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

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

"...a key paradox of Communism is that it retards progress. Under it, China smelled Taiwan’s and Singapore’s exhaust. North Korea is decades behind South Korea. Guided by Pol Pot, Cambodians marched into the Stone Age... State monopolies stunt collective and individual growth. How can they not? Worse, government tyranny degrades individuals, when not killing them, by the millions. Still, Communism seduces, because it’s 'progressive'."

Communism is both radical and conservative in spirit, hardly surprising as it's a deeply moralistic ideology that developed in reaction to the revolutionary upheavals of capitalism. Remember that Karl Marx himself recognized capitalism as the most transformative system developed by mankind. It was most extreme and 'radical' in changing all forms of human relations and interactions. It destroyed entire communities and created new ones. It changed the way people thought and felt about values and their place in the world. Such breakneck pace led to much that was useful and good but also much that was alienating and soulless. Marx recognized that capitalism's power was such that the genie could not be put back in the bottle. There was no going back. All that communists could do was wait for contradictions of capitalism to finally come to a head and unleash a revolution whereby workers would take over the means of production led by the dictatorship of communist moralists and intellectuals. This vision was radical, yet it was also conservative in that Marx hoped for a stable future where things wouldn't change so drastically. In the communist future, human needs would not be sacrificed at the altar of profits and growth. Communists would inherit the means of production and wealth created by capitalism(and could only have been created by it) but, once in charge, they would regulate the pace of historical change so that society would serve the masses of workers than insatiable bourgeois greed for more profits. Thus, even though further 'progress' may be stunted in such a communist order, people would come before profits. The social order wouldn't be upset just so some capitalists could make more money. Such emphasis on stability and balance was, in key aspects, conservative.

Still, Marx's vision of communism depended on historical processes made possible by capitalism. Thus, Marxism is less anti-capitalist than post-capitalist. Marx didn't argue that communism is the way to build an economy. He conceded nothing beats capitalism in wealth creation, technological innovation, urbanization, and emergence of mass consciousness. But he believed capitalism to be too ruthless and rootless for the good of the masses. Also, the bourgeois notion of individualism was illusory because only a handful of oligarchs controlled the key means of information and communication. And only a small number of people could really enjoy leisure and the arts. There was the bigger problem of rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. And these contradictions would eventually lead to mass uprisings that made communist revolution inevitable... or so Marx prophesied.

One problem of communism in the 20th century was it mostly impacted societies that hadn't undergone the capitalist-industrial revolution. (As it turned out, established capitalism proved to be endlessly adaptive in meeting mass demands, distracting the masses with bread & circuses, and/or buying off the radicals with sinecures in the system.) The few exceptions were East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and to some extent Hungary. Unsurprisingly, communism was least bloody in those nations(though far from bloodless). But in nations where communism had to be used as a building tool for industry, it was bound to be bloody, not least because of pressures from capitalist/imperialist nations. After all, Russian communism was encircled by capitalist powers that, at one time, even sent troops into Russia(as US and its allies are today in Syria) to nip the revolution in the bud. So, there was a sense that unless Russia quickly built up industry, it would be destroyed. What it took capitalist nations a century to develop had to be done in a decade or two, and this led to the use of mass coercion and even state slavery. Russian Communism, far from inheriting the bitter but bountiful fruits of capitalism, would have to grow the industrial tree. It was even truer of China that, in the first half of the 20th century, made Tsarist Russia look like a modern nation. Also, endless civil strife and Japanese invasion destroyed what little industrial economy had been developed under the KMT. (And so, the current Chinese government argues, though rather disingenuously, that it must allow some degree of capitalism to develop the kind of modern economy that allows for a true transition to a communist economy.)

As for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, they are not entirely useful models of capitalist success because their growth depended so much on being part of the US empire. (Also, US capitalism could be far more generous than European capitalism because America has the best land and resources in the world. US empire needn't be as extractive of other parts of the world as the European imperialist economies did.) Had the US denied Japan and the 'Asian tigers' market access to American consumers, how far could their economies have grown? (While South Korea has often been compared with North Korea, what would happen to its economy if the US and its allies applied the kind of economic pressure faced by the northern half?) Even as their economies grew, they became ever more dependent on US whims and thus became political puppets of America; they have zero sovereignty, whereas Asian nations that developed from a communist foundation, like China and Vietnam, are relatively more sovereign.

In the case of Asia, the appeal of communism had partly to do with moralism and social justice(owing to their Confucian past) but also to its promise of anti-imperialism. Though Chinese Communists rejected Confucianism, their ideal vision was to a large extent a refurbishment of the Old Way. Confucius believed a good society should be governed by philosopher kings and a wise scholar-class; he also regarded peasants as the salt of the earth, a people of virtue. He had nothing but disdain for the merchant-business class as parasitic. Asian communism essentially replaced the scholar-class with revolutionary elites and replaced the peasants with the proletariat(though Mao made a big deal of peasants as a revolutionary force; Gandhi also favored the peasants).
But moreover, many Asians were attracted to communism because Russia declared itself a friend of non-white peoples under European imperialism-colonialism. Also, before the new US-dominated order of post-WWII era, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism in most of the world. The system was rigged so that industry would be centered in the European metropole while the Third World would be used mainly for raw materials and basic manpower. Because Chinese and Vietnamese communists came to political consciousness in the first half of the 20th century when capitalism was rigged in favor of the West, they tended to see US-led capitalism of the post-war era in the same way, i.e. US capitalists would continue to do what the Europeans did. They failed to realize that US capitalism allowed for all nations to participate in world markets and develop their own industries. But then, US played it both ways to confuse the matter. At certain times, the US sided with the Third World against the Europeans, as in the Suez Crisis. But at other times, US pulled off coups, as in Guatemala and Iran, that forestalled any lurch toward 'socialism'. In the case of Vietnam, US aided the French against the Viet Minh after World War II, convincing the Vietnamese communist-patriots that the Americans were a case of 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.

It's debatable to what extent the Cold War had a humanizing or dehumanizing effect on US foreign policy. Did the Soviet-Communist Threat make the US kinder and more generous to the Third World to win hearts and minds? Or, did the US dig in its heels and support loathsome regimes just to contain communism? Probably both depending on the place and setting. One thing for sure, the ebbing of communist threat in the 1980s made the US less knee-jerk supportive of dictatorial regimes in Asia and Latin America. But then, following the total demise of the USSR, the US empire grew more arrogant and aggressive, especially against the Middle East at the behest of Jewish Power. And the 'new cold war' is entirely the doing of the Jewish-run US. (This suggests that the rise of Jewish Supremacist Power than the fall of communism was mainly to blame for the rising obnoxiousness of US foreign policy. If not for Jewish domination, would there have been all these wars in the Middle East and North Africa? Would there have been a 'new cold war' with Russia or all this anti-Russia hysteria?)

Oddly enough, it's arguable that the societies that most closely resembled Karl Marx's vision of the communist future were post-war US and Western Europe. While they retained capitalist economic systems, the government played a powerful role to level the playing fields and to restrain runaway 'greed'. It's no wonder that Noam Chomsky thinks that US from 50s to 60s was the golden age where wealth distribution was most egalitarian. High taxation(at over 90%) and powerful labor unions(and limited immigration) meant that capitalists couldn't act like Jeff Bezos, Koch Brothers, and Tim Cook(the Crook). This New Deal America and Marshall Plan Europe took pains to spread the wealth around. Capitalism remained and continued to operate on the basis of profits, but through taxation and the power of collective bargaining by big labor, there was a burgeoning middle class that became the majorities in US and Europe. Of course, Karl Marx envisioned a total collapse of capitalism, and Marxists scoffed at the notion of 'social democracy' as a craven compromise with capitalists; Marxists felt the same way about fascism. Still, the postwar order was quasi-Marxist-lite in that the vast pools of workers were allowed to share in the fruits of capitalism like never before. Among Western European nations, Labour-led UK came closest to Marxism when big labor attained unprecedented power and when big industries were nationalized.

Now, even if a communist order were to inherit the wealth of fallen capitalism, it is doubtful it would function well for long. Just imagine the city hall running all the industries. Imagine New York city hall running all the hotels, restaurants, apartments, factories, shops, and etc., and it's obvious why things would run slowly if at all. It'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. This is why even communist nations experimented with some degree of privatization and small business to provide incentives to people to work harder and be more productive. Now, some Marxists condemned bureaucratized communism and argued for something closer to voluntary-anarchism made up of local communities working closely together along democratic lines. Israeli Kibbutz works along these lines, but still, people feel most free when they can run businesses or look for jobs on their own.

"government tyranny degrades individuals"

It can but not necessarily. Tyranny can also save individuals as humans are pretty self-degrading. Can tyranny degrade a population? Sure, we are witnessing it now in the West with the Deep State oligarchy pushing all sorts of degeneracy such as globo-homo, trashy feminism, Afro-mania, Jewish egotism, mainstreaming of pornography, and the like. In the past, decadence was a matter of freedom in a liberal democracy. Today, it's mandatory as all of us are forced to bake cakes for 'gay wedding', refer to a man with a wig as a 'she', pretend blacks are angels when too many are thugs, celebrate 'slut pride' as 'empowerment', and honor Jews as all-knowing & all-wise when so many of them are insipid a-holes like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.
Besides, true liberal democracy is dead in the West where the so-called 'free press' works hand in glove with the deep state and encourages censorship in media monopoly and internet platforms. Today's 'liberals' are elitist scolds who work for Zionists and the Deep State than defend the rights of free speech and free assembly. Just ask BDS supporters how 'liberal democracy' works in the West. Under the new system, decadence and degeneracy are not merely individual choices but the official value system of the Empire of Judea. Today, most politicians in cities are COMPELLED to march in 'gay pride' parades.
The current system gives the lie to the notion of individualism. While capitalist systems were more individualist than communist ones, the current rulers of West fear genuine individualism. Prior to the rise of the internet, nearly all of information and discussion were dominated by a handful of corporations and elite institutions. Internet gave rise to true individualism, for good or bad. So, what did the Power do? The Power rigged the game so that a handful of oligarchs, mostly Jews, would gain platform monopoly and shut down individual voices that deviated from the official dogma. Jewish Power also used financial power to make it nearly impossible for dissidents to make any money. Jewish Power made McCarthyism look like kid-stuff by using whatever means to have any dissident fired and blacklisted from jobs. So much for individualism. For a time, the internet offered a hope for true individualism in thought, ideas, and exchange of information, but Jewish Power gained dominance as gate-keepers of news, search algorithms, and money. While dissidents are not shot in the back of the head or dragged off to gulags and there are alt-tech sites, the fact of the matter is that most voices are irrelevant or inconsequential without access to the main square of debate and discussion.

Most damaging is that all this censorship goes under the label 'liberalism' when it is directly opposed to the very spirit of liberalism. But labels matter, and as long as Jewish-Tribal illiberalism goes under the name of 'liberalism', so many people will be fooled into believing, "I support PC and censorship, and that makes me 'liberal'." What operates in the West is a kind of selective tyranny. It allows and even encourages total unfettered freedom in certain areas — foul language, anti-white hatred, tattoos & piercings, green/purple hair, globo-homo-tranny trashiness, black thuggery, white self-loathing, horny for Zion, video game violence, alcohol & drugs, sacrilege against Christianity, etc. — while suppressing the kind of freedom, no matter how soft-spoken or genteel, that dares to speak the truth about Jewish Power, black crime, deep state corruption, homo decadence, and tranny lunacy. Antifa can burn down police stations and BLM can riot and loot, but Jared Taylor cannot use Paypal and Stefan Molyneux can't have a channel on Youtube.
Because certain expressions and actions are given free rein while others are censored or penalized on account of them being 'hate speech'(therefore not legitimate as expressions of freedom), the current West fools itself(and many around the world) that it is indeed free. Imagine an order where a white woman has the choice of having sex with a black man or not having sex with him. Such would be genuinely liberal. But suppose the New Order says she MUST have sex with him because to reject him would be 'racist' and 'hateful'. In other words, she no longer has choice and must accept even interracial rape while the very notion of saying 'no' to sex with a black man becomes 'hateful'. This is what has happened with the Homo issue. When the West was closer to the liberal ideal, one could choose to be homo or to support homo interests. But it was not compulsory. But then, 'gay wedding' was forced on all the nation, and all businesses must bake 'gay wedding' cakes. And politicians must march in 'pride' parades and praise homos to high heaven, just like all politicians MUST praise Jews and Israel. It's not a matter of choice. As such, the current West is really a rape victim of Jews, homos, and blacks. It cannot say NO, not even to illegal immigration-invasion. No matter what Jews, homos, and blacks demand, we must grovel and give. We don't have a choice. Jews want billions more in aid to Israel? It has to be given. Homos want the entire month of June as their month to take over cities and prance around? Roll out the pink carpet. And what is truly disgusting is that the great majority of Americans, even so-called 'conservatives', are fine with this or even impassioned about it. So much for individualism. If people in the West are indeed individuals, why are they so sheep-like and so easily swayed hither-thither? How did a nation that was mostly anti-'gay marriage' become pro-'gay marriage' in such short a time? How truly degrading.

Communist tyranny for the most part could be brutal, repressive, exasperating, torturous, and even murderous, but it wasn't generally degrading. It was like theocratic tyranny. In this, Godless communism had something in common with Christian tyranny and Islamic tyranny(the kind one finds in Saudi Arabia and Iran). It was intensely moralistic and placed great emphasis on basic virtues. It had little tolerance for decadence, degeneracy, deviance, and etc. It emphasized one's duty to society, social justice, and the basic necessities of man. It extolled human virtues. The problem is we are not angels, and we don't want to be scolded all day and night. It's like even most hardcore Christians don't want to live in a theocratic order and be preached endlessly. Even most Muslims don't want to live under Islamic tyranny. And the Middle Ages in Europe was a rather gloomy period under the power of the Church. And Catholic Spain under Franco was hardly a fun place. And some find the Neo-Christianism of today's Russia to be inching toward repression.
However, all such are not degrading. They may be stultifying and boring — like what kids feel sitting in churches when they really want to go outside and play — , but they are not degrading. Today, UK that allows the 'freedom' of LGBT parades is degrading whereas the 'authoritarian' Russia that forbids such is not degrading. Today, 'free' Japan is a far more degrading place than repressive China that does NOT allow pornography, approve of globo-homo, or encourage green hair/tattoos/piercings on the national airwaves. South Korea and Taiwan under military dictatorships in the past were far less degrading than their current incarnations of globo-homo, K-pop degeneracy, hedonism, materialism, and etc. Like Shane said of the gun, freedom is only as good as the people who use it. 60s Counterculture proved how freedom can be used to degrade an entire population with indulgence in sex, drugs, and youth culture. And all those white working class folks who died of opioid overdose wallowed in self-degradation of substance-abuse. Terrible use of freedom. Of course, the rotten ruling elites didn't care. (If white goyim sold drugs that killed off innumerable Jews, the media would have been outraged, but goyim are mere sheeple to Jews who run the media. Whether white goyim or Arab goyim, they are expendable in service to Jewish profits and power.) Russia under globalist 'liberal democratic' rule during the Boris Yeltsin years was one of the most depraved and degrading places on Earth. Some would argue that Vladimir Putin hasn't been 'tyrannical' enough in asserting Russian values and Russia's place in the world. 'Free' Weimar Germany was far more degrading than dictatorial National Socialist Germany, at least until Hitler's pathology went into high gear and set off crazy wars.

Now, there were certain cases of communism that were indeed degrading for two reasons: Cult of Personality and the Politics of Hysterics. Cult of Personality, whether of Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Ceausescu, and etc. is always degrading because it demands that people look up to some person as god-like. If people must worship, let it be God, gods, or some holy stuff. When people look up to a person as an infallible godlike figure, right or left, it can only be degrading. This is why the MLK and Mandela cults are also harmful. It's one thing to say that those men achieved great things, but it's quite another to elevate them to near-godhood. It's of a childish mentality.
And then, there is the Politics of Hysterics, with the Cultural Revolution in China being the most obvious case. Same goes for religious fervor. Christians and Muslims were most dangerous when they got into the mode of inquisition, crusade, or jihad. 'With God on ouqr side', they felt they could do no wrong; whatever terror or evil they committed was in the name of God. Same has been true of communism. While communist systems generally favored stability and order, they could turn rabid at times and unleash purges and mass hysteria like the one that rocked China in the late 60s, leading to mass destruction of peoples and property. Such hysteria can only be degrading because insane passions override any potential for reason and equilibrium.
But such lunacies are not limited to communism or theocracies. In Jewish-ruled West, we've witnessed the hysteria of cultural degeneracy. In some ways, it's more disgusting than communist and theocratic extremes because, whereas communism and religions have moralism as foundations, decadence/degeneracy is inherently immoral or, at best, amoral; therefore, to turn an immorality or amorality into the highest moral passion is ludicrous. It's really a form of secular satanism. (Decadence has value as a freedom, not a virtue. In a free society, people should be allowed a degree of decadence and vice, as people are somewhere between animal and angel. Decadence is to be tolerated, not extolled. Besides, creativity flows partly from the darker and subversive side of man. If communism failed because it demanded people be angels, the current global order is failing because it mandates people be animals whose main passions are tattoos, piercings, porn, rap, globo-homo, Negro-worship. It's like the dynamics of truth and lies. Ideally, we should prefer the truth over lies. And yet, it's a tall order to expect society to be built entirely on the truth. People naturally lie all the time. Also, even if everyone were committed to the truth, no one can know the whole truth, and everyone has blinders on, no matter how sincere he or she may be in devotion to the truth. As such, a society that is wholly committed to the truth and nothing but the truth would be a bad one. Communism was such an order that insisted that the dialectical materialism of Marxism-Leninism was the scientific truth, and there could be no other. Many communists were wholly sincere in their beliefs, but such purist radicalization of Truth led to a reign of fear because anyone accused of spreading lies or falsehood, usually 'bourgeois' in nature, could be destroyed. But as history has shown, no man, no matter how intelligent-wise-or-visionary, could figure it all out and know all the truth. Karl Marx was not the last prophet who finally revealed the eternal truth no matter how much his acolytes were convinced of it. But it doesn't have to be communism. Any order that claims the monopoly of truth, even with utmost sincerity, is bound to go bad because it's pure moral hubris for any person or order to know everything. So, modern democracy came up with a system that is dedicated to seeking the truth but also tolerates 'lies' and 'falsehoods'. Part of the reason for tolerance is the acceptance of human nature as flawed — lying comes naturally to people, and everyone does it — , but the other reason is the 'lie' could turn out to be the truth while the official or conventional 'truth' could turn out to be the lie or falsehood. Many 'conspiracy theories' have proved to be true, while many conventional narratives have proved to be false. But, the West is no longer that kind of system, one that generally favors the truth but has room for lies. The current West is for favoring and even forcing the Lie while suppressing the truth. Unlike early communists who sincerely believed in the truth of Marxism, the current Jewish ruling elites don't believe anything they push. They surely know a man with a wig is NOT a 'woman'. They surely know that Jews were not guiltless through history, i.e. Jews were as often villains as victims. They knew Russia Collusion narrative was total baloney. They said Covid-19 is going to kill us all, but it suddenly didn't matter for the rioters, looters, and 'peaceful protesters'. They surely know BLM is based on an utter lie; why else did they reduce crime in New York with stop-and-frisk policies? In other words, the current Jewish Power is actively pushing what they know to be total lies. Not only are they pushing the BS but they are cramming it down our throats and ramming it up our arse. It's beyond mind-f***ing; it's more like mind-rape or mental-nakba as people are FORCED to swallow the BS... or else. And since truth, backed by honesty and courage, will mention that the Emperor wears no clothes, it must be actively suppressed. If a system that, in total commitment to the truth, forbids lies is bad enough, imagine a system that forbids truth in total commitment to the lie; alas, that is the state of the current West. People are now being 'canceled' left and right for having expressed a view, no matter how truthful, that stands in the way of what the Jewish elites know to be the Big Lie. If even systems devoted to the truth end up as an empire of lies, as were the cases with theocracies and communism, just imagine the future of a system that is fundamentally built on lies. This is why 'gay marriage' was so dangerous to civilization. It destroyed the truth of the most basic and meaningful bio-social-moral institution with the lie that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality, i.e. homo-fecal-penetration among men and tranny-penis-cutting-and-fake-vagina-attainment are the biological equivalents of the process that produces life and perpetuates the species. But then, that lie was the product of another big lie, the cult of moral perfection of Jews built on the Holocaust Narrative that spread the lie that, just because Jews suffered horribly in WWII, they were cleansed of all sins for all their past, present, and future behavior.)

Among communist regimes, the Cambodian and North Korean stand out. Khmer Rouge was more like a Jim Jones Cult. It took the ruralism of Mao and Gandhi and pushed it to the limit. North Korea was ruled more like a dynasty, and the father-to-son transition of power was more in keeping with the Chiang Kai-Shek's son taking power in Taiwan and Lee Kuan Yew's son taking the helm in Singapore. Also, their anti-intellectualism went beyond anything seen in other communist nations with the possible exceptions of China during the Cultural Revolution and Stalinist Albania. Cambodian and North Korean communisms were extreme opposites of one another. Khmer Rouge had no use for industry and relied purely on peasantry in the countryside. Also, its rule relied on quasi-anarchic gangs of brainwashed youths who roamed around to torture and kill anyone deemed heretical or tainted. It was a system of terror but decentralized. In contrast, North Korea emphasized heavy industry and total top-down control, a communist Sparta minus the style. Khmer Rouge-ism was inspired by Maoism at its zaniest(Great Leap and Cultural Revolution), whereas North Korean system was based on Stalinism and traditional Oriental Despotism. Still, even most communist nations loathed the Cambodian case; the Chinese supported it only to contain Vietnamese influence. And North Korea was so brainlessly Stalinist even after De-Stalinization in Russia that it became a running joke in Warsaw Pact nations. Also, even though irony wasn't much appreciated in communism, the Iron Curtain nations weren't without a sense of humor as a coping mechanism against authorities. In contrast, the more earnest and obedient mass mentality of North Koreans made for a more childlike and stupid trust in authority and the cult of personality of the Great Leader. As ruthless as Stalin was, he wasn't without intellect and culture, and there were cultural achievements in the USSR. Mao, though sometimes crazy, was a genuine visionary with a powerful sense of destiny. North Vietnamese leaders, though committed to a brutal ideology, were men of intelligence and talent. In contrast, Khmer Rouge guys were just nuts, and Kim Il-Sung was a third-rate hack with full-blown megalomania. In contrast, most Iron Curtain rulers were second-rate hacks with middling egotism; they had their own little cults of personality but within limits, and they had no intention nor the means to transfer power to their own children. (Oddly enough, the communist savagery of the Khmer Rouge was exposed by another communist nation, Vietnam. Generally, even as communist nations were at loggerheads with one another, they didn’t expose each other’s atrocities. Red China didn’t spill much ink about Soviet mass killings, and Soviets didn’t make too much fuss about mass deaths in China. But when Vietnam took over Cambodia, they made sure to expose the horrible crimes of the Khmer Rouge. It was a useful way to justify the invasion and to shame China as an enabler of this most loathsome regime. Even as the US acknowledged the evil of the Khmer Rouge, the CIA worked with China in the 80s to aid Khmer Rouge remnants in Thailand to ‘resist’ the Vietnamese occupiers. A total shi*fest.)

Aftermath of the Khmer Rouge madness

Ceausescu and Kim Il-Sung

Those on the 'right' have condemned the recent 'woke' mobs, BLM thugs, and antifa lunatics as 'communists' and the like, and there is certainly some similarity between their nuttery and radical excesses under communism, especially during the Cultural Revolution in China. But when it comes to iconoclasm, Christians and Muslims have been no slouches either. So many pagan temples were ground to dust by Christian mobs. Later, Catholics and Protestants went about slaughtering one another. Even now, Muslim extremists, aided by cynical US and Israel, destroy ancient temples and monuments all over Iraq and Syria. Also, the sheer lack of resistance to the current rampage in the West shows that capitalism has done its part in turning the masses into amnesiac zombies who've lost any meaningful connection to the past and feel no outrage in the destruction. And arguably, worse than physical destruction of churches is the spiritual desecration of them with globo-homo and BLM symbols. Do god and jesus serve homo degeneracy or worship black megalomania as the highest form of holiness?

At the very least, communism emphasized social justice for the masses, the workers who produced things and did real work. Also, communism didn't favor one group over another. While most communism was nationalist, it didn't say one nation of people was better than another nation of people. It was willing to put the past behind and let communist nations move forward together as a brotherhood of peoples. In other words, Russians were not good simply because they were Russian. Or Germans were not bad simply because they were German. This is in total contrast to what now prevails in the West with identity-idolatry, or 'identolatry', especially of Jews, blacks, and homos. According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are good, even holy, simply because they're Jews, blacks, and homos. It's not a matter of content of their character or validity of their actions; they are simply good because of their identities. So, we must support and praise Jews no matter what they do to Palestinians, what they do in the Middle East or around the world. Jews know best and are the best no matter what they do because of who they ARE. And look at the BLM madness. Blacks kill each other and other races. Blacks are top thugs and criminals. But blackness is to be eternally identified with what happened to Emmitt Till and in the Civil Rights Movement. So, never mind that blacks can do good things or bad things. Never mind that injustice can be done to blacks but blacks can also do injustice onto others. Never mind all that and just fixate on blackness as eternally tied to the Civil Rights Movement and 'We Shall Overcome'. So, if blacks don't want to pay at Starbucks, they must be extolled as angels. If blacks pull off one Hate Hoax after another, it's always a 'teachable moment'. If blacks cause all sorts of problems in schools and get suspended, we have the likes of Obama and others lecturing us that it's due to 'systemic racism'. As for homos, never mind that many of them serve in the Deep State and work as goons for CIA and Zion to spread wars all over the world. Never mind HIV crisis was the result of disgusting out-of-control 'gay' behavior. It doesn't matter what Homos do. They are to be celebrated and cheered simply for what they ARE. According to PC, Jews-blacks-homos are great simply for what they ARE. They can never do wrong; indeed they are right even when they're wrong. PC says most non-whites(minus blacks) are to be judged by what they DO. So, if they do good, they're good while doing good, and if they do bad, they're bad while doing bad. As for whites, they are bad simply for what they ARE. It doesn't matter how much good they do because they ARE intrinsically bad, and therefore no amount of good done by whites can absolve them of their 'original sin' of black slavery and 'eternal sin' of the Holocaust. (But even this formulation of white sin is based on identity-idolatry. Why was American slavery worse? Because Northern Europeans enslaved BLACKS. And why was the Shoah worse? Because JEWS were killed. In other words, some victims are more equal than others.)

At the very least, communism didn't play such games with identity-idolatry. While recognizing Nazi-German crimes, it didn't turn Jews into Eternal Saints. Neither did communism condemn Germans as Forever-Villains who must atone til the end of time for what happened in WWII. As long as Germans were willing to work together with other nations, they could have their national pride. Also, the emphasis was on workers and basic virtues. Communism had nothing to do with globo-homo decadence, tattoos-piercings & other forms of degeneracy, skanky slut-pride, Afro-jiver neo-savagery, promotion of unfettered narcissism, mindless youth culture, and the like, all of which are the staple of Antifa, BLM, Western Feminism, LGBTQ nonsense, and etc. Antifa is more 'gayday' than Mayday. So-called Portland 'communists' are dominated by trannies with ties to rich capitalist oligarchs who did everything to undermine working class consciousness. Besides, the current BLM and Antifa violence got the green-light go-ahead from Jewish oligarch-capitalists who decided to stick it to Trump and White America.

In the two videos below, can anyone find anything remotely associated with Antifa anarchy, slut pride, 'gay' vanity, anti-white vitriol, mindless identity-idolatry of Jews-blacks-homos, and the Great Replacement? Notice East German nationalism was perfectly acceptable as long as Germans acknowledged the humanity of other nations. Also, communist feminism wasn't anti-male. It merely said women deserve same basic rights and could serve as labor force. It was about men and women having equal dignity, not about nasty Jewish bitches and lesbians spreading anti-male hatred for narrow agendas: Jewish bitches tell white bitches to hate white men, and lesbian bitches tell women that they should prefer carpet-munching to real sex with men.




As much as I detest communism, all of Europe would now be better off if it had come under Soviet rule after WWII. It's no accident that men like Viktor Orban emerged in former-communist Hungary. Now, to an extent, their patriotism is a reaction against the memory of communism(and Soviet domination), but it is just as much an extension of what had been socially conservative and nationalist under communism. Indeed, the future of Poland seems grim because the younger generation has been so 'pozzed' by Western capitalism. Many young Poles put their people & nation behind globalist priorities of appeasing Jews, celebrating homos, worshiping Negroes, and welcoming Great Replacement in the name of Diversity. They want to go the way of the Irish who now welcome the Great Replacement and Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. (Likewise, even though communism put China and Vietnam economically behind Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, which nations are now more independent and hopeful in the next 50 yrs? Japan, SK, and Taiwan are utterly decadent and demographically doomed; politically and ideologically, they are total whores of globo-homo US. Incredibly enough, as miserable as North Korea is, it may survive as a people/culture in the next 50 yrs while South Korea, along with Taiwan, becomes an Asian Ireland.) Ideally, a healthy traditionalism and conservatism should serve as balance against liberalism and progress. But the pace of change under capitalism has been such that the past has been left behind in the dust. For most people in the West and East, Pop Culture is the only culture left. How ironic then that communism, though a radical ideology, served as a substitute-conservatism against the tireless change wrought by capitalism that produces so many fashions that relegate tradition to a distant memory, if that.

"...there’s a small double portrait of Tito and Ceau?escu, the Romanian Communist dictator. Thanks to Jewish brainwashing, only right-wing despots are condemned, while genocidal Commie leaders are lionized as great leaders of 'the people.' Communism bred, challenged and inspired Fascism... As for Tito, he’s often depicted as not so bad, but any man who runs a country for nearly three decades without an election is clearly a dictator."

Josip Broz Tito and Nicolae Ceausescu were not good guys and certainly not nice guys. But they have to be seen in context. Romania was a key ally of Nazi Germany in World War II and paid dearly for it. Naturally, the Soviets installed their communist puppet. Still, Ceausescu was able to forge a rather independent course for Romania. In 1968, he refused to join with other Warsaw Pact nations in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and he was wooed by the West as an independent kind of communist leader. His regime was rotten to the core, but some Romanians look back with certain fondness because their nation has benefited little since the fall of communism. In certain respects, things have gotten worse. (As bad as Ceausescu was, he was no worse than the creeps who run the Western Deep State. Of course, the difference was he had more power to imprison and kill people. Still, in terms of moral character, was he worse than George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist creeps at NYT & CNN, the goons at CIA & FBI, the scum that run Wall Street? Ceaucescu's wife was an idiot, but so is Michelle Obama the phony. And even though Western elites cannot do to their own people what communist regimes did, they sure have no qualms about killing countless people abroad. Look at Iraq and Syria. But in a way, even Ceausescu wasn't as evil and verminous as the current cuck-leaders of the West who push for Great Replacement against their own peoples. In my book, 'Mama Merkel' is worse. Emmanuel Macron who calls for the Africanization of France is immeasurably more evil. Justin Trudeau is a bigger joke. Boris Johnson who completed Brexit but welcomes endless immigration-invasion of UK by Africans and Muslims is many times worse.)

Communists came to power in Yugoslavia because the fascist Croats during World War II, as stooges of Nazi Germans, carried out all manner of atrocities, especially against Serbs. Naturally, under the circumstances, the pride of resistance fell to those on the Far Left. In contrast, as the Polish Right had rejected any alliance with Germany, it constituted the main resistance against both Germans and Soviets following the invasion in 1939. Tito is a strange case because he initially criticized Stalin for being too soft. Soviets condemned his 'adventurism', and to save himself from Soviet pressure(and possible invasion), he turned anti-Stalinist. Thus, Yugoslavian neutrality during the Cold War was mostly accidental. Still, the reason why some still have a soft spot for Tito is due to what happened AFTER communism. While the diverse makeup of Yugoslavia was always volatile, the US poured gasoline on the fire and ignited a 'civil war' to draw most of the newly formed republics to the West while isolating and destroying Serbia that remained close to Russia. Given the horrors that ensued and economic problems since, it's understandable why some look back to the relative stability of the Tito years.

While it's true that Jewish Power generally goes easier on leftist than rightist rulers, it's more a case of "Is it good for Jews?" Saudi Arabia could be deemed ultra-right as a theocratic state, but it's been protected by the Jewish-run media, more or less. Meanwhile, Assad of Syria has been far more liberal and modern but much condemned as a 'butcher' because Israel hate him as ally of Iran. Current Jewish Power hates the leftist rulers of Venezuela because of their ties with Russia and Iran. Meanwhile, Jewish Power works cozily with quasi-Nazi types in Ukraine. If Adolf Hitler had been kind to Jews, Jews would probably not hate him so much even if he had killed bushels of Slavs and Gypsies. Jews don't seem to be virulently anti-Mussolini because, for most of Fascist Italian rule, Il Duce was friendly with Jews and had many Jews in the regime; also, Jews tend to identify more with swarthy Italians. There are few Jews who still defend Stalin. Jews hated Stalin as the guy who purged Leon Trotsky and other Jewish Bolsheviks. Then, because of Stalin's defeat of Nazi Germany, he was much appreciated by Jews once again, but when Stalin and later Soviet leaders sided with Arabs against Israel, the World Jewry increasingly became anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet in general. From the 70s onward, Soviet regime was kinder to Russia nationalists than to Jewish Liberals. While Russian nationalists were ideologically rightist, they could at least be relied upon to be patriotic; in contrast, Jewish Liberals, though more on the left, were seen as untrustworthy cosmopolitans whose true loyalty was with the Global Tribe.

Ideally, rather than Liberal Democracy or communism, fascism should have dominated Europe. But, World War II happened. The good thing about fascism was it synthesized tradition with modernity and capitalism with socialism. And it infused them all with nationalism. But what it lacked was a strong sense of humanism, and this deficiency led to racial nihilism among Germans and hubris among Italians, and that led to problems that ignited World War II. If Hitler and Mussolini had been wiser like Kemal Ataturk and avoided war, it's likely that both the Liberal West and Communist East would have moved closer to the fascist model. Liberalism was too rootless while communism was too monomanical. But hubris led to war, and fascism got a bad name. Still, everything that works today is sub-fascist, a combination of nationalism with a useful blend of capitalism & socialism and tradition & modernity. Putin's Russia and Xi's China resemble this model. Iran too survives despite sanctions because of the fascist element. And the positive aspects of Israel(apart from the hubristic mode of Greater Israel and warmongering) owe to the fundamentally fascistic formulation of Zionism.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/p3zUMUyBSHo/

Pimp and Whores as Metaphor for American Society — BWIQ or Blacks with White IQ — How Prostitution went from Association with Madames to that with Pimps — Predator and Prey in Racial Dynamics

https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/08/american-pimp/

Black IQ will go up because of the BWIQ(BLACKS with WHITE IQ) factor. As more white women with jungle fever go for ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, they will pass white IQ to their mulatto kids who will most definitely identify as black. Indeed, to compensate for their whiteness(evil), they will try to be blacker than black in attitude. Jungle Fever will raise black IQ. Many blacks at elite colleges are BWIQs. Race traitor white women pass white intelligence to blacks, just like renegade Jews(aka Early Christians) passed the secret of the Jewish God to goyim. As BWIQS are smarter than blacks, they will ably compete with whites(while also benefiting from Affirmative Action) and lead the blacks just like Caesar the talking chimp led the gorillas in CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. They will be like Cyrus in the gathering of the gangs in THE WARRIORS. Things are now even worse for whites. Back in the gang-infested 1970s, whites didn’t worship blacks and detested black thuggery. But now, whites do worship blacks. Biggest passions for whites are Jungle Fever/Faith, Jew Worship, and Homo Celebration. Btw, Gary Oldman in TRUE ROMANCE made the best ‘black’ pimp. He was to pimpery what Eric Burdon of the Animals was to soul.




In a way, the black pimp and white ho’s are the perfect metaphor for our times. Just like white whores are sexually owned by black pimps, middle class white soccer moms are mentally colonized by ‘wokeness’ and beholden to the likes of Barack/Michelle Obama, Colin Kaepernick, and Fentanyl Floyd, pimp-as-saint. They are culture whores of blacks. Look at BLM ‘moms’. Soccer Moms as Sucker Moms. Even many white ‘conservative’ women are mental and sexual whores of blacks.

And to extend the metaphor further, many white populists go for Donald Trump’s pimpish style. He has swagger, which is why Mike Tyson and Kanye West like him. And, White-Jewish power dynamics is pimpish. Trump is both pimp and whore. He whores out to bigger pimps like Sheldon Adelson the Jewish oligarch. And white whore politicians are to Jewish pimp donors what young white girls were to Jeffrey Epstein.

Btw, didn’t prostitution fade big time because Jews legalized porn? Jews used to be major players in pimpery but got muscled out by others in the criminal world. But by legalizing porn, they came to dominate what is essentially electronic prostitution. If Jews were to legalize prostitution as ‘sex work’ across the nation, they may dominate the industry once again. It’s like Mexicans and others dominated the Pot trade when it was illegal, but now Pot is being cornered by Jews as legal business. Jews also took total control of gambling once it became legal all over America, decided more by lawyers and politicians than by hoods and killers.

Some pimps insist physical violence is actually appreciated by the prostitutes who come to respect their pimps as no-nonsense men of strength. It's useful to fuc*-up women whose business is to get fuc*ed. There may be a grain of truth to this. Athletes admire a tough coach, even if he's sometimes abusive. Jews beat on whites constantly, but this makes whites even more whorey to Jews. Even John Derbyshire, Jared Taylor, and Ann Coulter exhibit this quality. Jews beat them, but they still defend Jews. And Trump is constantly attacked by Jews, but he keeps sucking up to them with the same old song, "I Love Israel." And blacks rob, rape, and murder whites, but whites chant ‘black lives matter’. Whites = whores in a Junglo-Idiocracy. White fear of blacks also leads to white awe of blacks as badass mofos. “That’s my master.”


It's not always easy to tell pimps and preachers apart in the black community. MLK or Fartin' Poother Bling acted like an out-of-control pimp. A total sexual degenerate. Many black preachers were actually admired for their sexual prowess. Black Gospel easily morphed into Soul music. Little Richard was a pimp-preacher entertainer. Richard Pryor ran with this idea in THE CAR WASH. So many Americans are either pimps or whores. Some are both. Ellen Degeneris or Degenerate, a lesbian whore to Jewish Power, is also a pimp over those working for her.


What is the white-black psychological power dynamics? The logic goes like this: If all animals were lions, it would be hell on earth. For lions to thrive, most animals must belong to other species, esp herbivores, for the lion kings to feed on. Blacks see the world that way. They are the special kings whereas the rest of humanity exists to serve blacks or to be devoured by blacks for their pleasure. Ideally, a society should not have too many blacks as the excess of lion kangz would lead to total mayhem. Other races, as the herbivoric majority, must exist to run and maintain the social order of industry and production. Still, all their work must ultimately go to serve the black kangz, or so the blacks like to believe. And the current BLM madness suggest that many whites agree with this worldview. White herbivores as serfs exist to serve the superior black kangz as the new aristocracy. So, while 'lame' white herbivores(and beta-predators) must do all the boring and square stuff to maintain productive nations in Europe and North America, the blacks as lion-kangz shall be the idols and lords at the top because they make better athletes, rappers, and studs. But this works ONLY IF blacks are the minority whereas non-blacks are the majority, just like an eco-system works when the prey far outnumber the predators. But what will happen when ultra-fecund black Africans migrate to Europe in increasing numbers and become the demographic majority? It will be like an eco-system with many more predators than prey... like South Africa. How are things down there?

RISKY BUSINESS really put pimpery on the map for suburban kids:


The pimp style in WEIRD SCIENCE:


Hollywood is one big pimp operation. Ask Harvey Weinstein. Who were bigger influence on Rappers? Drug dealers or Pimps? Speaking of pimps, wasn’t HAMILTON the biggest musical in ages? And the Founding Fathers were presented as a bunch of rapping pimps. It goes to show how far pimpery has come in America as a metaphor.

In American Westerns, prostitutes often work in whore houses run by ‘madames’. In MCCABE & MRS. MILLER, Warren Beatty played the businessman, but it was Julie Christie who ran the place as the madame(and was a whore herself). I didn’t see THE BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS, but it has Dolly Parton as madame of a 'cuntry' club. And Jo Van Fleet played mom-madame in EAST OF EDEN. A madame again in PRETTY BABY. When did the association of prostitution with madame change to one with the pimp?



One used to get the impression that prostitution was a ‘matriarchal’ than a ‘patriarchal'(or thugarcal) thing. While prostitution was always sleazy, in the age of the ‘madame’ it put on airs of respectability. Even the title of ‘madame’. Also, when traditional morality was a thing and when the great majority of women got married at young age and remain faithful, even respectable men had to seek out prostitutes for sex. It was disreputable but still at the margins of respectability. Also, there were many stories of older men helping young men to lose their virginity by taking them to a brothel. Or soldiers doing it for the first time with a hooker, thus developing a fondness for her as an aid in the rite of passage to manhood. (Mrs. Robinson in THE GRADUATE is like madame-whore rolled into one.)


Back then, it was not normal for young girls to put out; that came later with youth culture, laxer attitudes, and automobiles — “Elaine Robinson got started in a Ford”.
Prostitution eventually became less associated with the normal world precisely because mainstream morality became looser, more permissive, and more whorey. In the past, it was mostly fallen women who were sexually loose. Now, even educated elite and middle class women use Tinder and hook up like hookers. Indeed, prostitutes of old seem downright demure compared to many young women today.
But this process began long before the internet with the rise of youth culture, the coming of the pill, legalization of abortion, and the sexual revolution. Why go to brothels when the girl next door is willing to put out(and her parents don’t mind)? There was a time when it was a huge scandal if a teenage girl got pregnant. And her father and uncle might force a shotgun wedding on the fella. And divorce was rare, and adultery was a grave thing. Now, there are TV shows and advice columns encouraging the swinging lifestyle and etc.

So, paradoxically, prostitution became more disreputable precisely because more men and women began to act like gigolos and prostitutes. Thus, prostitution became more low-grade, and the Negro trash took over the business, and the clientele was far less reputable than in years past when even upper-middle class men might visit a brothel of some repute. I suppose at the higher end, there are still ‘madame’ services. Ghislaine Maxwell was a kind of ‘madame’, the ‘Mrs. Miller’ to Epstein’s ‘McCabe’. And Heidi Fleiss got busted as the Hollywood madame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Fleiss

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2nC0epuifpU/

Is there really a Difference between the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult and What is Now Happening in the West? — National Suicide Cult is Infinitely Worse than the Self-Destruction of a Tiny Cult

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xDsWg5zpOsA/


Is there a difference between Heaven's Gate Cult and what is now unfolding all across the West?

Heaven's Gate cult promised life but ensured death. But the followers blindly toed the line and went over the cliff. They weren't forced(as some members of Jim Jones cult were) but nevertheless felt obligated to go along to get along to fulfill their mission. And most likely, they felt it in their hearts to comply because they'd come under the sway of hocus-pocus presented to them a 'spiritual' redemption and rapture. Whatever trepidation they may have felt, it was overpowered by their sense of True Believer-ship. These people were not retarded or even necessarily Low IQ. But they came under the influence of a would-be guru who somehow persuaded them that his way was the only way, the ONLY path to goodness, salvation, and 'spiritual' superiority toward which one must cast away all skepticism & doubt and just believe! If not, the master would be disappointed and you couldn't be part of the special community. To 99.99% of people, Heaven's Gate cult and its members were surely fools, crazies, or retards. And yet, what is obvious in the other is often overlooked in oneself. It's like a religious person may find other religions ridiculous but fail to realize that the underpinnings of his own faith may seem just as ridiculous to peoples of other religions. So, people who are too quick to dismiss Heaven's Gate cult as merely crackpot should do some soul-searching and examine their own unquestioned beliefs(or unquestionable dogmas). After all, couldn't it be argued that what the Current West is undergoing is mass suicide based on false and even utterly ludicrous assumptions that, by the way, are not even to be questioned in respectable places and consequential institutions?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/LExhvzI1ptko/


People in the West are told that their civilization can survive ONLY with endless infusions of Diversity via mass-immigration/migration and, furthermore, can be redeemed only through heartfelt devotions to Jew Worship, Negro Adulation, and Homo celebration. And impervious to all facts and evidence to the contrary, countless white people not only believe but passionately FEEL that the globo-homo-shlomo-negro dogma is the only correct one, so much so that they seethe with contempt or even boil over with murderous hatred at those who say otherwise. But, let's consider the OBVIOUS. Mass immigration invariably leads to the Great Replacement. Look how the natives of the New World were replaced by immigrant-invaders from the Old World. Look how Palestinians were replaced by Zionist immigrant-invaders. Look how Kosovo, once the Serbian heartland, now belongs to Albanians. look how the once all-white London is now only 40% native British. As for the oft-touted elixir of Diversity, it leads to more dissension and/or atomization. All evidence have shown that blacks are by far the most destructive race; if other races are troublesome in wartime, blacks are wantonly destructive even in peacetime; even with full bellies, they love to rob, rape, loot, and burn down cities over any excuse. Jewish Power has shown itself to be hostile to whites or any goy majority that stands in the way of Jewish supremacist hegemony. Jews have pushed the Invade-Invite Strategy to swamp white nations with non-white immigrant-invaders and to destroy non-white nations(especially Arab/Muslim ones that have agendas contrary to those of Israel) with wars and/or sanctions. Globo-homo is a form of satanism, the very opposite of true spirituality/morality. It goes far beyond pleading for the rights of homosexuals to be tolerated as homo. The 'gay' agenda is essentially an insane mission to invert morality and values so that Jews can mind-fuc* the goyim and subvert all sense of autonomy of truth independent of what Jews demand and decree. So, globo-homo-mania would replace Christianity with Queertianity. Notice increasing numbers of churches that celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting over god and jesus. (Or they are flying BLM flags, as if the Black Ego and cult of Magic Negro are bigger than god.) If Jews can use globo-homo to convince you that a man who says he's a woman is really a 'woman', what else couldn't they do with your mind?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/E7A6LL74Ccxf/


And yet, Jews didn't 'win the culture war' in a world of free inquiry, open debate, facts, and reasoned logic. Instead, they turned the academia from a center of free debate into a monopolistic bastion of political correctness and conformity. And they used their power of media & entertainment to idolize and 'iconize' certain ideas, agenda, and biases as quasi-holy and beyond the realm of debate and discussion. The mantras must be chanted, the dogmas must be BELIEVED, and the idols must be worshiped; otherwise you're a heretic.
A religious fanatic is far more impossible to deal with than an arrogant intellectual. An intellectual, however snobby and contemptuous, believes he is right because his ideas are correct or better. As such, at the very least, he's open to debate, as with the cases of Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky. In contrast, a religious fanatic believes his views are not merely true but holy, therefore those who disagree are heretics who should be burned at the stake.
And yet, being religious per se doesn't necessarily make one a fanatic, as there are plenty of religious people who've accepted the need for tolerance, forgiveness, and even a bit of skepticism. And of course the virtue of humility. After all, can anyone really know the ultimate truth or the divine mind when even God is full of contradictions in the Old and New Testaments(and in the Koran)? Furthermore, one doesn't need to be religious to be fanatical with quasi-religious fury. Even an atheist can feel so passionately about something — his vision of justice, his hope for redemption, his cult of collective guilt, or his sense of awe regarding a particular person or group — that he can feel and act like religious fanatics of old. Consider the save-the-world cult around Climate Change. PETA's almost 'spiritual' view of animals. The Shoah as Holocaustianity, where we must believe in the 6 million number as numerology and convince ourselves that no people suffered as much as Jews and that all their suffering made Jews especially wise and noble.
Consider the hysterical hatred among those who believe homos are holy, and therefore the rejection of 'gay marriage' isn't merely wrong but evil. And of course, the mindless cult of MLK and Negroes as akin to a demigod-race. Such dogmas and idolatry go to show that one can be atheist, materialist, and nominally rationalist and yet still come under the spell of irrational convictions. (It is precisely because of the hysterical and even violent nature of these passions that even the skeptical and non-committed choose to keep their heads low and speak out. Whereas rational people or genuine liberals may engage with opposing views, true-believers and fanatics will call for the heads of heretics and renegades. It's like New York Times went from arguing for more 'gay rights' to decreeing that no further argument should be tolerated once the institutional consensus of 'gay marriage' has been reached. It's like the HAL computer, which has a god-complex, shutting off all further dialogue with David Bowman in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It knows best, and that's that.)

For many people, PC began as a status-thing. They jumped on the bandwagon not with great passion or deep conviction but because it seemed the proper thing among the 'better kind of people', aka the educated, sophisticated, cultured, and/or 'progressive'. But just like social drinking can lead to full-blown alcoholism among some, PC went from a matter of status to a matter of sanctity once its ruthless logic kept dissecting and 'dichotomizing' the world between 'are you with us' and 'are you against us'. It went from chic to shrill. Worse, it went from an ideology, where good-or-bad was a matter of ideas and values, to an intoxicated case of idolatry, whereby certain groups(especially Jews, Negroes, and Homos) were holy simply for their identities whereas certain other groups, especially whites, were deemed innately evil(or just 'meh') for their identities.
Given all such craziness, it's no wonder so many white people are blind to their own cultish lunacy that has spread from elite institutions right down to the unwashed masses, all of whose hearts and minds are at the mercy of media/academia controlled by Jewish Supremacists whose long-term plan for the white race is White Nakba and reduction of white people into commodities to be traded like corn and pork bellies. Jewish Power is to the white race what Jewish pornographers are to white 'sex workers'. Jews are masters and owners, whites are meats and property.

Consider how the entire Irish people, from educated elites to the lowly masses, are now little more than mental putty and human-property of the Globo-Homo-Shlomo-Negro agenda. The current Irish Policy will surely lead to national suicide, but the majority of the Irish just go along(and Poland is following in the same trajectory). Too many Irish have been persuaded that Irish racial survival is not only secondary to other concerns but even downright 'evil' as a form of 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. As Irish are white, how dare they think of Irish interests? White concern for white survival must be 'evil' because the globalist agenda insists that the holiest of the holies are Jews, Negroes, and Homos, and therefore, the Only Good Whites are those who put their own identity and interests in the back-burner and prioritize what is demanded of them by Jews, homos, and Negroes.

So many white people have bought into this crazy suicide cult. They are embracing what is most harmful and deadly to them as the very stuff of life, meaning, and redemption. They’ve chosen to be willfully blind. The Irish are happy to piss away their nation and heritage in their worship of sodomy, diversity, and colonization of Irish wombs with black seed. Then, how is this any different from the madness of the Heaven's Gate cult? If anything, it is far worse. After all, Heaven's Gate had no impact outside the cult itself. In contrast, the current mania of globo-homo-shlomo-negro cult has swept through the entire West. It is preached in college campuses, promoted by mass media/entertainment, and provided with mass funds by the richest oligarchs, both Jewish and goyim. (Jews surely know this is a death cult for whites because they do not push the same lunacy on Israel. In the land of Zion, they push nationalism, heritage, and natal-oriented family formation among their kind. But because Jews are so revered by stupid whites, Jewish power goes unquestioned and Jewish hypocrisy goes overlooked. To be sure, some do notice this discrepancy in the Jewish outlook, but the proposed solutions are hardly any better. Some on the white 'left' argue that, since white nations are nobly committed to Diversity & Great Replacement as a virtue, Israel should jump onboard too. A saner argument would be, "What works for Jews should work for us", i.e. nationalism for every people. Instead, the 'left' offers, "What doesn't work for us should be forced on Israel so that it won't work either" on the assumption that anything that destroys nationalism is good for mankind. As for the white 'right', especially the cucks at Conservatism Inc., the general notion is that Jews are deserving of special privileges of nationalism and identity because they are a greater and superior people. Such cucks look up to Jews as serfs once looked up to aristocrats.)

Ideally, national leaders should aspire to lead and defend their own people. And they should use the media and academia to instill the national masses with patriotism, solidarity, and pride. But Jewish-supremacist-dominated globalism has bought off the elites all over the world. They are offered super-rewards of money, privilege, and status for collaborating with World Jewry in the spread of Goy National Suicide Cults. As most elites are vain status-seekers, their priority is to be in good graces with the masters of globalism who have the handle on the trends and treats(to be doled out to be obeisant and servile).

Jewish Power has used Toohey-ism in fusing Money Power and Morality Cult into Absolute Power — What Ellsworth Toohey of Ayn Rand's THE FOUNTAINHEAD tells us about the Nature of Power — Why Chinese Power will fail in the West: It's all Money Power without Moral Protection

It's been said the Chinese have invested heavily in the US, buying up all sorts of properties and spreading the cash around to people in various industries and politicians. They are doing what the Japanese did in the 1980s. And yet, we see the weakness of this approach, the over-reliance of money without gaining power over the morality, or moral narrative. It reminds us of the power dynamics in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Gail Wynand is the tycoon while mid-cult Ellsworth Toohey isn't stinking rich. And yet, Toohey gains the upperhand against Wynand because he has cornered the market on public morality and opinion.

This is why Jews were smart to push the Holocaust Narrative to prevent any moral criticism/condemnation of Jewish behavior. By spiritualizing the historical tragedy of Jews as a world-shaking event, the greatest evil in history that transformed every Jew into a little christ and every critic of Jews into an 'anti-Semite' or 'nazi', Jews made it nearly impossible to criticize Jewish Power. Money Power goes a long way, but it's a double-edged sword. While money can buy influence, it also naturally attracts criticism as the People like to blame the rich, privileged, and powerful. Thus, Money Power is a disadvantage as well an advantage. Moral Power, on the other hand, can be righteous and shielded from criticism but, without the backing of money, can only go so far. But money combined with morality is formidable. Even though Ellsworth Toohey in THE FOUNTAINHEAD isn't himself stinking rich, he has created a name for himself as the voice of 'public conscience', built up a loyal cult-like following, and formed networks with oligarchs all over the city. So, even when Gail Wynand fires him, others at the newspaper follow him than continue to work for Wynand. And Toohey joins forces with Wynand's competitors. Wynand the tycoon was about buying people left and right. It was only about the money. In contrast, Toohey, though a power-hungry operator, was always careful to wrap his words with concern for public morality, decency, justice, and etc. Initially, he did this under Wynand who assumed that Toohey was just a whore who said whatever to please his boss. Actually, Toohey, though acting the flunky of Wynand, was building up his own cult, his own army of devotees, and taking control of public opinion. While his loyalty to Wynand was based on money, the loyalty of those under him was based on fanaticism and his cult of personality. His minions regarded him as the voice of decency, justice, morality, and truth. Though a cold-blooded Machiavellian who resents the power of originality and brilliance(as truly great individuals would see right through his BS), he honed his skills as a public intellectual and moralist. He created an image of himself as a man deeply committed to the public good.

Jews gained power as Wynands of the world, but they also played Toohey, or Joohey. They cleverly used the Holocaust Narrative as a global cult that got so many people, especially in the West, feeling that NO PEOPLE suffered as much as Jews. And on that basis, there must be something wrong, wicked, evil, and irrational about disliking Jews. Only pathological nuts like the Nazis could possibly hate and murder Jews. Therefore, ANY expression that is critical of Jews must be sick, demented, dark, and irrational. If Wynand and Toohey became enemies(until Wynand finally caved and became a 'spiritual' slave of Toohey despite his own riches), the Jewish Wynand and Jewish Toohey worked hand in glove to use Money Power and Morality Cult to gain near-total control of the US and the West. Indeed, what with all this BLM nonsense, we can see how the Power of Money often feels intimidated by the Cult of Morality. Cult of Morality doesn't have to be real morality. It could be sham-morality, utterly false, and even downright evil. While there is true morality, the fact is anything can be 'moralized', especially as, for most people, emotional and sensory manipulation often overrides moral reasoning. Thus, falsehood or evil can be moralized by any side. Ruthless men can invoke God and Jesus to justify wars for gold. Scum rulers can invoke Patriotism to justify imperialist wars. Adolf Hitler could iconize the Aryan Myth to justify wars. Mao Zedong could stir up the social justice of class struggle to unleash demonic energies. Neocons could scaremonger about the threat of terrorism to invade and destroy nations that had nothing to do with 9/11. Madeleine Albright could claim it's 'worth it' to kill 500,000 Arab children as a lesser evil than letting Hussein's Iraq return to normal. Moralize wars for Israel into sham talk of international ethics. And how many evil deeds have been justified on account of spreading 'liberal democracy'?


Still, there's a difference between right-and-wrong and holy-and-unholy. At the very least, right-and-wrong issues can be debated. For instance, one may be deemed wrong for opposing 'war on terror' foreign policy but isn't necessarily deemed evil. In contrast, on matters that are holy, it is deemed downright unholy and evil to say or act in ways that seem to go against its spirit. For instance, MLK isn't a matter for debate. He is now bigger than god and jesus, and any rational discussion of the man is not possible. You are either on the side of angels or with the devil. Same goes for Jews whose main identification is not with religion or heritage but with the Shoah. As such, to be anti-Jewish means you're a 'nazi' who wants to gas Jews. You can only be evil to be anti-Jewish or even anti-Zionist as the combo of Jewish Money Power and Jewish Morality Cult now insists that to be anti-Israel is tantamount to being 'antisemitic'. Thus, Jewish power/money is shielded. Generations of people in the West were raised with official dogma associating Jews with the Holy Holocaust. For most of Christo-European history, goyim felt moral/spirituality over Jews on the basis that, (1) whereas goyim did real work(like grow food and make things), Jews made their fortunes with usury and other parasitic practices and (2) whereas goyim worshiped Jesus as Son of God, Jews were unrepentant of having killed the Messiah and refusing to convert to the universal faith. So, no matter how rich Jews became and used their money to buy favors & influence, the goyim(elites and masses) felt free to criticize and even condemn Jews. But it began to change with the rise of the Holocaust Cult. Just when the power of religion was waning big time all over the West, Jewish Money Power did all it could to push the Holocaust as the new faith. But Jews didn't end there but also pushed White Guilt about blacks. Thus, whites were doubly paralyzed from the moral standpoint. They needed to atone forever for Holocaust and Slavery — never mind that genocides and slavery were nothing new in history. Though Ellsworth Toohey is the villain of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, he is the most useful and instructive figure on the art/science of real power in the world. While Howard Roark is a shining ideal that can only exist in fiction, the Tooheys of the world do amass tremendous power in the world. Just like the rich and powerful through European history had to seek approval of the Church on moral and spiritual matters, the rich and powerful today must 'take the knee' to the dominant Narrative that often originates from media and academia, the hives of Tooheys. Robin DiAngelo's WHITE FRAGILITY is the latest example of Tooheyism. It's nonsense but promoted as the New Morality. People like Amy Harmon also serve as the new tooheys. They are not after the truth but push the Narrative by moralizing endlessly about 'racism' and 'white supremacism', the equivalent of 'bourgeois' in communist nations. (Even when BLM and Antifa thugs burn down cities, city leaders often blame 'white supremacists', which is blaming witches for whatever goes wrong.)

Chick-Fil-A owner washes the feet of an amused Negro as holy saint

Now, Tooheyism isn't about total domination of Morality Cult over Money Power. After all, Toohey couldn't have done much if he didn't have the backing of other oligarchs and bigshots when Wynand canned him. Rather, Tooheyism is the compromise between Money Power and Morality Cult whereby the money flows to the moralizers in exchange for the moralizers devising the rules so that those doling out the money will be spared the brunt of the abuse. It's a way of buying indulgences like in the old Catholic days. Indeed, consider the Tooheic contract between Big Capital and 'Progressivism' in the creation of 'woke capital'. As Big Capital supplies the Money, the Progs have replaced class conflict with Ass Politics of globo-homo, something that Big Business can embrace as homos tend to be vain, narcissistic, and oh-so-cozy with the rich & famous. Replacing Mayday with Gayday was a huge boon for Big Capital. But then, the Old Church played similar games. They rather spent more time denouncing the poor and the wretched while sucking up to the rich and powerful. The rich provided the funds for the clergy, and the clergy, even though committed to a religion that spoke of the virtues of the meek and poor, favored the rich and went easy on them. It's no wonder why so many of the poor in Russia felt no particular sadness when the revolutionaries who burned down churches. They could recall Orthodox priests admonishing the poor and wretched to stop complaining and accept their lot in life while catering to the rich and powerful who wallowed in luxury and ate like pigs. In current America, the Mainline churches are just globo-homo centers catering to the elites, and the major Evangelical churches are dominated by disgusting fatsos who whore themselves out to Neocons and Zion. Tooheyism is alive and well.
Some say BLM is like a new religion, and it's certainly useful for big corporations. Since blacks have the cool factor as rappers & athletes and carry the aura of nobility in association with MLK & Civil Rights Movement, it is so easy for crass profit-oriented corporations to burnishing their image by invoking BLM symbolism. Nike is a cutthroat company that exploits cheap labor abroad, and what an easy way to 'moralize' its image by paying big bucks to the likes of Colin Kaepernick. And of course, the people who take the money from Big Capital get the message and focus their ire than anything but their sugardaddies. Antifa is purportedly communist, but its main obsessions are globo-homo and tranny-stuff, both favored by Big Capital as replacement for themes of class struggle. And instead of attacking Big Capital, Antifa leaders direct the rage of their drug-addled minions toward attacking Trump supporters, white Americans, and patriots.

This is why the Chinese are foolish. They think they will gain more power and influence in the West by throwing more money around. But paradoxically, the more money they spend to gain influence, the less power they will have at the end of the day. Because there is no moral taboo against China-bashing, the increase of Chinese influence-buying-and-peddling will simply provide more ammo to the China-bashers. Same happened with Japan in the 1980s. As there was no taboo against Japan-bashing, the more money Japan poured into the US, the more the media and various talking heads warned of the Japan menace. "The Japs are buying everything." Ironically, the Jewish media treated Japanese Power like Christian Goyim used to regard Jewish Power: All Money and No Morality. Because Jews experienced this, they were careful to morally launder their money power in the post-war period. Jews did it by pretending to push socialism against greedy capitalism. Thus, even though Jewish power was growing by leaps and bounds through capitalism, there was the impression that Jews were mostly socialist and committed to 'equality' than to greed. Also, they pushed Western/White Guilt via Holocaust Cult and Slavery Narrative. Jews mastered a Tooheic method of fusing Money and Morality to gain near-absolute power over the West. Jews even sham-'moralized' homosexuality and tranny-stuff into something next to godliness. Again, anything can be 'moralized'. And anything can be 'immoralized'. Wickedness can be 'moralized', as 'gay marriage' was by the power of TV shows and news/education as propaganda. And virtue can be 'immoralized'. Christian bakers who would rather face financial ruin than bake cakes to honor satanism have been vilified as 'homophobic' and 'bigots'. And women who insist on biological womanhood and believe trannies are not real women are denounced as 'transphobic' TERFS. Most people respond to the sensory-manipulative idolatry and emotional manipulation of propaganda than rely on truth and moral reasoning.

This is why China will lose everything in the end in the West. The more money they pour into the US and the West, the louder will be the outcry that the 'Chicoms' are taking over and buying up everything. Money Power without Moral Protection is vulnerable. After all, one can attack George Soros as a billionaire but NOT as a Jew. One can denounce the abstract 1% but not the tribal 2%(the Jews). If Chinese really wanted to gain greater foothold in the West, they should have found Tooheic ways to promote Western/White Guilt about the history between East and West. The history of imperialism, Opium Wars, West's partnership with Japan in carving up China, and US neo-imperialist wars in Asia. And the sad story of Chinese railroad workers in US and Canada. Whether such guilt-tripping would have worked or not, it is foolish for China to invest big money in the West without moral protection. China-bashers can have a field day with 'Communist China is buying up America' narrative, and the ruling elites can cook up some 'human rights' excuse to freeze and grab all of Chinese assets in the West and renege on all debts. It goes to show that the Chinese are still amateurs when it comes to the psychological dynamics of power.