Saturday, November 30, 2019

Dangers of Academic Neo-Stalinism — The Proglodyte Dilemma of Serving the Progligarchs — The Power of Hedonics in Culture and Politics

For the Jews, championing Free Speech was always a tactic than a principle. They(and their goy minions) were for when it served their interests. But now that the power of Free Speech challenges, defies, and exposes their corruption, hypocrisy, abuses, and supremacism, much of courageous and honest free speech is defamed as 'hate speech' that must be shut down. Of course, the powerful globalists know full well that the hysteria about 'hate speech' is really a mind-control tactic to restrict the discourse, but bottom-feeding Antifa dummies(and druggies) are too stupid to realize they are being used and abused as justice-junkie goons and SJW attack dogs.

It seems as though Neo-Stalinism is coming off the rails in US colleges, at least some of them. Why? Unlike Stalin who had iron-grip and total control over his minions, Neo-Stalinist professors do not. The Chinese Cultural Revolution spiraled out of control, but even so, Mao had the ultimate authority to rein in the Red Guards when he decided enough was enough. So when things got out of order, he mobilized the military to restore order in the cities and sent the radical youths to the countryside(ostensibly to serve the people). In contrast, Neo-Stalinist or Neo-Maoist college professors can't control what they've unleashed. Their power is too weak(and their will too wussy) to act as a lid on the pressure cooker of nutball agendas.

Also, there is a lot of unspoken resentment among the nutball radicals on campuses. Even though they do not candidly articulate their feelings, the contradictions can be sensed. Our world has come to be about winners and losers. Globalism and mass immigration/diversity has made it increasingly difficult for the Grand Middle Class to define the Core of Americanism. It is now about the winner class and the loser class; naturally, there will be many more losers than winners. This being the case, the natural thing would be for radical leftists to challenge and attack the winner class that is hogging the wealth and prizes. And in an earlier time, this would have been the case when the upper classes were more conservative, 'reactionary', rightist, and Wasp. And anti-homo, anti-statist, and even 'antisemitic'. Back then, the upper classes were attacked by the Left as the bastion of right-wing white-supremacist privilege.
But such political attitudes have diminished with the rise of boomers. Especially with Jews taking elite power from Wasps, leftist politics came to be less focused on class and more on minority-identity. By such logic, the rich Jewish minority now has more victim points than poor white gentiles. 'Minority Rights' doesn't make a distinction between billionaire Jews or fancy neo-aristo homos AND ghetto blacks or lettuce-picking Mexicans.
Likewise, 'white privilege' doesn't distinguish between 'poor white trash' and someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. If anything, precisely because rich whites can buy off the opposition by funding 'progressive' causes, they are less targeted with ideological animus than are the white working class or poor folks who tend to be more nationalist(as globalism been a bane for them).
With Jews as the new elites, attacking the rich is no longer ideologically kosher. Why, anti-wealth politics might be deemed as 'antisemitic'! Also, as the rich classes now fund Globo-Homomania and Diversinoma(Diversity-as-Cancer), they are praised as engines of 'progress' by the incestuous media and hype-machines controlled by people in the same club. So, nutball proglodytes go easy on George Soroses, Michael Bloombergs, Tim Cooks, and James Camerons of the world. Millennials are the Generation of Harvey Milk and Starbucks Coffee. Now that elite colleges are virtually entirely 'progressive' in an increasingly status-obsessed world(of 'winners and losers'), the future winners will be the main beneficiaries of PC-as-shield. According to the Official Dogma, how could they be 'bad people' when they are for 'gay marriage' and 'trannies in women-sports and the ladies room'? It is now easier than ever for the rich class to be 'leftist' or 'progressive' because the main organs of classic leftism have been removed and the void has been stuffed with issues amenable to manipulation by the rich. While the rich always had problems with demands of labor and class conflict, they need not concede much by pandering to the new themes of Zionism/Jew-worship, Globo-Homo, Magic Negro, and Diversity. As Jews are the richest people in America, being pro-Jewish now means being pro-wealth. As homos have neo-aristocratic flair and cater to the rich/powerful, they hardly pose a challenge to the privilege of the upper classes. The black issue can be dealt with by elevating token blacks like Oprah and Obama to the very top. Thus, even though most blacks remain mired in the same old problems, the symbolism of the 'first black president' and Oprah-as-billionaire-mammy(and MLK & Mandelas as new gods for the white race) creates the impression that the rich class is 'inclusive'. Even though they don't live close to most blacks, they rub shoulders with fancy blacks who are hyped by the media, thereby creating the impression that the upper class Jews & whites are totally 'anti-racist'. As long as they can afford fancy blacks to grace their parties and occasions, they can fend off the accusation of 'racism'. As for Diversity via More Immigration-Invasion, this is clearly in favor of the rich classes that can keep wages low; furthermore, their 'inclusion' of foreigners as new nationals is used as moral ammo against 'xenophobic' nationalist who come under the most competitive pressure by never-ending immigration-invasion. In a homogeneous society, the have-lesses have moral advantage over the have-mores by pressing for more equality. In a heterogeneous society, the have-mores claim moral advantage over the have-lesses by pushing for more diversity. As newcomers always apply more competitive pressure to the lower/middle class than to the upper class, the latter obviously has far less to lose. Of course, no one explained why More Diversity is more just. Where is the justice in allowing ceaseless flows of foreigners to take over one's own nation?
The culmination of all the ideological transformations has resulted in political schizophrenia. The NATURAL position for progressives would be to attack the winners as hoggers of wealth and power. But in the New Order, the winner class has rebranded itself as bobo-hipster-proggy. Even in the 1980s, there was the hatred of the Reaganite-Thatcherite yuppie. Consider the vapid yuppies of Oliver Stone's WALL STREET and Mike Leigh's NAKED. And AMERICAN PSYCHO was meant to expose the crass soullessness of yuppie mentality(though its author, Bret Easton Ellis, has been accused of being a soulless zombie himself). In the post-Counterculture era of 'Reaganomic 80s', the boomer professionals were so immersed in success and money that they neglected politics and ideology. But over time, especially under Billy Boy Clinton, the cultural elites formulated a way by which the new affluent class(to be labeled the 'creative class') could both reap the rewards AND shroud themselves with proggy 'righteousness'. One way was to turn leftism from Mayday to Gayday, from one of class politics to ass 'frolitics'. This worked like magic because homos are so vain, fancy-pants, and love to serve the rich. So, with homos as the dominant face of 'new progressivism', the main theme became amenable to Jewish elites and rich boomers.

This robbed progressivism of the opportunity to bash its traditional nemesis. If indeed progressives are supposed to be leftist and for egalitarianism, their natural enemies should be the rich class, especially those in the financial sector, vice industries, and inheritance jackpot. But the rich class — the likes of Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, etc. — has come to own 'new progressivism' that went about prioritizing the destruction of anyone who refuses to bake 'gay wedding cakes' and objects to men in dress & wig to wee-wee in the Lady's Room. This does NOTHING to challenge the power of the rich. If anything, the oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are cracking up that proglodytes in the US and EU can be worked up into a frenzy over silly issues about homos and trannies. Or 'slut pride'.
Surely, proglodytes in colleges, especially lesser ones, are really envious and resentful of students in better colleges majoring in prestigious fields with far greater prizes down the road. Those specializing in medicine, business, computers, science/technology, corporate law, and such will reap the most rewards. Those in humanities, history, arts, education, and especially various 'schools of resentment' will gain the least success. Many will be burdened with huge student debts with college degrees that are useless in the market place.
So, naturally, a college graduate with degree in Crazy Negro Studies or Bitchy Grrrl Studies will face a less promising future than someone with a degree in computers or finance. Since politics is driven by envy and resentment(though such emotions are masked as 'justice'), proglodytes should direct their ire at the Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergei Brins of the world. But because prog losers were taught from cradle that the true meaning of 'progress' is all about Diversity, Homomania, and fighting 'racism', they can easily be directed to bark up other trees, indeed far smaller ones. Because today's rich elites make all the correct-sounding noises about More Immigration, More Homo Celebration, and More Magic Negro Worship, the loser proglodytes feel obligated to praise and support the rich progoligarchs. "They may be stinking rich and greedy, BUT at least their hearts are in the right place. Besides, gee whiz, without the rich oligarchs using their monopoly-muscle to do the right thing, the Nazis, KKK, White Supremacists, Racists, Homophobes, and Misogynists may take over and kill all of us!" Thus, the all-powerful globo-homo-shlomo oligarchs are seen as the 'lesser evil' or 'necessary evil', the bulwark against the rising tide of 'white nationalism'. Just like the rich class, during the Cold War, fooled Middle America into supporting its greedy agenda with scare tactics of "It's either us or the communists!", the rich class today fools proglodyte masses into supporting monopoly capitalism with scaremongering tactics of "It's either us or the fascists!" The Jewish elites who advise the oligarchs understand the dynamics of radical psychology and how to manipulate it. They know that proglodytes must still scream, rant, and holler about something. After all, the entire millennial generation has been raised on the Trigger-Happy Politics of Outrage. It's about me-hugging self-righteous displays of holier-than-thou virtue, a neo-puritanism. Since they cannot attack the rich and powerful(who are morally shielded by their support of globo-homomania), they look around and strike out at easy targets, like wussy professors or an odd conservative on campus.

But then, these wussy professors brought it on themselves by favoring Neo-Stalinism. Now, by 'Neo-Stalinism', I don't mean they are ideologically Stalinist in the Marxist-Leninist sense. I highly doubt if most so-called leftist professors in our time want forced collectivization of agriculture or mass executions of 'class enemies'(though some of them, especially Jewish ones, seem to fantasize about mass murder of white males and mass-rape of white women, mostly by blacks and Portnoic Jews). By Neo-Stalinism, I mean the favoring of machine politics over individual brilliance. Even though people with individual brilliance can be totalitarian and tyrannical in their outlook, they tend more towards free discourse than less brilliant people do. Why? Because the brilliant have confidence in their ability to argue and win the debate. This was why Leon Trotsky failed against Josef Stalin. Trotsky himself was autocratic and ruthless, but he was less totalitarian-minded(at least within the Soviet hierarchy) because he thought he could win with wit and brilliance. Stalin was smart and experienced, but he couldn't match wits with Trotsky or other top Jews. So, the ONLY way Stalin could win was by building up machine politics. He organized an army of cadres who were dim but obedient. They were loyal to him like dogs and attacked anyone he set them upon. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM has the Stalin-Pig Napoleon get his way every time by threatening to unleash his attack dogs on any beast who naysays his authority.
The really smart intellectuals on the Left tend to be less totalitarian. Christopher Hitchens had confidence in his ability to take on anyone and win or at least hold his own. Steven Pinker also has self-confidence. But a lot of academics and intellectuals are really hacks or colorless. They lack brilliance or the nerves to match wits on a one-on-one basis. So, they prefer the Stalinist machine-politics way over the Trotsky my-brilliance way. They'd rather create an army of anti-intellectual(or at best pseudo-intellectual)goons who will learn and obey than think and notice. They are more 'taboosters' than taboo-busters. They would rather have obedient goons than free-thinkers. The danger, however, is that goons can get out of control(especially if they are Crazy Negroes, as with BLM fiasco). Unlike Stalin and Mao who had the means to clamp down on radical 'adventurism', the Neo-Stalinist professors are helpless when their own goons bark and bite at them for being insufficiently 'woke'. (To be sure, even many smart Jews now seek to shut down free speech in favor of Neo-Stalinist control of society, and the reasons are twofold. Some smart Jews feel that Donald Trump's victory is a harbinger of anti-intellectual Pitchfork Politics of yahoos who think and act as a Mob. They feel that such people are incapable of free & open debate and are impervious to evidence & logic to boot. The white mobs are mere dry wood for radical 'white nationalist' flames, and so, better to dampen them before they catch fire. But another bunch of smart Jews fear free speech because they sense that no amount of their wit and brilliance can argue against obvious truths such as Jewish domination of America, Zionist imperialism against Palestinians, facts about race, there being only two sexes[than 50 genders], black crime, and etc. While smart people can outwit and out-talk the less smart, just like adults can fool children, there is a limit to sophistry, however brilliant it may be. Just like kids eventually find out and learn to trust adults less, goyim have a reached a point where, via free and open exchange of ideas and information, they could arrive at the truth about Jewish Power and its hidden agendas. Thus, even smart Jews increasingly dread free speech because they fear that even their wits and brilliance cannot keep duping the dimwit goyim forever.)
Now, is PC really the most powerful force in the US? We tend to associate PC with puritanism, but hedonism exerts greater force in the West, and current PC is a strange combo of neo-puritanism and wanton puerile-ism. After all, why did Jews, Homos, and Negroes become so powerful? There is the Shoah thing, slavery thing, and AIDS thing(caused by homos themselves) to be sure, but most people don't think of such things 24/7. Most people seek pleasure, and the fact is Jews, blacks, and homos won out because of their dominance of hedonics. Jews control comedy, wit, entertainment. Blacks got music, sports, and sex culture. Homos are into fashion, vanity, and celebrity culture. 'Celebristianity' is the new christianity. Once basic needs are met, people mainly live for pleasures: Consider the exponential rise in gambling, video games, pop music, pornography, celebrity mania, drugs(with meth having killed countless poor whites), homo bacchanalia almost all year round, dances such as 'twerking', and etc. So, it seems Poo-C counts more than PC. (Poo-C meaning 'pussy' and poo-ride of homos.)
We can see the power of hedonics in US politics as well. Since the 1960 election, the rule of hedonics led to the more hedonic candidate winning. The more-hedonic-candidate is one who seems more 'fun'. That's why John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. Though Lyndon B. Johnson wasn't 'fun', he was more fun than Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon wasn't fun, but Hubert Humphrey wasn't the life of the party either. And George McGovern, though the leader of the debauchers, was a dull guy. Jimmy Carter was more fun than Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan, former actor, was more fun than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. George H.W. Bush, though not fun, was still more fun than the bloodless Michael Dukakis who had nothing of Zorba about him. Billy Boy Clinton was lot more fun than Bush and Bob Dole. George W. Bush, aka Dubya, was more fun than square Al Gore and droopy John Kerry. Barack Obama was more fun than Mr. MaGoo McCain and Mormon Mitt Romney. And Donald Trump was more fun than Hillary Clinton. (Maybe Bernie Sanders would have beaten Hillary if he told more jokes like a Jewish comedian.)

No comments:

Post a Comment