Sunday, August 30, 2020

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

"...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.

No comments:

Post a Comment