she would have been content with a hard wooden bed with a bunch of peas. Just any place to sleep.
Especially because communism came to power in backward Russia(and later even more backward China), the themes had to be simplified even further. In USSR, communism was less about the workers inheriting wealth and property from the bourgeoisie(that had been hoarding it all) than about turning peasants into proles to build a modern economy. According to classic Marxism, the contradictions within capitalism would lead to revolution. But because capitalism would have already built a modern and wealthy economy, revolution would be about taking the loot of the rich and sharing them equally among the workers. Also, the workers would have collective ownership of factories, land, and resources. And with more leisure and less work, workers could lead moderate ‘bourgeois’-like lifestyles. They would work about 4 hrs and devote other time of the day to art, culture, ideas, and etc. The bourgeoisie would lose out as a class, but bourgeois-ness would remain as lifestyle. In habit, culture, and attitude, Marx was even more bourgeois than Adolf Hitler who was half-bourgeois and half-bohemian. He didn’t so much want to destroy everything bourgeois as elevate workers to a point where they too could partake of the good stuff enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.
No such luck for Russia and later China. When the Revolution happened, the majority were still dirt-poor peasants. Because there wasn’t much wealth to take from capitalists, a whole new economy had to be built. That meant the workers had to be driven to work even harder. They had to be tough. There was no time for nonsense. It was work, work, and build, build. So, naturally, the ideology had to be simplified for the masses. Trotsky scoffed at Stalin’s ‘second-rate’ intellect. Lenin and Trotsky were hyper-intellectuals. Marxist ‘Greeks'(as Nassim Taleb might describe them). Stalin was a Marxist ‘Roman’. He was about getting things done, and the fact was communism would have to build a modern economy from ground up as there wasn’t one to take and inherit from the bourgeoisie(that was much smaller in Russia). And then, later Mao made Marxism even simpler because China was even more backward than Russia. In the Soviet Union(at least until the 60s when there were some burgeoning signs of a consumer economy), the main theme was about the basic needs of survival. It wasn’t about choosing which pastry and wine but having enough bread and water.
US was much better off than the USSR, but then, universal prosperity didn’t arrive until about after two decades after WWII. At the turn of 20th century, majority of Americans were still on the farm. Great Depression and WWII led to hardships and shortages. After WWII, 50% didn’t have indoor plumbing. So, even though there was certainly more choice than in the USSR, most people had to do with basic stuff.
But from end of WWII to the present, US and Western Europe have continued without a great depression. There were some recessions(some serious) along the way, but life got easier for more people. With everyone taking substance for granted in a world where even poor people grow fat, style took precedence. And this goes for ideology as well. When a lot of people were hungry, the ideology was about bread. And when wars destroyed so many lives of common folk, the ideology was about peace. But there’s no shortage of bread. And recent wars have killed just a fraction of lives lost in WWI and WWII. And there’s no draft. So, ideology has turned into a game of personal choice. It’s like shopping for various kinds of cheese, wine, candy, chocolate, and etc.
Oddly enough, consumerist mentality went better with leftist ideology. This seems counter-intuitive because capitalism was on the ‘right’ and socialism was on the ‘left’ during the Cold War. But if leftists are more likely to complain, nitpick, bitch, and fuss about social problems, it means their mentality is more like that of the finicky consumer with ‘customer is king’ mentality. Jews are known for haggling and negotiating things down to the last penny. Homos are known for being fussy and bitchy about everything. They are less likely to be content with any product. So, the consumer who is never content with any product and the progressive who is never content with society share the same kind of mentality. In a society where consumerism is king, leftism was bound to take on features of consumerism.
So, today’s ‘progressivism’ is different from yesterday’s when the theme was Bread for Every Man. Same bread for every man? How boring. Just like consumers want lots of choice among various breads, cookies, and pastries, the new ‘progressivism’ is like 31 flavors of Ice Cream. Even within homo ideology, there is ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bi’, ‘trans’, ‘queer’, and many more. And people can mix and match their grievance products. So, a New Muslim can intersect his identity with ‘gay’ identity, feminism(which also comes in many flavors such as slut pride, vagina mania, corporate feminism, etc), and immigrant-identity(legal, illegal, undocumented, New American, New Jews, etc). Just like there are many kinds of Comfort Food, there are now many kinds of Grievance Products.
And capitalists appreciate this PC branding. As rich folks and big corporations are always worried about being called out for being greedy and profit-obsessed, how convenient for them to market grievance-approved products… like Gillette that is against ‘sexual harassment'(all by white men) and Nike that features Kaepernick. That way, they can rake in the dough while posing as ‘caring’. And the fussy consumer mentality and griping ‘progressive’ mentality fuse into one. Some snotty consumer who wants to buy the very best is also glad to know that the product is buying is also ‘woke’. It flatters both his status and standing. In a way, corporations appreciate micro-complaining and micro-bitching. Such gives them more of a rationale to crank out new and improved products. Sometimes, the new stuff is indeed better. Other times, like so many variations of smart-phones, it’s mostly hype to rake in more bucks.
Your average conservative is more likely to be ‘socialist’ in his tastes and outlook. He is more likely to focus on basic needs and basic values. Less likely to be fussy wussy about the very best. Less likely to complain that not everything is as he wants it. But people who are content with basic bread and stuff make less demanding consumers who want more and better. Can anyone imagine John Wayne character complaining that his coffee ain’t the fancy kind? In contrast, homos are always bitching about everything, and they can be a real pain in the ass. But you have to give credit where it’s due, and so much of improvement in consumer goods was driven by people who always found faults in something. Germans were hardy but also extremely thorough, which made them obsessed about creating the ever-more-perfect machine or system. It’s no wonder they built a greater economy than Russia with all its resources. Culture of Complaint can do some good… in the right measure.
The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and ironic.
Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.
Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture. Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on 'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.
But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)
Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant and even hostile to the Universal Faith.
Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and 'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. Paradoxically, this egotism among Jews makes them both universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God; Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception but tribal in contract(to Jews).
Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism, it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania, it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity --- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx & Lenin stood for common workers --- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism, vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in the Current Year.
'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia, think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.
Now, the argument that Facebook can do as it pleases because it is a private company has merit... if it were consistently applied.
BUT, would Heritage Foundation argue in such manner IF Facebook were owned by Palestinian-Americans and banned Pro-Zionist pages and voices as 'hateful' to Arabs? Really?
Or suppose Twitter is owned by Iranian-Americans who detest Israel and Zionists. Suppose they ban AIPAC, ADL, and other pro-Zionist groups as 'hate groups'. Would Heritage Foundation support the right of Twitter to ban pro-Zionist voices?
Or suppose Youtube is owned by Chinese-Americans and they worked with pro-Chinese voices(even in China itself) to shut down critics of China as 'hateful'. And suppose pro-Tibetan voices are banned from Youtube also. Would Heritage foundation support that?
No, of course not.
Also, the so-called Liberals are total hypocrites. They've been saying forever that it was EVIL and ANTI-AMERICAN for the Red Scare and Anti-communists to have fired and blacklisted people suspected of being communists or communist-sympathizers because, after all, the Constitution protects people's civil liberties regardless of race, color, or creed.
CREED means ideology, belief, religion, or conviction.
But now, the Liberals are saying people should not be hired or they should be fired on the basis of creed alone. If their creed is 'hateful'(according to Judeo-Nazis and Homomaniacs who rule current America), they must be shut down. Examples of obvious truths censored by Twitter that takes from Judeo-Nazi organization ADL that supports Zionist tyranny over Palestinians:
And,Heritage Foundation, a cucky-wuck organization, says Facebook and other companies(owned by people of certain ethnic group) can ban people who advocate for white interests.
With a 'right' like that, who needs the left?
Worst of all is the sheer hypocrisy. The goal posts keep changing to favor one side. So, we are told that blacklisting communists and leftist radicals during the 'McCarthy Era' was so terrible because of 'Muh Constitution'. We've heard that narrative a million times from textbooks and PBS documentaries.
But when it comes to pro-white voices calling for white national liberation from PC tyranny and Jewish Supremacism, they must be fired, blacklisted, and shut down. And the Liberal Media are fully behind the silencing. But then, most of the media, like most internet platforms, are owned and controlled by Jews who are only 2% of the US population. (And Heritage Foundation relies on rich Jews and cuck-oligarchs for donations.)
But then, the very people who've denounced America of the 40s and 50s for anti-communist and anti-Soviet hysteria are now pushing the totally nonsensical paranoid hysteria about 'Russia Hacking'. These psychos are shameless. At the very least, the Soviet Union after WWII was a real empire with a radical ideology. In contrast, Russia today just wants peace and trade. So, why is anti-Russia hysteria worse than ever? Because Jews rule America and hate Russia because Russia won't play nice doggy to EOJ or Empire of Judea. It won't bend over to Homomania(a form of Satanic-Jewish-christianity) and won't let Jewish oligarchs totally own the place.
In truth, Jew-run Hollywood was always about blacklisting. Suppose any writer or director proposes an idea for a movie about the Nakba Pogroms of 1948 from the Palestinian POV. Or a movie about Charlottesville that shows what REALLY happened, i.e. Jewish mayor, black police chief, Deep State, and Big Media all conspired to shut down the event and railroad White National Liberationists who said NO to Jewish Supremacism.
I guarantee that person will never work in Hollywood again. The anti-communist era blacklisted lasted just several years. But anti-white and anti-Palestinian blacklisting in Hollywood go on forever.
(((Jonathan Weisman))) says: "The Jew flourishes when borders come down, when boundaries blur, when walls are destroyed, not erected…. Again, we see, national borders and walls, wherever they rise, tend to trap Jews, not liberate them."
So, why were Jews fleeing from the Nazis? Nazis broke down borders all across Europe. They could access France and the vast fields for Russia for several yrs. Hmmm, funny that open borders under Nazism were bad for Jews back then. Open Borders meant Open Season on Jews.
When Nazis were on the rise, it seems Jews were seeking sanctuary in nations with working borders against Germany.
The great irony.
Under Nazi Open Borders policy, Jews were desperately fleeing as refugees to other parts of the world.
Today, it's Zionist Hegemonic Open Borders policy, and millions of Arabs and Muslims have been uprooted by Wars for Israel and forced to flee their own homelands. Israel certainly doesn't want Syria to regain border control and keep out foreign Jihadis. Zionists want Syria to remain invaded by foreign terrorists and US mercenary troops. US pretends to remain to fight ISIS but is really there to aid 'moderate rebels' and Kurds against the central government. Why? All because Jewish supremacists control US foreign policy and don't want Syria to recover and recoup as a rival of Israel as Lone regional superpower.
At the height of their power, Nazis were for open borders in Europe because it meant Nazi power could go ANYWHERE. Jews feared this the most. After all, Jews who fled Germany for France were praying that France defend its borders against the German pan-European empire.
The fact that Jews are now so enthusiastic about destroying borders in EU and nations like Syria is proof that they are the main imperialists and hegemonists around the world. Open Borders means invasion by Jewish Power in every corner of the globe.
Imperialists flourish with open borders because they get to invade and 'include'. China certainly includes Tibet, like Japan once included Manchuria and Taiwan.
Nationalists protect and exclude. Imperialists invade and include.
Anti-Imperialists flourish with secure borders because they can stop invasion and forcible inclusion by the world order. Palestine as a nation would still exist if Arabs had had the means to secure their borders and stop Zionist invasion that came to include Palestine as part of Jewish Empire. Jewish immigration eventually turned into Nakba Pogroms, of which 2018 is the 70th anniversary(but we hear nothing from the Jewish-dominant media), that wiped Palestine off the map.
Jews were not always for open borders. Many Jews had hoped to remain in one city and put down roots. But they were expelled to OTHER PLACES because of ethnic conflicts. And in the case of Old Jerusalem, the Open Borders and Open Invasion Policy sure didn't do much for the Jewish kingdom-state... that was wiped off the map by the invasive-inclusive Romans just like Palestine was later wiped off the map in the 20th century. For much of history, Jewish movements weren't about free trade and opportunity but expulsion and exile.
Eventually, Jews came to appreciate Open Borders because they piggybacked on Western Imperialism. Under protection and reach of British Imperialism, Jews plied the opium trade in China that had been forced open, invaded, and carved up China along the coasts. Because Jewish power has become so synonymous with Western Imperialism(much of which was funded by Jewish capital) and now American Global hegemony(dominated by Wall Street, Harvard, Hollywood, and Pentagon), Jews seek to weaken every gentile nation to gain influence over them. When Russia was opened up to US hegemony in the 90s, it was a grand opportunity for globalist Jews to gain control of policy and totally loot the place.
Also, Iraqi, Libyan, and Syrian borders were destabilized so that Jewish-controlled Foreign Policy could invade and weaken them for the interests of Israel. But these Jews who now call for the destruction of Iranian borders as well are always telling us that we must support and protect the ethnic integrity of Israel. I smell a weasel.
Imperialists and hegemonists want Open Borders. For Jews, this means financial, military, and cultural domination of all the world through Wall Street, Hollywood, Harvard, and Pentagon. And these Jews made a pact with Third World Demographic Imperialists who seek to invade white lands and leech off white wealth. Invade-Invite policy has adherents among Third Worlders. Consider the 'gold star dad' of Hillary's campaign. "You can threaten or invade my country militarily as long as you allow us to demographically invade your country." His family had access to the West, and his son, though Muslim, fought in an anti-Muslim war for the Empire of Judea, of which the US is the Jewel in the Crown. Fareed Zakaria and Nikki Haley are big adherents of this. Bomb Syria! And Let them in.
--------------------------
Ironically, the worst thing for Jews would be for white gentiles to listen to the advice of Jews: Whites should just forgo their white identity and join with rest of humanity and fight against privilege and hierarchy?
OKAY. The main targets will be Jews. Look at UK. Labour whites have given up white identity and joined with POC(people of color) against the Power. And Jews are freaking out because they got so much of it. In the UK, white 'progressives' and socialists side with Muslim immigrants who hate, hate, and hate Jewish-Zionist Power that pushes for Wars for Israel that have already killed over a million Muslims and turned so many into refugees. Jews feign sympathy for refugees but overlook the fact millions were forced into refugee-hood by Wars for Israel.
(((Weisman))) calls other people Nazis, but he is a Judeo-Nazi. Today, Jewish supremacists are the New Nazis. US is not a democracy but an oligarchy ruled by Judeo-Nazis. Jews hate Trump not because he's a Nazi but because many of his statements were anti-Judeo-Nazi. Trump wants good relations with Russia. In contrast, Judeo-Nazis hate Russia just like Hitler hated Russia. Hitler wanted to take over Russia and reduce Slavs into slaves. Jewish power wants to take over Russia, spread Homomania, destroy Russian churches and values, and reduce Russians into deracinated consumer-slaves of Hollywood and Porn.
Trump called for end to Wars in the Middle East during the campaign. In contrast, Jews want more Wars for Israel. Crazy Netanyahu keeps bombing Syria and wants to drag US into a war with Iran. Indeed, one thing that Jews never criticize Trump for is his intermittent saber-rattling(mostly to APPEASE Judeo-Nazis) at Russia, Syria, and Iran. Judeo-Nazis want Trump to be warmongering, hostile, and chauvinist against any people or nation hated by Jews. After all, what is most of media but Judeo-Nazi hate campaign and propaganda against Russia, Iran, Syria, Palestinians(now gunned down at whim by Judeo-Nazis), and white gentiles.
Just ask yourself who the real nazis are. Richard Spencer or Jewish supremacists?
1. Who killed 500,000 Iraqi kids? Spencer or Jewish supremacist Albright?
2. Who guns down unarmed Palestinians who are living under apartheid in West Bank and Warsaw Ghetto-like conditions in Gaza? Spencer or the Judeo-Nazis of the IDF?
3. Who financially raped Russia in the 90s and reduced so many Slavic women as sex slaves in a vast white slavery ring? Spencer or Jewish globalists?
8. Who says Israel can have 200 nukes and receive endless aid from US while Iran is constantly threatened even though it has no nukes and allows inspections? Spencer or Jewish warmongers?
9. Who controls entertainment and pornified mainstream culture to the extent that your average girl in the US is raised to be a mindless slut consumer pig? Spencer or Jewish producers?
10. Who controls Big Pharma that addicted so many white Americans to opoids just like David Sassoon the Jews addicted so many Chinese to opium? Spencer or Jewish oligarchs?
11. Who monopolizes media and platforms and uses censorship and repression to control the flow of information because they cannot win a fair debate? Spence or Jewish tyrants?
12. Who holds AIPAC Nuremberg-like rallies to buy off whore gentile politicians to support Jewish supremacists interests over Palestinian national liberation aspirations in the Jewish-Palestinian conflict? Spencer or Jewish chauvinists? If Jews really are for equality, how come NYT won't hire Palestinian-American columnists? How come Jews insist that the US favor Jews over Palestinians just like Nazis favored 'Aryans' over Slavs?
It seems to me the real nazis of today are Judeo-Nazis. (((Weisman))) is just projecting his supremacist-imperialist-hegemonism on Trump and Spencer and other whites who want to respect the national sovereignty of other nations, serve their own national interest, and find ways for the world to get along on the basis that fences make for good neighbors. Jews who are in neo-imperialist mode hate this for the same reason Hitler hated borders that prevented him access to other lands that he wanted to control for the sake of German supremacism. The real enemy of all of humanity is Judeo-Nazism.
Anyway, Weissman is to be thanked for letting the cat, or weasel, out of the bag. He made it so plain as day what it’s all about.
-----------------------------
Weisman: The borders were still blurred. Nationalism and chauvinism were in check. Undocumented immigrants marched in the streets of Washington and Los Angeles demanding rights. The polyglot nation recovered…. The Jew thrived.
Jews are what percentage of the world population? Yet, all the world must be turned upside down with mass invasion(of course Israel gets Passover rights) just to profiteth the Tribe?
Of course, Weisman's formula applies ONLY AS LONG AS Jews can play non-whites against whites in the game of Divide-and-Rule. But what would happen if indeed ALL whites did go SJW? Then, they would side with POC against Zionism and Jewish privilege. BDS is spreading among SJW whites like wildfire.
So, it's a kind of paradox. In order for Jewish divide-and-rule strategy to work, there must always be 'racist' whites. If whites were to all lose their 'racism' and mix with POC and just become a polyglot people, they could all turn SJW. Then, Jews won't be able to play divide-and-rule among 'racist' whites and non-whites. The polyglot of POC and SJW whites will come after Jews... like the British Labour Party is a mix of Whites-gone-SJW teaming up with Muslims and Africans against Jewish power.
Also, it is the 'racist' whites who are most supportive of Israel as 'western outpost' in the Middle East. It is precisely because white conservatives have been tainted with 'white guilt' that they cling to Israel First to show that they'd been redeemed from 'antisemitism' and 'racism'. It's their get-out-of-white-guilt-jail card to prove that they are no longer 'racist' when, in fact, they still cling to whiteness, even if in an implicit way.
But if white conservatives really did lose their 'racism' and decided to become SJW, they'd no longer need to cling to Israel or profusely flatter Jews for moral credit. They could just hug Diversity to get all the moral cred they need. Indeed, this is why proggy whites aren't so pro-Israel. As they are pro-POC, they don't need to hug Jews and Israel to be 'redeemed'. Just by screaming BLM or championing 'dreamers', their 'white guilt' gets cleansed.
In contrast, because white conservatives tends to be less charitable to blacks and browns, their 'white guilt' washing station remains Israel First. But if white conservatives were to drop their racial interests and embrace blacks, browns, and POC, then there would no longer be a need for them to worship Israel to ritual-cleansing of 'white guilt' as it would be washed constantly by their support of POC such as Muslims and Palestinians.
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.