Wednesday, November 25, 2020

The Unreality of Leftism — Leftist Underpinning of Western Progress — Goyim as NPC's in the Jewish Dream — Jewish Way vs the Greek Way — Surreal 'Logic' of the Current Dream

EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’
...if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.

There's some truth to this but not quite. There's always been a Rousseau-ean aspect to the Left. As an Mexican elder says in THE WILD BUNCH, "We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us..." But the Left also developed as a movement of reality check. The modern left originated with the intention of waking history out of its slumber. The masses were trapped in the dream of the Divine Right of Kings, God & Heaven, and virtue of meekness. But in fact, kings and noblemen were merely human like everyone else. They weren't special or innately superior despite all the pomp and posturing. And was there proof of God & Heaven? Should the clergy have power and influence when their institution is based on a myth? And why should the people be meek and humble when the vain elites live in opulence and feel contempt for the unwashed(contrary to Christ's teachings)?
Much about the French Revolution was meant as a reality check on the state of things. It told the people that the regal monarch is just a man, like you or me. So, why should he be blindly revered and obeyed? And why should his heirs take power and hog privilege? By what right should they rule over the people? The Left also spilled the beans on religion and clergy. The rise of reason and science called for demonstrable proof, and there was no evidence to Biblical claims. Furthermore, even though the clergy preached the Christian message of meekness, many were corrupt status-seekers catering mostly to the rich and powerful. In ANY institution, it is usually the opportunistic, cunning, and shrewd than the honest, principled, and scrupulous who make it to the top.

So, the Left was trying to wake people up from the slumber of history dominated by kings, aristocracy, and the church. What did Napoleon mean when he said, "China is a sleeping giant. Let it sleep"? He meant it's better for China to remain 'rightist' and static than go 'leftist' and dynamic. It was conservative China that was asleep in its own Middle Kingdom conceits. So sure of itself and its civilizational values, it refused to wake up to the reality that the West had surpassed it in every measure of power and wealth. Before Western Imperialists ventured into China, there were obvious clues that China must fundamentally reorder society to remain a great power and deter foreign threats. But it kept on sleeping in its smug 'rightist' conservative dream of superiority and security. It was the introduction of Western Leftism that forced many young Chinese to wake up and smell the coffee(than the usual tea). It was this materialist perspective that urged them to break out of Confucian conceits(of the useless literati) & Taoist musings and accept the material dimensions of reality: Facts over Feng Shui. It's no wonder communism was appealing to so many young Chinese in the early 20th century. It spoke of history as hammers and nails than brush and ink.

Karl Marx argued the people should wake up to the truth of history. He called religion the opiate of the masses. He argued that the main engine of history is not Great Men, Spiritual Ideas, or Philosophy but the struggle for the control of material reality. Throughout history, the elites found clever ways to exploit the masses and hog most of the wealth EVEN THOUGH it was the masses who did the heavy-lifting. He regarded capitalism as both a liberating revolutionary force and an exploitative form of new oppression. Capitalism was liberating in that it was totally materialist, something it shared with socialism. It accepted matter as the true basis of power. Titles such as king or duke meant nothing to capitalism. Neither did God or spirituality. Capitalism was about property, investment, factories, and technology. It was about the buying and selling of materials and labor that turned raw material into manufactured goods. To facilitate investment and transfers of wealth, capitalism relied on ever more elaborate schemes of finance. Because capitalism focused on the material world and real results, it revolutionized technology and profoundly transformed the landscape, along with human relations based on production and distribution. However, because it was focused mainly on profit and finance(that managed and manipulated the profit), capitalism had two problems, one moral and the other economic. Capitalists didn't care how much the masses suffered as long as their own profits increased. Even though finance is supposed to serve the material economy, it could take on a life of its own and create a form of economics that defies material sense — today, Wall Street and globalist banks cook up ever more surreal ways to increase wealth. Jews as 'made men' with insider information grow ever richer and buy up everything.

So, in that sense, Marxism was to wake people up from the dream of kings & queens, myth & religion, and the 'virtues' promoted by the powerful to hoodwink the masses. It also warned that 'liberalism' and 'individualism' were smoke-and-mirrors used by the propertied class to justify their exploitation and wealth. Their real power owed to control of materials via capital, not abstract ideals about 'freedom'. Also, it was the freedom of power that mattered. Most people without power had useless freedom.
For the exploited masses, 'freedom' was meaningless because they lacked the material means to ensure their own interests. So, true freedom for the masses could only come by gaining control of the material means of production. Why did so many Russians join the Revolution? The horrors of World War I and its social impact woke them up to the realization that Tsar Nicholas wasn't some wise grand patriarch, the father of his people, but a half-wit, fool, and weakling. Nicholas, the biggest rightist force in Europe, had been asleep about reality and history. He thought the people would remain loyal to him no matter what because he regarded himself as the loving father of his people; he loved them and they loved him, or so he thought. What a rude awakening for him.

So, there was a side to leftism that was about waking up to reality and seeing the light. The Left grew out of the Enlightenment. Let there be light and let us look upon reality with a clear eye. Let us be critical of power than just obeying it. Let us ask questions than accept the old answers as sacrosanct.
But the Left had its own problems arising from arrogance, ignorance, ur-spirituality, and limitations of man. Some on the Left were so sure of their truth(supposedly based on science and reason) that they became intolerant of and even murderous to those who disagreed. Despite the conceit of true knowledge and reason, mankind can only know so much. An expert in one field knows nothing of other fields. And even experts often turn out to be wrong(or they cravenly cater to the Power). What was 'certain' in medicine a hundred yrs ago, or even fifty years ago, may be null and void today. And there is the 'spiritual' nature of man. Even those who claim to be totally rational and materialist(or secular) have a secret need to divide the world into the holy and the unholy. Consider the Holocaust, Globo-Homo, and the Magic Negro. Holocaust should be treated as a historical subject, but it's become a religion where one must not question the numerology of the sacred six million. 'Gay rights' became Gay Rites, a cult of sodomy as the wonder of the ages. Homos used to push their cause on secular grounds of individual rights. Now, they insist that religious institutions fly the 'gay' banner. And if anyone says homo fecal-penetration is gross, he or she must be purged, shamed, and blacklisted. It's the 'inqueersition'. Indeed, anyone critical of the homo lifestyle has no chance of making it in higher echelons of government or industry. Globo-Homo is the official faith of the Deep State and Big Capital. You better get on your knees, take it up the arse, and BELIEVE... or else be cast into the purgatory of demotion or unemployment. And consider the BLM nonsense. Most blacks are murdered by other blacks, and if anything, cops save a lot of black lives. But as blacks are now holy objects, ANY instance of a black thug killed by cops is an act of blasphemy or 'blaxphemy'. Michael Brown was a thug who got killed in Ferguson. He never said, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", but that has become part of the Sacred Narrative among blacks and white progs. Why all such nonsense among people who claim to be rational, secular, and modern? Because human nature is 'spiritual', and that means even those who reject God and Church will find new icons, idols, and causes to worship. Notice how all these white progs kneel at the feet of MLK, Mandela, and Obama(and Oprah too). These people claim to be moral or righteous, but theirs is a form of fanta-morality, or morality based on fantasy. True morality must be based on reality. In the Current Year, there is so much moral outrage based on so little truth.

Of course, the choice of Jews, blacks, and homos as the holy trinity is largely the result of Jewish Supremacist control of media, academia, finance, and most whore politicians. Jews naturally promote themselves. Jews value homos as useful allies in turning Leftism from Mayday to Gayday. In the past, many Jews were of working class background or starving intellectuals. They were sincerely on the Left. Today, 50% of Jews make over $100,000 a year. Jews are the richest people on Earth. Jews want to keep the brand of 'leftism' and 'radicalism' but in service of wealth and privilege. So, why would Jews favor traditional leftism when something like communism would be devastating to Jews?
Indeed, even in the Soviet Union where many Jews had an auspicious start, they eventually lost out to non-Jews. Jews are arch-capitalists who cling to the 'leftist' brand because it acts as a shield — they grow ever richer through capitalism but are accused of being 'socialists' or 'communist' by the Idiot Right. When billionaires are lumped with 'communists', it works as moral cover for their wealth and privilege in the eyes of disgruntled 'progressives'. Look how Bernie Sanders runs as a 'socialist' and then urges all his herd to vote for Hillary or Biden(who serve super-rich Jews). Maybe Sanders was once a true socialist, but now, he's a Jewish Supremacist first and socialist second. There are commie-types among Antifa, but they are useful to Jewish Capitalists because Commie Thought says, "Greatest Evil is Nazism and Racism." So, as long as the Jewish Capitalist Media tells the 'commies' that there are 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazis' afoot, the dummy 'commies' are too busy attacking whites to ever get around to attacking capitalism and the oligarchy. (Traditional communism argued that capitalism, not fascism, is the biggest enemy because Fascism and National Socialism are merely fake-revolutionary movements used by capitalists to capture populist sentiments. In other words, fascism is merely iron boots capitalism. But most of today's commies are the product of pop culture. Their ideology is based more on TV shows, rap, and punk/grunge music than true understanding of the history of the Left. If German capitalists protected and funded the fascists to beat the communists, Jewish capitalists today use the 'commies' to beat down the 'nazis'.) Of course, US politics is pro-elitist on both sides of the aisle. The priority of both Democrats and Republicans is to prop up the elites in the 'center'. Democrats appeal to non-whites & white proggies for votes, and GOP appeals to whites & conservatives for votes. But once elected, politicians of both parties serve the oligarchs and grow fat themselves. Democrats are about suckering the 'leftist' masses to serve the rich and become rich, and Republicans are about suckering the 'rightist' masses to serve the rich and become rich. Donald Trump was hardly different but was loathed by both parties because his style and rhetoric accused the 'swamp' of hoodwinking and manipulating the masses.

If Leftist Ideology is based on 'what ought to be' than 'what is', could one argue that capitalism is leftist? Or that the West has been leftist even prior to the French Revolution, perhaps going back to the Renaissance? After all, capitalism has been about 'what ought to be'. It's been tireless in coming up with new and better ways of production, transportation, communication, and etc. Take the invention of flying machines. Most of humanity had given up on such dreams as impossible. Birds can fly, man cannot. But Western Man was not content with the reality that man is a terrestrial creature. He had to keep striving for 'what ought to be', and it was realized. So much that seemed impossible, ludicrous, or fantastical 100 yrs ago, let alone 200 yrs ago, have been realized. Back in the 1980s, only rich people had portable phones, which were cumbersome. Now, people have slick cell phones even in the slums of the Third World. When I was young, I didn't expect something like the internet to arrive suddenly and revolutionize the world.
The West advanced so much faster than the Rest because it got into the habit of pushing for 'what ought to be' than 'what is'. People during World War I were amazed by new technologies, but they were obsolete in a mere two and half decades in World War II. And who would have thought something like nuclear power was even possible? And yet it came to fruition because the West pushed for 'what ought to be'. Steve Jobs came to greatness in the second chapter of Apple by imagining 'what ought to be'. A declining company became the biggest in the world. Granted, 'what ought to be' is more sensible in science/technology than in social 'progress' as objective than subjective standards apply, but ever-competitive capitalism is always fixated on 'what ought to be' than merely 'what is'. So many companies operate on the basis that 'what is' now will be obsolete in the future when there will be products that come closer to how it 'ought to be'.

Leonardo Da Vinci made illustrations of flying machines. He failed to create one, but his mind was certainly in the mode of 'what ought to be', and this attitude did much to stimulate the West beyond the barriers of the 'possible'. And in time, so much that seemed impossible became possible. Leftism seems to share this spirit but in the field of social science. And in many areas, there have been key reforms and successes because of leftist pressure and visions of a better society. But then, this drive for more, the better, or the further emerged in the West prior to the rise of the Radical Left. Columbus had this spirit when he went on his voyage. Otto von Bismarck was a rightist-conservative but committed to creating a modern prosperous Germany with social services. And 'right-wing' autocrats of Asian nations after WWII were all invested in creating new orders; they embarked on tasks that seemed forbidding and impossible at the time.

Granted, even as both the 'right' and 'left' in the modern world keep pushing for new possibilities and improvements, it's generally true that the Right has a better sense of limits than the Left does. So, while rightists will adopt certain socialist policies, they don't believe in panaceas. They are less puritanical even though puritanism is usually associated with the Right, not least because modernity rebelled against the moral teachings of the Church, not least on sexual matters. But when it comes to holier-than-thou fulmination, the left is far more puritanical. The Right is judgmental and repressive but not concerned with uprooting all evils. It accepts the sinfulness and imperfection of the world. It's like Franco's Spain tolerated the Left as long as it didn't make trouble. In contrast, the Leftist order seeks to weed out all crime-think and seed the mind with correct ones. It's why George Orwell became so alarmed about the Left. And Jonathan Haidt finds the leftist mind to be more arrogant and intolerant in its outlook. It's not enough for the Left to control society; it must take possession of souls. Protestantism began as a proto-leftist puritanical challenge to the Catholic Church that seemed overly compromised with the reality of power and wealth. The current 'left' is deeply problematic in that it's radically perfectionist in its imperfectionism. It especially denounces Nazism as an evil obsessed with 'Aryan supremacist perfectionism' and urges all people to be more 'inclusive', or tolerant of differences. But then, it also insists that sodomy is some holy act and that trannies must be celebrated and lionized. And the 'body positive' movement doesn't merely say we should tolerate fat or ugly people but hail them as 'beautiful'. It is the narcissism of the ugly. The Imperfect is the 'New Perfect'. Also, it fetishizes blackness as a supremacist heroism that all races must idolize. Forget about the 'Aryan superman' but believe in the Afro-Aryan-superman who is so awesome that white men should cuck at his feet and offer up their daughters to. Arno Breker is out but Afro-Breker is in. Indeed, Leni Riefenstahl went from fetishizing Aryan supremacism to Afro-supremacism, which was noted by Susan Sontag.

The left vs right dichotomy is especially confused in the West because of Christianity. As the official faith of the West, it became a symbol of establishment and conservative values. But Jesus was a rebel-heretic-maverick Jew who pissed off Jewish Conservatives. And His message is eternally radical(though not a radical call to arms). All of Jewish History was about the children of men and women who, in turn, became fathers of sons and daughters. So, despite all the spiritual content, it was grounded in the reality of biology and history. In contrast, the Christo-myth says Jesus is the miraculous Son of God. Though born of Mary, she was only a vessel. And, He didn't have sex or get married and have kids. He lived the life of the Perfect Man and died and defeated death. This fantastical story and message are more suited to leftist than rightist thinking. Also, whereas Rightism tends to be particularist — our tribe, our culture, our people — and hierarchical, the universal and egalitarian thrust of Christianity is closer in spirit to Leftism, which is universalist.
But Christianity became the religion of the rich and powerful in the West. And the Enlightenment associated Christianity with kings, noblemen, corrupt clergy, superstition, reaction, and etc. But the meaning of Christianity never favored the rich and powerful. (One might say the development of the Roman Church was a betrayal of Christianity as it welded the pacifism of Christ with the militarism of the Romans. Furthermore, inspiration became an institution. Granted, all things need institutions to survive and propagate, but Catholicism turned worship of faith into worship of an institution. But, Christianity exists with or without the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. All one needs is the New Testament.) And there were many Christian progressives who believed the Faith must be on the side of the powerless than the powerful. Many Italians were both Marxist and Catholic. Still, one might say Christianity is conservative or rightist in its moral judgmentalism. It calls for social order in admonishing people to be sober, solemn, and pious. Leftism, in contrast, has a libertine streak. Many anarchists and early Marxists spoke of Free Love and other sexual experimentation. Some tried to fuse Marxism with Freudianism. And to that extent, Leftism was neo-paganist at odds with the moralism of Christianity. Ancient Greeks were certainly more libertine than the ancient Jews and Early Christians. But then, to the extent that the pagans were more cold-eyed about power and reality, they could be said to have been more 'rightist'. The Romans saw the world in realist terms of winners and losers. If your side won, they were winners; if they lost, they were losers. In contrast, Christianity said the material winners of this life could be spiritual losers in the afterlife. Paganism's no-nonsense view of power could be construed as 'rightist' in contrast to Christianity's abstract view of power as it 'ought to be': The meek and powerless in this world could be(as they ought to be) the powerful in the next life(while the rich and mighty in this world are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity). Perversely, current 'leftists' have the puritanical mindset of hard-line Christianity and the puerile sensibility of paganism at its most degenerate. It's as if the characters in FELLINI SATYRICON got 'moralistic' in celebration of debauchery: "I'm holier than thou because I take my kids to Drag Queen story hour." It's as if we are living in a dream because strange things happen in dreams, and the Current Year is very strange indeed.

According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds.

But it's also because most people lack the power to dream, therefore they want to be part of the bigger dream. Perhaps, MLK's (I Have A)Dream. Dream in the literal sense is what we all do when we sleep. Dream-as-metaphor is what we inhabit in the real world. There is no such thing as absolute living-in-reality as our understanding of reality is subjectively shaped by our senses. When we walk down the street, we are often just barely aware of the surrounding so as not to trip over or get hit by a car. Otherwise, we hardly acknowledge or think about the reality before and around us. We don't think, "I'm walking on concrete sidewalk, this is a parking lot with those cars, that is a tree, that is a person with a grocery bag, that is a cat, etc." Instead, our minds process what holds most meaning for us. It could be about personal relationships, but it's often about things that interest, stimulate, and provoke us. And these are often narratives, stories, images, idols, and issues, not least because people with smart phones are always 'hooked' to their favorite 'channels'. These function as something far more than mere knowledge. When someone watches the umpteenth show about hapless innocent noble blacks terrorized by the KKK, one doesn't coolly think, "There was a time when certain white groups used violence against blacks in the South." Rather, those images linger in the mind as dreamlike ghosts. They haunt and lurk the soul. Thus, they function as dreams than mere knowledge. In this sense, we are all living in a dream, and mankind always has.

Among primitive folks, a shaman or storyteller who tells the tale or narrative infects the listeners with heroes, villains, images, and visions that take on a life of their own in the hearts and souls of the listeners. Thus, the listeners come to partly live in the dream of the storyteller. Why do Jews now want to clamp down on Free Speech? They want to control the Dream Machine. They want all of us to be characters in their Dream Play, just like every instrumentalist in an orchestra plays a socially subordinate role to the conductor who, in turn, is 'spiritually' subordinate to the composer. So, even though we all exist as individuals in the physical sense, our minds are often NPC-like in the Dream of another. Under Stalinism, so many Soviet citizens were NPC-like minions of Stalin's Dream of Power and Justice. Under Maoism, so many Chinese youths were NPC-like minions of Mao's grand dream. All those Germans under National Socialism fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler, a great orator who could pull people into his dream of Germany.

It may well be that conservative types are less dreamy than those on the left. This element could keep them closer to reality, but it could also mean that conservatives become more dependent on the dreams of others who have the power to dream. Why can't conservatives create their own Hollywood, their own dream-machine? Even as they complain about the Liberal/Leftist control of Hollywood and other dream-centers, they rely on the Other for visions and narratives. The fact that so many German conservatives and rightists threw caution to the winds and surrendered to Hitler's dream suggests that one's inability to dream doesn't necessarily lead to more reality or clarity but to reliance on the dream of others.
This may explain why American Conservatism sucks so bad. Without the power of dreams, it has adopted the dreams of the other side: 'Diversity Is Our Strength', 'MLK was awesome', 'Gay Marriage is a conservative value', 'Muh Israel', 'Women in the Military', and etc.

The problem with reality is it's difficult and inconvenient. The mind finds dreams more appealing than reality. This is why truth upsets so many people, especially if the Dream has elevated certain ideas or groups to holy status. So, honest talk about Jewish Power or black crime or homo degeneracy upsets people who've come under the spell of the Schlomo-Afro-Homo dream of Tri-Supremacist Holiness.
Granted, what is currently 'acceptable' depends on the nature of the Dominant Dream. At one time, even most Liberals believed that homosexuality was a mental sickness, even a disease. In either case, pro-homo or anti-homo, it wasn't merely cold knowledge about homos but a mythic vision of them as either darkly corrupting pathological villains(as they were portrayed in so many movies even up to the 1980s) or pure-as-snow angels of 'rainbow' wonderment.

We are living in the Jewish Dream. Even those who are cast as villains and deplorables in this Dream are part of the dream because they explain themselves in accordance to the dream logic. For instance, most 'conservatives' will say "I'm not racist" or "I'm not homophobic". They are morally defensive than morally autonomous. They accept the rule-book of the Dream that says 'racism is evil' and 'homophobia is wicked'. They don't ask why it's called 'racism' when Ism simply means belief. If Ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. Of course, race is real because evolution is real, and different groups evolved separately. But even if we accept 'racism' to mean 'racial supremacism', isn't it obvious that Jews are supremacist because they demand the West favor Jews uber alles and Israel over Palestinians(and Muslims & Arabs in general)? For the sake of moral consistency, it is wrong for Jews to say that privileging whiteness is evil BUT favoring Jews is wonderful. However, such illogic can be 'logical' in a dream, a Jewish Dream, one in which Jews blame whites of 'racism' but practice 'racism' to the hilt for their own power and privilege. And yet, white conservatives who are demeaned as 'racists' by Jews go out of their way to prove they are NOT 'racist' by sucking up to Jews and praising Israel that is so blatantly 'racist' to Palestinians. It's like Jews say Donald Trump is Hitler but Trump goes out of his way to prove he's not 'racist' by totally supporting Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians and imperialism against Iran/Syria. So, even white conservatism operates within the hegemony of the Jewish Dream. It has no moral autonomy. It is essentially an NPC that plays according to Jewish Dream Logic that is illogical by any rules of moral consistency. How is it that Jews can denounce whites as Nazi but then ally with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine? How is it that Jews can condemn supremacism but demand governments to shut down BDS, a movement that calls for equal justice for Palestinians?
Or take 'homophobia'. Any conservative who says "I'm not a homophobe" is an NPC in a Jewish Dream because, by his denial, he accepts the reality of 'homophobia'. But Jews made up that bogus concept to imply that anyone who counters the globo-homo agenda or makes fun of homos is suffering from a psycho-pathology. In fact, 'homophobia' doesn't exist. While some people hate homosexuality or have strong antipathy to homo behavior, it is not a phobia which specifically means extreme fear and panicked response to something harmless. 'Homophobia' exists as an article of faith in the Jewish Dream.
In truth/reality, homos do indeed exist as some people are born homo, and this reality must be accepted, and social policy should be based on this fact. But it's also true that homo-fecal-penetration has no biological or moral worth, and it makes no sense to celebrate sodomy with 'rainbow' colors. And now, we are told there's 'transphobia' because many people still insist Bruce Jenner is a man and not a 'woman' or because they object to penis-and-balls-cutting as medical practice. What kind of sane medicine mutilates and removes perfectly healthy organs because some nut demands it? Also, if truth is a matter of subjectivity — "I'm a woman because I feel that I'm a woman even though I got penis and balls" — , what happens when such 'logic' is applied to race and other attributes? Is a dumb person a 'genius' because he says so? But maybe we are there already because so many mental midgets are now promoted as public intellectuals, especially if they're black or tranny. All such craziness are allowed because we live in The Dream that is Jewish. As Jews control the media, academia, deep state, and the megaphone, they get to weave The Dream. What they show on TV, teach in classes, print in papers, and allow on platforms come to determine the narrative, the myth, idols & icons, and the Current Year map of Good vs Evil. No wonder then that, even though Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom & Gomorrah and dump on white Christians all the time, most Evangelicals are always shouting "Muh Israel".

The world is like The Dream because most people lack the power to dream. So, they rely on the dream of others. Much of the film MULHOLLAND DR. takes place in the dream of a woman, but her dream unfolds according to the dream logic of Hollywood fantasy. So, even her own dream is part of a bigger dream, the myth of stardom and cult of celebrity. In TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN, David Lynch's character meets Monica Belluci in a dream who says, "We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives inside the dream. But who's the dreamer?"

Who is the dreamer of The Dream we are all part of? In that dream, we are mere phantoms because our 'thoughts' and 'actions' all follow the 'logic' and sub-will of the dreamer. We are free only like NPC are 'free'. Jewish Power is the Dreamer. All of us dream little dreams when we sleep but our waking life is part of The Dream of Jewish Power. In that dream, we are programmed to feel and behave in accordance to the 'rule'. In whose game are we effectively NPC's without true autonomy of thought, freedom, and liberty?
But then, is liberty an effective counter against The Dream? Libertarians tell us so, but what if most people are incapable of being free and independent? In that case, The Dream can be countered only by another Dream. It means history can never be about dream vs reality but dream vs dream. Reality is too harsh and dreary for most people. No wonder then that even fat ugly women go to hair-dressers and cling to the fantasy that they are attractive. Indeed, things have gotten worse. Well, if a man can be a 'woman', who says a fat ugly woman can't be a beauty? This anti-essentialist subjectivism all points to how dream-ism has infected so much of society. Such lunacy is intrinsic to The Dream pushed by Jewish Power. REQUIEM TO A DREAM. You may be nothing and have nothing, but YOU ARE SPECIAL because you're part of The Dream.

'Reality' and 'logic' in The Dream is as Jewish Power programs it. So, even though blacks are the main thugs and killers, we are led to chant BLM and cry for precious black lives being 'genocided' by white police. We prefer fanta-morality than real-morality. It's utterly absurd as a claim in the real world, but countless people who've been sucked into The Dream keep the faith. The Dream is so powerful and pervasive that all of us are, in one way or another, part of The Dream, if only because we must always remind ourselves and others that it isn't real. Thus, no one is really fully awake. Either you go along with The Dream or you're a lucid dreamer who knows you're in The Dream but can't really break out of it. As we are all social creatures, we can't help but be part of the prevailing order. So, if much of society is still in The Dream, we are also partly in it because we are part of society. It's like even anti-Hitlerians under National Socialism couldn't fully escape The Dream. It became too much of the life and culture.

The dream is sort of like a game, especially a con-game. Cons work because the con-man slips something with a distraction. Thus, the conned fail to see the reality of what is happening as he or she is fixated on what is shown. It's why the woman falls for the con in HOUSE OF GAMES. That the woman is 'too smart to be conned' is actually part of the con devised against her.
Dreams work in a similar way. We believe in the unbelievable in the dream — dead people alive in front of us and etc. — because the dream turns off the mechanism of verification and detection. Furthermore, the dream keeps streaming new 'information' to the mind that is too distracted to process anything for verification. While what happens in a dream isn't logical, there is a logic behind the process of the dream that keeps the dreamer hoodwinked. And even when a person becomes a lucid dreamer, he is in the dream.

What is true of a single mind is true of an entire society, especially when everyone is connected electronically. Electronic media are like collective neurons of society as a hive-mind. But who's the dreamer or game-creater? Who is the 'user' and who are the 'programs'?
People's minds are colonized by the electronic-neurons beamed by media, the Dream becomes their dream, and they become part of The Dream Empire or Dreampire as envisioned and programmed by Jews. So, even though Sigmund Freud failed as a scientist(as current psychology believes he was wrong about most things), his obsession with the power of dreams could have served as the blueprint of takeover of power. Marx was utopian but concentrated on the materialist reality. But all the talk of labor, production, and etc. got pretty dreary and boring to most people. Capitalism beat communism not only in the material sphere(of producing more) but in creating the Empire of Dreams, which Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion. No wonder Jews were so eager to acquire Disney and then STAR WARS. Walt Disney and George Lucas had the power to create dreams.
Dream as metaphor for power is explored in EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg where goyim move inside a maze created by a Jew. Even as they identify the Dream-Maker and kill him, they're not sure if they're in reality or still in the Dream. Even the Anti-Dream could be part of the Dream. And such is true in our world. Even those opposed to Jewish Supremacism are marked by the 'logic' of The Dream. If you oppose Jews, you must be 'nazis', 'white supremacists', 'anti-semites', or etc. Of course, there are neo-nazi types who can't oppose Jewish Power without resorting to 'Muh Fuhrer', but this is because they lack the autonomous power to dream. Therefore, they must borrow the dream of Hitler to combat the Jewish Dream instead of creating a new and better Dream from scratch.

How do a people replace one Dream with another? A New Dream in which most people become figures in another Dream. They become NPC's in another people's game. US politicians, 'conservative' and 'liberal', are little more than NPC's in the Jewish Dream. One way to replace one Dream with another is by invasion. US defeated Japan, erased the myth of the sacred Emperor, and installed the new Dream of Japan as a peace-loving democracy, which, however, must take orders from the New Empire that invades and destroys other nations. (Incidentally, blaming Japanese Militarism for Japan's woes is disingenuous. After all, Japan embarked on its imperialist ventures BEFORE the military takeover and with the support & even encouragement of Western Imperialist powers. Furthermore, the leading imperialist powers in the world were all 'democratic': UK, France, and US. Also, most militarist governments were generally less imperialist, and more often than not, a nation turned to militarism as last recourse against foreign domination or total chaos. Franco and Pinochet were military leaders, but they didn't invade anyone, and they came to power to defend the order from International Communism, a form of ideological imperialism. But as the US-dominant Narrative governs the world, Japanese are to believe that they were saved from bad old militarism with defeat and democracy. Such is the power of the Dream.)

The Dream can be replaced by outright invasion. Still, invaders without a strong Dream may fall under the Dream of the vanquished. Mongols invaded China but fell under the spell of the Middle Kingdom Dream. The Romans, for all their military glory, were weak in the power of Dreams. So, they fell under the Dream of the Greeks and worshiped a fusion of Roman and Greek gods. Their art imitated Greek imagination. And later, Romans and the Greeks fell under the Dream of Christianity even though Christians had no means to conquer them militarily. They became figures in the Dream of Jesus and Paul, Jews rejected by Jews. Later, the Germanic barbarians invaded Rome, much like Mongols would invade China later, but as the barbarians were weak in the power of Dream, they too fell under the sway of Christo-Roman Template.

The Power of Dreams come in two forms. One where the Dream takes on a power all its own independent of its originator and the Other where the Dream is used by a people to control others. For example, all of the West fell under the power of the Greek Dream. Especially the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and 19th century archaeology prized Greek culture as the shining ideal. Still, it was the Greek Dream without Greek power as the Greeks had long declined and fallen. And Greeks were okay with this: The Greek Way conquering the human imagination around the world WITHOUT Greeks having power over the world.
In contrast, Jews felt differently. Via Christianity, there was the power of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power. Christians read the Sacred Texts of Jews, and Jewish spirituality and historiography had great impact on the West. But even as Europeans fell under the sway of the Jewish Dream(as Jesus, Disciples, and Paul were Jews steeped in Jewish tradition), they were independent of Jewish Power and even hostile to Jewish People. And Jews took umbrage at this. Perhaps, the relation between Jews and Christians would have been better IF Christianity didn't insist that Jews rejected the Messiah and murdered Him. But, there was bound to be hostility between Judaism and Christianity because Jews couldn't help but feel that Jesus and Paul laid the groundwork of smuggling the Jewish God to other peoples, the dirty gentiles. It was a violation of the Covenant, and therefore, Jews could only feel hatred for Jesus and the heretical Jews. As Jews were anti-Christian, Christianity could only develop as an anti-Jewish religion.

Anyway, if Greeks were resigned to the prestige of the Greek Dream being independent of Greek power(that was non-existent at any rate), Jews couldn't tolerate Jewishness as an abstraction for other peoples without the input of the Jews themselves. Jews felt that all who adopted the Jewish Way must come under Jewish Sway. As both Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism, Jews must control the West and Near East. So, Muslim nations must be battered with Neocon militarism to teach them a lesson of who's the real Chosen of God. Because Islam is a proud militant religion, Jews know it's difficult to take over the Muslim Soul. But because Christianity is a religion of humility, guilt, and sin, Jews knew they could worm into the Christian Soul and re-code it for self-destruction. Alter the Christian Guilt Code toward feeling most ashamed of the Holocaust and Antisemitism(and 'racism' and 'homophobia') and then watch the dominos fall. As most Christians are craven, shallow, or stupid, their Sin Complex could be manipulated in algorithm. Do it like the guys in INCEPTION by Christopher Nolan. Enter the White Christian Dreamscape, locate and unlock the soul-safe Houdini-style, and alter the main object of worship from God and Jesus to Jew, Negro, and Homo. Replace Virgin Mary with Anne Frank. Replace God with bellowing Negro. Replace angels with homo fairies. Thus, Christianity became cucked and worthless, a mere NPC program in a Jewish Dream of Dominion.

Jewish Power seeks to Greek-ize the West. Just like the Greek Way became divorced from Greek Power(whereby even non-Greeks took Greek ideas and idols with no regard for actual Greeks), the Western Way is to be divorced from Western Folks. We are told that Western Civilization is an Idea. It's not a people and their land. It's an idea or ideal that can be adopted by anyone. So, the power of the West should be an abstraction. Even if whites lose their lands and become minorities in their own nations due to mass immigration-invasion, there is no need to worry as Western Civilization will remain powerful as a Dream for all of humanity. White people having power isn't what the West is about. All that matters is the propagation of the Western Idea. As long as the Idea lives on as the Dream for others, the West is still #1. And what is this Western Idea: A Universal commitment to liberty, individuality, rule of law, and property rights(and sucking up to Jews, blacks, and homos). So, even if white people were to vanish from the world, the West would be alive and well as long as people are into 'muh liberty' and property rights. Following this logic, Chinese need not worry if China vanishes as long as people enjoy Mooshoo Pork. Chinese culture still alive, you see.

But of course, Jews would never want this for themselves. If someone told Jews, "Hey, don't worry if Arabs or Muslims take over Israel and if you Jews vanish off the face of the Earth because the Jewish Idea will always be with us in the form of the Bible and the achievements of Jews such as Albert Einstein and Steven Spielberg." And even the Koran could be said to be partly Judaic since Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Texts. Now, would Jews be okay with a world of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power(and People)? Of course not. Jews want to use their Dream as their hegemonic power over others. The Dream must never be independent of Jewish Power.
Jews weren't content with Gentiles adopting and worshiping the Jewish God. They wanted to gain control over those who adopted the universalized form of Yahweh. Indeed, Jews even wanted to take God back from those people. What is Globo-Homo Queertianity but a bait-and-switch Jews are pulling on the Christians? By making Christians worship the inanity of Sodomic Globo-Homo, Jews effectively turn Christianity into a junk-religion devoid of God. Of course, Jewish Rabbis pretend to go along with globo-homo, but it's just a ruse for the rubes. After all, the Talmud teaches the Jews to use all forms of deception to hoodwink and destroy the goyim. For Jews, a jealous people(like their God is jealous), Jewish Power must always command the Jewish Way. If Greeks are flattered that non-Greeks took the Greek Way and came to greatness(and even surpassed the Greeks), Jews are not happy about non-Jews having taken the Jewish Way and come to greatness. Deep down inside, Jews hate Christianity and Islam even as they take pride in the fact that all those hapless shallow goyim fell under the power of the Jewish Dream. For Jews, the respect for the Jewish Way must be accompanied by supremacy of Jewish Power. Jewish Way must not become independent of Jewish Power. Muslims must be hammered into submission by the Chosen People of Zion. Christians must be manipulated into changing their religion to suit the outlook and sensibilities of Jews. So, how dare the Russians not fly 'gay' flags in Orthodox Churches to appease the Jews... like the Catholics are finally on the verge of doing, what with the poop-pope Francis blessing 'gay marriages'.

White people have two paths: the Greek path or the Jewish path. Greek path says your civilization will live on as a great idea but minus the power(and even the survival) of the people who created it. Jewish path says your civilization must live on as an idea that is inseparable from the survival, security, and power of the people who created it. Jews believe that even though non-Jews can learn and take from Jewishness, the Jewish Way really belongs to the Jews who are its real owners. But Jews tell white people that the Western Way cannot in any way be claimed by white Europeans. It is to be a dream independent of the dreamer... so that it will succumb to The Dream Empire of the Jews.


Sunday, November 22, 2020

Jewish Powers vs The World and How the Game is Played — Marx Brothers beat Marxism as Manual for Future Power — Jerry Springer as Cartoon George Soros — How 'woke' Political Correctness aids and abets White Privilege — Evanglobals

It is about Urban vs. Rural

It is about Globalist vs. Nationalist

It is about Cosmopolitans vs. Patriots

It is about Tribal vs. Universal

It is not about Democrats or Republicans

It is about Identitarians vs. Americans

It is about the ‘as a’ people vs. Authenticity

It is about a ‘Great Reset’ vs. longing for greatness

It is about Jerusalem vs. Athens

It is really about the ‘last days of the Weimar Republic’ all over again.

Throughout its history, capitalism has been using different tactics to suppress opposition.

It's really about Jews vs the World. Granted, not all Jews are neo-satanist and crazy. Not all are powerful. There have been righteous Jews who tried to speak the truth or some portion of it. Stephen Cohen, Norman Finkelstein, Brother Nathanael, and etc. But they don't have the power. Finkelstein couldn't even keep his gig at the second-rate university DePaul because of JSP or Jewish Supremacist Power spearheaded by the odious Alan Dershowitz.

Now, there would be problems in the world without Jews. Even if all Jews vanished into the thin air, there would be conflicts everywhere. Consider the recent conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. There are drug wars in Mexico. There are tensions between China and Vietnam. India and Pakistan hate one another. Still, Jewish Power makes it far worse by interfering in hot spots in the world. Instead of letting the locals come to terms a regional power playing broker, Jewish Power often intervenes by using its control of the US as the lone superpower. Would Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan be in the states they are in if not for Jewish Power? Would there be a 'new cold war' with Russia?
Without Jewish interference, there would have been no coup in Ukraine and all the bloodbath that followed. Syria would be in one piece. Now, Assad is hardly an ideal leader, but what sane person would prefer Al-qaeda or ISIS? It seems Jews prefer ANYONE(even quasi-nazis in Ukraine) if it's GOOD FOR JEWS. That's about the extent of Jewish moral consciousness.
Just about ANY nation has internal divisions. They could be ethnic, religious, ideological, or whatever. There are some aggrieved factions or minorities in any society. Usually, they just go along because doing so is the best bet. It keeps the peace. But when the order becomes destabilized and these groups are supplied with arms & materials, a war can break out. Same is true of Israel. Suppose foreign powers undermined government there and supplied arms to Palestinians in both Israel proper and West Bank. Things would go up in flames in street-to-street fighting, like in Syria. Such a Yinon-ist divide-and-rule strategy has been concocted by Jews for goy nations. So, Syria is on fire and Yemen too. Why? Jews don't want those nations to be stable, secure, and close to Iran. So, ANYTHING is justified in undermining them. So, a limited conflict within Syria blew up into a major war. Thanks Jews.

But then, a low-level Yinonist Plan has been devised for the West as well. Why do Jews push for mass-immigration and Diversity on goy nations(while never for Israel)? Because Jews know that more Goy Diversity means they can play divide-and-rule game more effectively. But even in relatively homogeneous nations, Jews create and play on ideological and idolatrous divisions to tear them apart. Take Poland. Jews are masters of psychology and understand the Polish Mentality. Poles suffer from the Polish Disease of Slavic Inferiority Complex. Poles don't want to be associated with Oriental Despotic Russians who seem so crude and backward. They want to be considered as part of Western Europe. They never tire of bleating on about how they are CATHOLIC than Orthodox and how they use the Latin Alphabet than Cyrillic. Poles were once powerful but came to ruins and weakness. They got swallowed up by Russia and came to idolize the West. So, they are a bunch of suckass dogs who crave approval from the West. Jews studied the 'Dumb Polack' psychology and know what to do, which is why so many young Poles are into globo-homo and Afromania. (As Catholicism has been replaced by Gay Rites and Jungle Fever in the West, young Poles are dropping Catholicism and raising the new banner of BLM with 'rainbow' colors. They go with whatever is 'cool' in the West.) Their modus operandi is essentially 'West is cool and awesome, and Polish value depends on how much the West approves of us.' Now, this wouldn't have been so bad in the past when, indeed, the West was far more advanced than the East. Western Enlightenment over Russian Oriental Despotism. Also, there was a time when the West was more race-ist than the East. Russia, with its polygot empire, became somewhat mongrelized. In contrast, Western Europeans, especially of Central and Northern Europe, were more homogeneously white and proud of it.

But what is the current West? It's about total cuckdom to Jews, Negroes, and Homos. It's about Erasism, or erasure of the native population. It's about the Great Replacement or White Nakba. If anything, current Russia is whiter than many parts of Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, and UK(which should stand for United Kolony than United Kingdom). But the Polish Disease is blind to all that. It only cares about seeking approval from the West that still hogs the global prestige. Due to the Polish Disease, Poles have no autonomous or independent way of gauging meaning and worth. All that matters is sucking up to the Prestigious West.
One may wonder why the West has prestige when its popular culture is garbage, its borders are broken, its elites are cucky-useless, and its cultural expression is 'twerking'? One reason is the power of hype. West controls the media machine and advertising. It creates the glitter in your eyes. But it's also because the nationalist, Christian, and/or conservative forces are so dull, boring, or corrupt. It's great to be nationalist and it's good to be Christian but one doesn't live on seriousness, morality, or eternity alone. People need sensory stimulation, especially in our modern era of electronica. It's like people love the celebration of Christmas more than its true meaning. It's the celebration of it that spread to Japan as well, a nation where only 1% is Christian. Consider the Beach Boys song, "Fun, Fun, Fun". Too often, people feel that the Right takes the T-Bird away. Of course, the Left took it away too under communism, which is why capitalism won the 'culture war' against communism. Capitalism offered rides on the T-Bird. Especially as Pop Culture prizes youth uber alles, shallowness has come to dominate social attitudes. And too often(and understandably), 'growing up' is seen as synonymous with losing one's idealism and coming to terms with the corrupt ways of the world. Too many 'grown-ups' are compromised professionals. Consider all those 'experts' in government. Would it be possible to create a culture where to be grown-up means to be more truthful and principled? To be wise than to compromise?

But it isn't easy to root out corruption since anyone who tries will have to go up against the whole system that put him into place. It's far worse when society is corrupt in general. Then, even as people gripe about corruption, they resist efforts to reform society because they themselves are so used to benefiting from it, which are the cases in Southern Italy and Greece. Southern Italians and Greeks complain endlessly about corruption but resist all attempts to end it as it's how most of them do business. It's like blacks complain about crime and violence but resist attempts to root them out as they don't like white police sticking its nose into black affairs.
Poland is also very corrupt from top to bottom. Perhaps, Poles associate corruption with the Eastern Way and look to the West for a cleaner model. But while the workings of the bureaucracy may be cleaner(at least in Northern European nations), the West is also deeply corrupt and compromised at the very top because it lacks national autonomy. EU nations are all vassals of the US that is controlled by Jews. You can't have a sound national policy when your leaders are essentially led by the nose by the likes of George Soros. The fact that cleaner government is no panacea to current problems can be seen in UK, Germany, and Sweden. They have cleaner governments than Italy, Greece, and Poland, but that didn't stop them from embarking on national suicide. If anything, perhaps cleaner government paved the way for the demise. Clean government means law and order, and law and order can lead to prosperity. Order and Wealth leads to boredom and neurosis(like with the characters in Ingmar Bergman films). Also, prosperity means a more generous and naive outlook about the world, such as 'Save Africa'. Also, extended peace robs people of the warrior spirit that can sense danger. (Of course, Jewish-guided PC informs white people that their survival instincts are 'atavistic', 'backward', 'extreme', and 'far right' even as Jews stress upon survival instinct in Israel. According to Jews, any white will to survive as an identity is a 'pathology'.) Boredom, naivete, and good-will have spelled doom for Sweden. One silver lining about less clean orders is people tend to be less trusting and more survival-minded than good-will-minded. Now, a trust-culture is better than a distrust-culture but ONLY IF the elites are worthy of trust. If the elites are worthless cucks whose agenda will lead to national demise, a trust-culture is the worst possible thing for that society. The people will trust the elites and go over the cliff like so many lemmings.

Anyway, it's about Jewish Power that is messing up so much of the world, not least because Jewish intervention blows up local conflicts into global ones. Syrian War would have ended quickly with Assad victorious IF it weren't for the fact that Jewish-controlled US encouraged Turkey, Saudis, Israel and others to descend on that nation like a pack of vultures. Thus, it turned into a major conflagration.
While US-Iran relations would be sour due to what happened in 1979, it would be a lot better if not for the Jewish Lobby that insists on Israel remaining the ONLY Middle East nation with nukes. How surreal that Israel with hundreds of nukes gets billions in 'aid' while Iran, a nation with no nukes, gets sanctioned savagely. And what's the beef between US and Russia? Sure, many Americans hate Russia, but why? They rely on the Jewish-controlled Media that say Putin is 'Putler' and etc., or Russia is evil because it won't have homo parades. It's like dogs barking at something because the master ordered them to. If not for Jewish Power, most Americans would feel no hostility toward Russia. They might not agree with the Russian Way, but no one would get worked up for another 'cold war'. Anti-Russian policy is totally about Jewish sour-grapes because Putin didn't allow Jewish oligarchs to do as they pleased. Also, the notion of a white majority nation being proud of its identity/heritage and its religion and saying NO to the NWO(or JWO) is threatening to Jews because it might spread to other white majority nations: No More Sorrows with Soros. Jews pretend that they oppose Russia because it's against 'liberal democracy', but these same Jews have destroyed free speech in the West. They use Antifa terror and thuggery to shut people down. According to Jews, 'democracy' is whenever their puppets win. If the people freely elect someone Jews dislike, it's 'autocracy'. Jews would have us believe Ukraine is about 'liberal democracy' because Jews and their puppets run it.

Jewish Perfidy goes all around the world. Why does Jewish Power make things so difficult for negotiations with North Korea? Because North Korea has nukes and sets an example for nations hated by Israel. (Never mind N. Korea rushed to get them because Neocon Jews urged Bush II to include that nation in the 'Axis of Evil'.) Also, why would Jews tolerate a possible reunification of the peninsula and withdrawal of US forces when South Korea is such a useful puppet in the global chess game?
This Jewish craziness extends all over Latin America. Jewish-run US policy toward Latin America is as follows: Any nation that exhibits any sign of defiance and independently negotiates with Russia, Iran, or etc. must be targeted for regime-change. So, Bolivia came under crossfire. Venezuela has been targeted. All this talk of Venezuela interfering in US elections is rich coming from Americans who've been interfering in Latin American affairs forever. But as the Jew Taboo dictates that you can never mention the Jews, you got to blame something other than Jewish Power. If a Jew kicked Alex Jones in the butt, he would blame the Arabs or the 'Chicoms'.

While Jews aren't the sole reason for the world's problems, they often make things worse by using their proxies, all in the name of 'good for Jews'. Whether it's George Soros breaking the Bank of England or Paul Singer financially leeching off other nations, there is the Jewish Hand. And who spread all this hideous neo-satanic globo-homo madness? Jews did. And why did so many whites become completely defenseless against such rot? Because their minds have been molded by the 2 PC's of political-correctness and pop-culture controlled by Jews. And of course, proxies of Jews spread degeneracy(especially of globo-homo nature) and conflicts all over the world.

Karl Marx failed, but a kind of Marxism did come to fruition. That of Groucho, Chico, and Harpo. Look all around and world politics is like DUCK SOUP(or Cuck Soup). Wily Jews pull all sorts of tricks and lead the stiff/square white goyim by the nose. The build-up to the Iraq War was like the scene in DUCK SOUP. Jews run circles around goy politicians like Groucho and Chico do with Wasps. Jewish Power is always several moves ahead, and the goyim are often taken by surprise and succumb in bemusement. Of course, as we're supposed to take it so seriously, current world affairs is like a straight-faced comedy, but what a joke it is. In an earlier time, one might have regarded DUCK SOUP as a satire of warmongers, but it no longer seems that way. It's more like a funny manual of how Jews can manipulate thick-skulled, square, lame, or dimwit goyim into just about anything. How is the scene in DUCK SOUP any different from what happens in Congress, CIA, or the Pentagon?

Another revealing figure about the Jewish Way is Jerry(or Jewry) Springer. What was his shtick? He would bring on these disgruntled goyim and make them beat one another up to the audience chant of 'Jerry, Jerry, Jerry'. Naturally, people have gripes all across America, but Springer exploited it and blew up these squabbles into 'national' feuds, a kind of World War Trash. He exploited trivial matters and turned them into big comedy-drama for national TV. And while these hapless and stupid goyim made total fools out of themselves(while also delighting in their 15 min of fame as insta-celebrities), Springer stood apart, safe and aloof, giggling with contempt at the easily duped goyim.
How is this any different from how Jews play world politics? True, there are deep-seated tensions and problems all around the world. But they are local in nature and remain limited in their implications AS LONG AS some global power doesn't come between them. The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict wouldn't have gotten this bad IF Soros didn't encourage Armenia to make dumb decisions and if Israel didn't supply Azerbaijan with weapons. Notice how Jews play both sides, just like Jerry Springer pretended to have a sympathetic ear for all his guests when, in fact, he was doing everything to goad them into violence. On the show, there was Jerry Springer as the grandmaster, a kind of Soros-ian figure. And the big beefy security guys were like the US military. They kept the order. But did they keep the order for order's sake? No, the order was kept on stage just to make the guests fight like demented gladiators and make total fools of themselves. And what happens to these hapless goyim? Just ask the Armenians... or will anyone learn? Jews mess with the world, but the world pleads with Jews for sympathy as the Tribe has ungodly powers of finance, media, academia, big tech, gambling, deep state, and Shoah Worship(which deems any criticism of Jews as 'antisemitic' and 'nazi'). So, even people like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump who've come under special abuse by Jews (must) go through the ritual of appealing to Jews for 'advice' and 'approval'. It's like a mafia extortion scheme where one must pay 'protection money' and show respect. But protection from whom? From the one providing the 'protection', as if you don't pay, your place will go up in flames.

In this new ‘Left’ Identitarian amalgam, every ‘as a’ voice is welcome except the White one.

It's been said Diversity Craze and PC(or 'wokeness') are about Anti-White-ism and celebration of all non-whites, but this isn't really true. If it were truly anti-white across the board, it would gain little traction with most whites. Why then do so many whites embrace it? Because it's white-elitist and appeals to the suppressed 'spiritual' side of man. A white person who adopts PC feels morally elitist over incorrigibly 'racist' whites and socially elitist because most higher institutions are governed by PC codes. Furthermore, man is naturally spiritual even if irreligious. Just like vegans crave meat — mind can be moral but the body isn't — , modern secular folks, despite their conceit of rationality, crave the sacred and spiritual because emotional balance demands it. Of course, if one needs spirituality, it's better to go with real religion or mythology, just like it's better to have meat-protein than the soy kind.
Religion says God is above all. Now, why is this a problem for Jews? Because if Christianity or Islam is true and if God is above all, then it means all races should bow down before God as the ultimate judge. Under God, Jews and Goyim would equally be judged. Jewish Supremacists don't want equality with goyim, and so, they pushed for secularization. Now, the secular order can also be for justice for all. If the Law calls for equal justice regardless of race, color, or creed, that means Jews must be treated and judged like anyone else. But, that's no good for Jewish Supremacist ambition. So, Jews, the masters of psychology, infused the modern secular mind that hungers for spirituality with the quasi-spiritual worship of Jews and their favorite allies.
So, Diversity isn't about equal celebration of all non-white groups but special celebration and apotheosis of Jews, along with blacks and homos. If PC or 'wokeness' were truly about equal justice for Diversity, then the media would run as many pro-Palestinian and pro-Syrian stories as pro-Jewish stories. Hollywood would have made many TV shows and movies about Nakba and the dark side of Zionism. But, while the media almost never run anti-Zionist stories, they are filled with anti-Syrian, anti-Iranian, and anti-anything-hated-by-Jews stories. When Michael Brown strong-armed an immigrant business owner whose store was later ransacked by black thugs, where was the concern for his kind? None. Blacks matter, they don't. If Diversity is about celebration of all sexual expressions and deviancy, how come there is no month-long celebration of incest? It's telling that most non-whites don't stand up for their own identities and cultures but seek attachment to one of the sacred identities, namely Jewish, black, and homo. How many non-whites would succeed in Wall Street, Hollywood, or Big Tech if they displayed the Palestinian Flag? A Burmese-American showing pride in Burmese identity doesn't get him very far. An Iranian-American extolling the greatness of Iran wins almost no wokemon points. For approval or success, they are better off waving the homo flag or displaying a BLM sign. In contrast, it's great for a Jew to say he's proud to be Jewish. It's sensational for a homo to say sodomy is 'pride'. It's awesome for blacks to pontificate about how 'black lives matter' even though blacks are main killers of blacks. So, Diversity is less about the celebration of non-white identities but about most non-white groups circling around the altars of Jewish Identity, Black Identity, and Globo-Homo, the Tri-Supremacism.

Now, what do whites get from this? While many whites do lose out, it offers quasi-spiritual succor to elite whites and wanna-be-elite whites who, lacking privilege, settle for the next-best thing, which is attitude(of virtue-signaling), as in "I work at Starbucks and live in a crammed apartment, but I listen to NPR and read the New Yorker like all the sOpHiStIcAtEd people". Oh wow, we are so impressed.
PC is designed so that not all whites lose out. While it beats many whites with the stick as 'racist', it offers 'spiritual' and careerist carrots to those who repent and seek redemption. This atonement can be sincere(among the naive & childlike) or cynical(among the craven & opportunistic), but what matters is it either bestows immediate status or justifies the existing privileges of those whites who've chosen to be 'baptized'. In a way, 'wokeness' is more exciting for whites than for non-whites. Whereas Jews, blacks, and homos can only feel righteous rage, whites can experience the full drama, the passion play, of sainthood. Or the Road-to-Damascus Moment, though it's more like 'dumbass-cuss'. Just like it's refreshing to take a shower when one's dirty and sweaty, it feels great to be washed of 'sin', which among secular whites is 'racism', 'antisemitism', and 'homophobia'. Evangelicals are about being Born-Again, and white secularists are essentially Evanglobalists. They feel born-again, hallelujah.
Furthermore, the notion of 'white privilege' has a perversely empowering effect on whites. After all, if 'white supremacism' is built into the System, then it means whites are indeed superior in power, wealth, and everything. That means whites have two options. Be greedy and keep all the goodies for themselves OR share the bounty with the less fortunate and show off their magnanimity. So, privileged whites who buy into 'white guilt' regard themselves as the all-powerful group that is being so kind and generous than a declining racial group being bullied and intimidated into acquiescence(even though the latter may be closer to the mark).
Besides, 'wokeness' really aids and abets white privilege. How? If White Power(meaning the shared and united power of all whites) is taboo and must be stamped out, then there can only be privilege for white individuals. The notion of 'privilege' NEVER applies to all members of a group. In Old Europe, the privileged were the noblemen, not all white people. So, if white people cannot consolidate power as a group or collective, then the only option is for white individuals to seek privilege for themselves and children.
When PC speaks of 'white privilege', it's as if ALL whites share in it. But, privilege is inherently exclusive. For example, the white advantage over blacks in Old America was the result of white power. Whites were united then and identified with one another, top to bottom, east to west. Power cuts through privilege, i.e. poor whites without privilege shared in the power of whiteness. Power exists without privilege.
If power is forbidden, there is only privilege for those who seek it on their own. So, for whites who don't want the burden of uniting with all whites and leading them as a united folks(as Moses did with the Israelites), PC is just fine because it allows them to work only for their own privilege than for the power of the whole race. After all, privilege is a less daunting task than power. It would have been easier for Moses to keep his privilege in Egypt and live well than give that up to strive for the power of his people as a collective unity.

Besides, as 'born-again good whites', these white cucky-wucks are allowed to feel oh-so-righteous and holy-schmoly, and this is in more ways than one a continuation of Christian Psychology. Elevate oneself by humbling oneself. "Oh, I'm a sinner, I admit it, and I said my 'Hail Marys', and that means I'm so much better than those who haven't, let alone the benighted who aren't even of the faith." Humbly bowing before God and Jesus means your kind is holy and has the right to conquer the heathens and destroy the heretics. It's the Christian Paradox: The lower you kneel, higher you feel. Same with today's cucky-wuck worshipers of Anne Frank, Barbra Streisand, MLK, Mandela, George Floyd, and Harvey Milk. And this mentality now infects the so-called 'right' as well as the 'left'. Look, Trump has the endorsement of magical rapper Kanye!


Saturday, November 21, 2020

Elitarianism, not Egalitarianism, is behind the Current Craze for 'Equity' — Cool/Fool Complex regarding Blacks as 'Godpets' of White Afromaniacs

It's not Egalitarianism that energizes the Glob(the mob of globalism). In a way, Populism is far more egalitarian. Why? Because your average Populist is content with his or her station in life. Whether middle class, lower-middle class, or working class, he accepts life for what it is. Populists don't mind working as waitresses, factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers. They are not obsessed with being among the cream of the crop. Of course, they are not egalitarian in the communist sense as they don't want the state to dispossess rich people or herd the 'bourgeoisie' or class enemies into gulags. But they are egalitarian in outlook in that they don't believe you must be among the elites or have special privileges to have worth as a human being or an American. Populism says, whatever class you belong to, you're a Good American if you're patriotic. When it comes to being a good American, it's not about money or class. A country boy is equal to a Wall Street banker when it comes to being a Good American. HANK WILLIAMS JR- "A COUNTRY GOY CAN SURVIVE" In contrast, all those who clamor for 'equity', especially for blacks, should really be called Elite-tarians or 'Elitarians'. They are not arguing that regular black folks with 'lowly' jobs have value. Their worldview is premised on the prideful conceit that only elitist, rich, special, cool, famous/glamorous positions have value in life. It is utterly different from communism and true socialism. Communism was radical egalitarian in crediting the Worker as the backbone of society. So, if you labored in a factory, you were special. If you worked with your hands, you were noble. You actually did things and made useful stuff. Karl Marx's point was that the Workers create worth BUT the bourgeoisie take this surplus value from them. Communism was also about making the privileged folks do real work. Turn them into workers and farmers, people who create actual thing of value. 
But, that is NOT what the current 'equity' craze is about. It's not about pressuring the elites to recognize the worth of workers. It's not about persuading children of the privileged classes to forsake their conceited status and work with their hands. Rather, it's about the dream that all people, especially magical Negroes, should reach the top and have 'cool', 'creative', 'colorful', 'meaningful', 'glamorous', or 'special' jobs. Supposedly, everyone has the 'right' and 'potential' to become a rich lawyer, successful doctor, high-tech engineer, famous artist/entertainer, respected bureaucrat, wealthy entrepreneur, financial analyst, innovator, or etc. Egalitarianism, radical or populist, prizes the masses engaged in 'honest' labor. That is not what all this talk of 'equity' is about. 'Elitarianism' is the illusion that, somehow, everyone has a 'right'(and innate ability, all too often thwarted) to succeed and have a 'cool' position in life. It doesn't say, "Those without college degrees have equal value as citizens and workers" but says "everyone should go to college and be guaranteed a fabulous career." But how many 'fabulous careers' are there to go around, especially when immigrants snatch up so many of them from Americans with deep roots in the nation? 'Elitarianism' is the ludicrous but appealing dream that the pyramid could be turned upside down, i.e. most people would make it to the top with a college degree. It is a total pipe dream. 

Now, many people have enough sense not to fall for the hype. The real problem is, of course, blacks. Why? They under-perform at elite levels of most endeavors. This is why companies need stuff like 'Diversity Management' offices to hire more blacks. As not enough blacks are worthy material for brainy work, they are hired as symbols. It's like Michelle Obama held some 'diversity manager' position raking in a quarter million dollars a year. (The office disappeared with her when she took off to D.C.). Barack Obama was sold as an 'elitarian' model. You see, if you're a clean-cut black guy who goes to college and smiles at white folks, you can be successful too and become president and rake in tons of money. But how many people get to be president? How many people, even with affirmative action, get admitted to Ivy League Schools? It was a false dream to sell to blacks, most of whom remained as they are. The fact is, even if most young blacks try to follow in Obama's footsteps, they won't get very far because they aren't smart enough. Obama's no genius but smart enough. Also, even if all blacks were smart enough and applied themselves, there are only so many slots for 'cool' jobs. Even if everyone had Einstein's IQ, someone would still have to do 'lowly' labor because not everyone can work at high-end jobs, which are relatively fewer. Traditional socialism and National Socialism said everyone who works has value. Traditional socialism regarded such a person as an honest laborer, and National Socialism regarded him as part of the larger ethno-family. But such views have faded from the discourse. In the Current Year, there are the Cool People, the 'winners', and the 'losers'. Most people with regular jobs are 'losers', and only the 'winners' matter. The problem is not enough blacks are 'winners'.
Now, it's true that most people of any race or ethnic group don't reach very high. Whites and Asians are more successful than blacks(and browns), but most whites and Asians(yellows and Hindus mostly) aren't anything special. They are middle class folks, small businessmen, government workers, or working class. Some are poor. And yet, why isn't it a problem that MOST whites, yellows, and Hindus aren't all that special? Because enough of them are successful, and political psychology is generally 'identifist', or people identify with the successful among their own kind; thus, they feel psycho-empowered by the sense their own kind is well-represented among the successful. So, even if most white people aren't rich and most rich whites don't do anything for the white masses, white people as a whole still feel that their kind is generally successful because there are so many white doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and etc. Same with Asians. Most Asians aren't special, and most successful Asians do nothing to help less successful Asians. Still, most Asians feel psycho-empowered by the fact that their own kind have done well. It's like the psychology of sports. Even if you yourself don't play the game and get no financial reward(that only benefits owners, media moguls, and athletes), you feel psycho-empowered by the fact that 'your team' won. 

The problem with black political psychology is that not enough blacks make it to elite domains of science, finance, law, medicine, technology, and other prestigious fields. This leads to resentment among blacks and frustration among non-black progs & Afro-maniacs. Indeed, black failure in most elite fields is made worse by the spectacular black success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression. In a nation obsessed with celebrity and sensationalism, blacks have become demigods to many Americans whose top heroes are athletes, rappers, and big-donged studs & bouncy-bootied skanks. That is why it seems ESPECIALLY unfair and unjust that blacks don't do so well in all areas. How can such a super-cool and badass folks not be great at EVERYTHING? I mean, MLK had a boombox godlike voice, so surely, he could have been da best at everything, right? Oprah is so wise, whimsical, and wonderful, so she'd be outstanding at everything, right? Obama's so 'cool' and 'slick', he must be the greatest prez of all time, right? And with Neil deGrasse Tyson, an illusion has been created that blacks are the greatest geniuses. Black Einstein. All you need to do is give them a chance, and they be badass in everything, sheeeeeeeiiiiit. (Yeah, and every Chinese kid has a Michael Jordan in him just dying to come out.) 

Such a mindset has led to the Cool/Fool Complex among blacks and Afromaniacs. "How can a people so 'cool' be a 'fool'?" The real basis of the gripe is not about racial equality. I guarantee, if black IQ were higher and if blacks were way over-represented in elite institutions and industries, NO ONE would complain. Blacks certainly wouldn't, and Afromaniacs would believe all is well with the world: A in Cool = A in School. 
Of course, there is also the 'white guilt' thing about past discrimination, so there is historical precedent for special sympathy for blacks. (But the fact that such sympathies aren't comparable for American Indians and browns, who were also conquered and oppressed by white imperialists, suggest that Afromania is the product of idolatry for blacks success in sports, pop music, and sexual expression than historical oppression.) No one complains there are too many blacks in sports, too many blacks in pop music, or too many blacks in whatever. Too Many Blacks is never a problem. If racial equality were truly what this is all about, people should be clamoring for more Diversity in Sports as expression of national multi-color identity. But, it seems Too Many Blacks is never a problem but Too Few Blacks is.
Another problem is the Negro is like a 'godpet' among whites. Many whites see jesus in the Negro. Why? Jesus was an eloquent nobody who got killed but turned out to be the Son of God. Negroes were brought to the New World as stupid savages only good for picking cotton and saying 'Yessuh Massuh'. But, as US was founded as a profoundly idealistic and Christian nation, blacks eventually came to be seen as pitiable folks of meekness who must be emancipated from bondage. Back then, naive whites were blind to the innate savage nature of blacks because the South had been pretty successful in taming the Negro into a slave/servant. (Whites were more aware of the danger from American Indian savagery because 'Injuns' ran wild and scalped pale-face. Indians, prior to being quelled, were fearsome warriors. In contrast, blacks set foot on in the New World as slaves, and so, many whites were never fully aware of the savage nature of blacks.) Black subservience was taken as a given as it had been drummed into them by white dominance. So, there was great sympathy for Southern Negroes among the naive Northern Abolitionists. UNCLE TOM'S CABIN imagined a noble-hearted suffering and dying Negro for the sins of white folks. And this eventually led to the Civil War. 
UNCLE TOM'S CABIN laid the first foundation of the black-christ or blachrist myth. Just like Jesus died helplessly, so did Uncle Tom. But compassion and sorrow alone don't complete a myth. There had to be something extra. After all, plenty of noble-hearted souls died in history. Sainthood isn't enough to uphold a myth. What is necessary is godhood. And blacks achieved godhood with predominance in sports, pop music, and later sexuality, the stuff that Modern America is most obsessed about, and of course, sports, music, and sex are interrelated. Once blacks began to dominate all three, they weren't seen only as victims of history but victors in what matters most in the modern era that elevates celebrity to godhood. So, it turned out that Uncle Tom wasn't just some Scatman-Crothers-like-dude in THE SHINING but badass King Kong mofo who done whup the white man into white boyhood, create music that make white asses wiggle in pathetic imitation, have boombox voices that sends chills up white folks' spines, and have big dongs that turn white women to jungle fever & white boys into benchwarming dork-boys. 

That's how blacks became the godpets of whites. On the one hand, there is a long progressive history of looking upon blacks with great sympathy like one would a homeless dog or cat. Blacks are figures worthy of condescension, people to patronize with good will. They be Noble Negroes with hearts of gold, and they deserve white compassion and help after slavery and being called 'dumb lazy ni**er'. This mentality is still alive, the view of blacks as pets of whites. Blacks-as-pets must be taken care of. 'Black Lives Matter' for some white folks is akin to 'Anti-Cruelty Society'. Save the stray dogs and cats. Or something like GORILLAS IN THE MIST. Save the poor gorillas from evil humanity. Or consider SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, where a clever black guy exploits this very aspect of White 'Liberals'. But as black got oratorical power, sports supremacy, rap stardom, and dong-bun dynamism, whites have come around to looking upon blacks as some kind of a god-race. And this completes the myth of the 'blachrist'. In Christianity, Jesus, the pitiable figure of sympathy, turned out to be the mighty Son of God. In blachristianity, Uncle Tom, the pitiable figure of compassion, turned out to be Mighty Joe Young and King Kong who be hollering up a storm, beating drums, punching out white boys in the ring, and rapping about 'my ding-a-ling'. 
Where will this 'godpet' lunacy lead us? To a bad place, I imagine. It's the big myth of the Current Year, and it's just as powerful in Europe that looks upon blacks as both pitiable pets of impoverished Africa — "oh, look at all those poor blacks without enough food and clean water in the Dark Continent" — and awesome demigods of sports, rap, and sex who deserve to conquer Europe full of lame white people whose women need to be Afro-colonized and whose men deserve to be dorky cucky-wucks to blackness. 

Blacks and Jews share one thing in common. They are figures of both pity and awe. That means, no matter what Jews and blacks do, they are seen sympathetically. Thus, their power/prowess goes un-criticized, and that means whatever they do is awesome. It's like colleges hardly do anything about black athletes who rob and rape. They are sports 'heroes' after all. And the West hardly does anything about tremendous amounts of Jewish abuse of power and privilege. As Jews are objects of pity(premised on Holocaustianity), their power can only be good, and if you disagree, you are an 'anti-Semite'. And since Jewish Power goes unchecked, it grows and is regarded as awesome. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES - DR. MATTHEW RAFAEL JOHNSON (MYTH20C - EP148)

Monday, November 16, 2020

Autocracy of Nationalism is Preferable to Plutocracy of Liberalism — National Democracy is Ideal, Liberal Democracy is Doomed to Fail — Globalism Renders 'Liberal Democracies' vulnerable to Jewish-Supremacist infiltration and Foreign Penetration — Need for National-Constitution

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse than China’s by Gregory Hood

Social Credit system sucks anywhere, but it is of course worse in the US than in China. Not because it's more stringent in the US but because of its coding and character. China is ruled by a national(ist) government; therefore, the social controls are meant to boost national security and patriotism. In contrast, the US is ruled by Jewish globalist supremacists; therefore, social controls are meant to shame the white majority into cucking to Jewish Supremacist Power. Even though the Communist Party has a bloody history in China(especially under Mao), the silver lining was a political system was put into place that was entirely independent of foreign interference. For all its epic failures, the founding principles of CCP were idealism and nationalism.

Tyranny isn't good, but tyranny in service of patriotism is still better than tyranny in service of treason. As the US is ruled by Jewish globalists, it is now increasingly resorting to tyrannical social controls to make whites commit mass treason against their own race. (White elites go along with Jewish Power out of craven opportunism and/or 'spiritual' possession, the result of PC education. Not only do they expect big carrots by obeying their Jewish masters but have been conditioned from cradle to believe the greatest evil is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. Therefore, if White Guilt, White Demise, and White Nakba are necessary to defeat 'racism', so be it. Besides, what does it matter when they, as white elites, get the carrots than the sticks in the game of Defame-Whitey? For most whites, 'spiritual' possession by Jews leads to dispossession of white power, land, and wealth. Jewish Message to whites is "Whites must keep paying and paying to right whatever wrongs invoked by Jews, blacks, and their allies." White soul-debt for 'white guilt' means permanent payouts to Jews, blacks, and etc. Thus, all of the white race has been 'Germanized' as, of course, Germany must pay the Jews forever and ever and ever for what are now called 'epigenetic' reasons.)

This is why democracy devoid of nationalism is bound to fail. A national democracy, such as the one in Israel, is relatively strong and stable. In Israel, both the 'right' and 'left' are patriotic and committed to Jewish Power. Such might be called a 'fascist democracy'. Even though people have the freedom to vote, their minds are united in ethno-patriotism. The true worth of democracy is measured by how well it serves a nation and people. Democracy is supposed to serve the people than the other way around. If democracy serves to defend a nation and its people, it has worth. If it subverts a nation and people, it has failed(no matter how democratic it may be in terms of liberal principles); if Israeli democracy were to abandon its nationalist content in favor of pure liberal principles and bring about the demise of Israel as a Jewish state, it would be a failed democracy as it failed to protect a nation and people. When nation serves democracy than the other way around, the assumption is the nation must favor abstract principles over tangible realities EVEN IF they cause grave harm to the nation. (Such mindset governs mainstream conservatism of the National Review crowd. They don't care if White America is lost as long as the future is about 'muh liberty'. Never mind that a non-white majority America means goodbye to the US Constitution as most non-whites don't care for Free Speech and Gun Rights. And, how amusing that these die-hard adherents to Universal Principles are so supportive of Jewish Nationalism and even Jewish Supremacism in Israel and around the world.) Jews understand this, which is why Israel puts Jewish-Nation-hood above abstract principles of democracy. Democracy there is coded to serve and defend Israel as a Jewish State. And why are Jews chipping away at the US Constitution? Because the First Amendment allows open criticism of any power. Therefore, Jews seek to change the Constitution with 'hate speech' laws whereby they get to label and ban any speech they don't like as 'hate'. Of course, they mean to target speech critical of Jewish Supremacist Power and Israel. Jews support principles only to the extent of self-interest.

In contrast, a liberal democracy de-emphasizes and even disparages any notion of national unity based on blood-and-soil, race, ethnicity, culture, and/or history. Thus, it's primarily about the personal liberties of individuals. But individuals as dispersed members of society don't amount to much. It's like there can be no sun if particles of matter don't come together to form a mass. Liberal democracy, in weakening ethno-nationalism, makes it less likely for the ethno-majority to unite as a real force. They are too busy being individuals. Such dispersal of power without a concentrated core is easy to penetrate and manipulate. It's like an army is useless if soldiers are spread out as individuals and not working as combined force.
This is why Jews and globalists promote 'liberal democracy' all over the world. It is to deny other nations a concentrated core of mass consciousness that allows for the preservation of national sovereignty and political unity. When a nation adopts the formula of 'liberal democracy', it means the leaders no longer invoke blood-and-soil themes to inspire and unite the people. They just talk about 'muh liberty' and 'muh money'. It becomes a game of everyone for himself(or herself). Then, the globalists can easily buy off the elites who operate merely as deracinated and rootless individuals. Easier to buy off opportunistic individuals than genuine leaders of nations. And under liberal democracy, everything becomes privatized and globalized, and that means Jewish/American/global money can buy up all the media and spread Afromania, Globo-Homo, and DIOS(or diversity-is-our-strength, with 'our' being mostly Jewish).

The ideal bulwark against globalist hegemony and Jewish supremacism is a National Democracy or Fascist Democracy. The problem for many nations is it takes time for democracy to develop and come into fruition. Furthermore, if Europe provides any lesson, even nations with deep history of democracy can be taken over by Jewish Globalists, as attested by UK and France.
For many newly minted democracies, the institutions are weak, and that means lots of corruption, as in Russia of the 1990s. Under such circumstances, it is easy for Jewish supremacists and globalists to take over the system. It happened in Ukraine recently. Ukraine is now praised as a 'liberal democracy', and it has globo-homo parades(as tell-tale sign of Jewish domination). But there is no national unity, no national security. Everything is up for sale to the Jews.

In that sense, the autocratic systems in China and Russia(and Iran) are preferable. Not because they are ideal but because they serve as more effective barriers and bulwarks against the hegemonic ambitions of the Lone Superpower, the US that is under Jewish Supremacist Control that seeks to undermine every nationalism EXCEPT that of Israel.

All patriotic White Americans must wake up to the fact that a country run by plutocrats will lead to certain demise for the historical-racial majority. In the past, the US was a de facto national and racial democracy, and that meant white elites cared for the white masses; there was a concentrated core of white unity and Christian power. But as the US turned into a liberal democracy, white power became dispersed and spread out into tiny individual units. Jews pushed for this, all the while tightly concentrating their own power, influence, and authority. Concentrated power will always beat dispersed power. Why do lions feed on wildebeests? If wildebeests all united and fought as one, they could wipe out the lions. But when lions appear, wildebeests disperse and run off in multiple directions. So, a handful of lions ALWAYS kill and devour the wildebeests that number in the hundreds. No wonder then that Jewish Power has been devouring whites. Jews combine into one whereas whites disperse into many directions. Five fingers that combine into a fist will defeat a thousand fingers that function individually.
Rich Jews are concentrated into Jewish Power. Rich whites are dispersed when it comes to white power. If white oligarchs do come together, it is to serve the Jews but NEVER to do anything good for the white race.

This is why Putin and Xi are relatively good guys in the current world. Their political controls limit the power of capitalists, most of whom are soulless materialists and craven status-anxious opportunists. Capitalists remain patriotic only if the Order demands nationalism. Jewish capitalists are tribal-nationalist about Jewishness because the Jewish Community demands it. Also, as Jews control the media and elite institutions, they coded things so that it is perfectly okay, even noble, for them to be proud of Jewishness and serve Jewish interests. In contrast, the coding says that even a sentiment such as "It's Okay to be White" is totally unacceptable and worthy of investigation by the FBI.

So, all those American patriots and 'rightists' who denounce Vladimir Putin as autocrat or Xi Jinping as dictator should really re-examine their own situation. They would be better off if they had an American Putin or a White Xi. If there is no national democracy to protect your people, it's better to have a strongman or even a 'tyrant' than what goes by 'liberal democracy' that almost inevitably leads to lack of unity and then demise of race and nation.
Indeed, if Trump were a true patriot and had the power of Xi or Putin, the US would be in a much better situation. Instead, US is ruled by Jewish-globalist oligarchs who use the likes of Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos as their tools. The coding says Jews are holy for being Jewish whereas whites are unholy for being white. Thus, even the richest white person can be justified only by serving the holy, such as Jews, blacks, and homos, the three groups that have permanent membership in the Sacred Council — other groups must take turns in the council, usually on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"

This would be less of a problem if most democracies were nationally organized and ordered. But as things stand in a world of the Lone Superpower, to have a democracy means your nation/domain is more exposed to foreign interference by globalists, people like George Soros and Paul Singer. While some rich foreigners just want to do business with your nation/domain, others(especially the supremacist Jews) seek not only financial access but 'spiritual' control with stuff like globo-homo, which is meant to serve as proxy-worship-and-obedience to Jewish Power. If Russians and Chinese merely want to do business with your nation, Jewish Power wants to spread its globo-homo and Holocaustianity tentacles into your domain so as to morally and 'spiritually' manipulate you. And if your people say NO, as Russia did with Globo-Homo, Jewish Power throws fits and pulls all sorts of dirty tricks. When Jews extol 'liberal democracy', they are really telling your nation to undress and put out. Spread the legs for the Jewish Supremacist Portnoic lust and bend over to take it up the arse from globo-homo. Globalism is really the Jewish pornographics of power. Jewish Power as the pimp and goy nations as the prostitutes.

Naturally, a sound nation will push back against such foreign infiltration and meddling. It needs concentration of power in a nationalist context that may have to clamp down on certain liberties that invite infection and takeover by globalist power. It's like Soros operations are banned in some parts of the world. But then, globalist Jews denounce such a nation as 'anti-democratic'. Of course, Jewish Power never mentions that it's their infiltration and corruption of other nations' political processes that necessitates more autocratic measures. Imagine a drug pusher and a parent & child. As the pusher tries to sell drugs to the child, the parent needs to be tougher and restrict his child's freedom to do as he pleases(like indulging in drugs). But then, the pusher accuses the parent of tyrannical control over the child and calls on the child to rebel and seek 'liberation'. The pusher never mentions the fact that the parent must be tough to protect his child from none other than the pusher. If some goy nation sought to infiltrate Israel and turn Jewish kids into druggies and whores, of course, the fascist-democracy of Israel would take tough measures to stop such. But when Jews seek to corrupt other nations, they better spread their legs wide open to the Zionic thrust. Such total hypocrisy.

For a national-democracy or fascist-democracy to succeed, its core constitution must prioritize racial-cultural-territorial integrity above all else. Freedoms are fine AS LONG AS they don't violate or undermine the right of the nation to survive and maintain its integrity. Furthermore, it must severely limit foreign ownership, and its elites must be educated within the domain. If the elites are trained in places like Harvard, they are likely to be shills of the Glob. And it must emphasize themes over leaders. The problem with Italian Fascism and National Socialism was they were essentially premised on Cult of Personality and whims of the Great Leader. The danger of dictatorship. The rule must be Dictatorship of Themes, not of Personalities. This way, no matter who is in power, he must rule in accordance to the National Theme, a particular than a universal principle. The future of Russia and China will be determined by the National Themes inherent in their Constitution. Without the dictatorship of such themes, the whole system may change with new leadership.