Why did Capitalism go 'Woke'? — Idolatry, so intrinsic to Capitalism, led it toward the promotion of Jewish Supremacism, Negromania, and Globo-Homo — Political Correct Capitalism as the Neo-Catholicization of the New World Order

During the Cold War, there was the sense that the West was about freedom, about having a good time and being 'cool'. Not everything had to be politicized. In contrast, the communist world was seen as overly political, with ideology shaping and coloring just about everything. This was especially true of Stalinist USSR and China of the Cultural Revolution. So, while everything had to be Marxist-Leninist in the communist world, one could be just cool and happily apolitical in the West. You could have fun and be left alone by the state, commissars, or activists. It's like that movie NINOTCHKA. Garbo as Soviet commissar is staunchly ideological, so hardline. She is humorless and stern. But when she begins to laugh, she begins her transition to capitalism and freedom. She learns one doesn't have to be uptight and upright all the time with radical commitment. One could take it easy and enjoy life. And unlike communist propaganda devised to shape one's politics and worldview, capitalist advertising had only one thing in mind: To sell stuff. It was about profits for the company and fun/convenience for the consumer(as king or queen). The appeal of capitalism was its apolitical character. It was about products and services. It was about money for the company and happiness for the consumer.

So, even though the West was plenty political and ideological during the Cold War with its own propaganda and messaging, one could nevertheless ignore all the humorless and heavy-handed stuff in the world of capitalism, consumerism, and entertainment. For sure, Americans weren't dragged to ideological sessions. One's involvement in politics was voluntary, not mandatory. One didn't drink Coca-Cola to be political. One didn't watch a Disney movie for ideology. One didn't watch a 007 movie for propaganda. Even when James Bond took on the Russkies, it was more about fantasy and romance than politics. One didn't read Archie comics for 'moral' instructions or guidance. Indeed, the West often portrayed itself as apolitical compared to the Communist East. The dreary notion was that people behind the Iron Curtain, from cradle to grave, were molded into 'good communists' and everything was politicized. If you were politically suspect or heretical, you could be hounded, persecuted, or even executed. But in the West, the capitalists didn't care about your ideology. They just sold you stuff and services. And when you took part in capitalism, it was to buy something of convenience or pleasure. You didn't purchase it for meaning or commitment. When Richard Nixon met Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, the message was that Americans were consumers with freedom and money to buy what they wanted without meddling of the state. And when China opened up in the late 70s, one of the famous images was of Chinese youths wearing sunglasses and drinking Coke. The appeal of sunglasses and Coca-Cola wasn't ideological. They were consumer products. At most, they had 'idolic' value. Cola meant easy pleasure, cold drink on a hot day. Sunglasses meant looking 'cool' and stylish.
During the Cultural Revolution, sunglasses had been banned as a product of 'Western Decadence'. And in the Soviet Union, body building was frowned upon(if not illegalized) as a form of vanity and narcissism. And indeed, one of the Western attractions for people in the communist world was the sense of apolitical freedom, especially in America. In the movie MOSCOW ON THE HUDSON(by Paul Mazursky), the Russian exile(played by Robin Williams) encounters many problems in the US, but he still chooses to remain because he's left alone and free to do his own thing. There isn't a commissar breathing down his neck 24/7. He could say to the Power, "It's none of your business", something disallowed in a communist system. You don't lose your job over politics(unless it's truly grievous).

So, the idea was that capitalism is fun, cool, easy-going, tolerant, individualist, and apolitical whereas communism is radical, fanatical, censorious, repressive, dogmatic, and conformist. This contrast is illustrated in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING where pro-Western Czechs act in libertine fashion whereas the Communist Order is presented as rigid and heavy.

So, what happened? Why did capitalism in the West turn 'radical' in the current 'woke' form? Why is it so incessantly activist and pushy with its constant messaging and propagandizing? Why are people being fired or demoted or censured over some tweet years ago? Why are they being denied products and services over matters of personal creed, politics, and values? Why do capitalists fund, propagate, and lend support to views that smack of 'radical' nuttery? When Coca-Cola made inroads into China in the 1980s, it was the apolitical drink of the world. The idea was its dominance owed to quality and service, not to any idea or message. But now, Coca-Cola is the promoter of the cult of White Fragility. Burger King constantly reminds us of the sanctity of homos, as if it wants to rebrand itself as Bugger King. What does sodomy have to do with burgers? But then, why did Homosher take off as the new kosher? Why are Oreo Cookies packaged in homo colors? What do cookies have to do with guys sucking each other's pud? Why are capitalists pushing BLM the big lie when surely anyone with a sense of reality knows that blacks mostly kill one another(when not attacking non-blacks) and that the number of innocent blacks killed by cops is negligible, if existent at all? It's bad enough that capitalists are taking part in politics(when they are all about products and profits). What's worse is they willfully take the ideological or idolatrous line than have any real concern for the truth. They go with what is politically advertised than what is true in the real world. It used to be capitalism was like the Beach Boys(fun, fun, fun), whereas communists were like the Red Guards. Now, capitalism funds and supports 'woke' mobs and pushes 'radical' dogma through their public announcements and advertising. Also, they fire and intimidate their own work force on the basis of ideological correctness and idolatrous sanctity. How did things become this way? It's almost as if capitalism has taken on the attitude of Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1920s. 'Wokery' is doing to business what Neocons did with American Conservatism. It's in selective purge mode, condemning whiteness while enabling Jewish Power to grow ever bigger.

1. Surely, the ascendancy of Jewish Power is a major factor in this as Jews are the top capitalists and have an obsessively supremacist mentality. Jews love money, but their top priority is tribal supremacism. Having abandoned socialism, Jews are now totally capitalist and determined to use their monopoly power to shape the narrative and direct the course of history to secure their supremacist position. Mass media are part of Jewish capitalist enterprise, and Jews use their near-monopoly lock on news and information for tribal supremacist's sake. So, for Jews, capitalism isn't just a cash cow but a political weapon of mind-control. Jews especially feel vulnerable despite their vast riches because they are only 2% of the population. For Jews, capitalism is useful as both a political and apolitical tool. As an apolitical instrument of hedonism, leisure, fun, and entertainment, capitalism turns the masses into complacent and infantilized bunch of mindless consumers. Better to have goyim obsess about sports, video games, movies, and gambling than gain independent political consciousness that might realize that Jews control just about everything.
But an apolitical order never stays that way. In a vacuum of political meaning, some force enters the scene to offer meaning, direction, and sense of purpose. Man doesn't live on bread alone, not even on bread-and-circus alone. In the past, Jews used capitalism for profit-making and used socialism & radical politics for meaning. Jewish capitalists made the profits, and Jewish leftists served as the prophets. But genuine Jewish leftist have all vanished. Most Jews are capitalist and pro-rich. They are for more money and more privilege for the Tribe and have lost interest in Humanity. Thus, Jews have bundled profit and prophet into one package. For example, in the past Jews made some movies and TV shows for fun and nothing but fun. They hardly had any politics and were made to be as uncontroversial as possible to make the audience complacent and happy. But Jews also made other kinds of movies, usually scripted by leftists, radicals, and subversives, that were meant to push a message. These movies generally made less money and even lost money. Still, they had political and propagandistic value.
Today in contrast, even mindless entertainment is likely to be loaded with politics. Advertising is often heavily politicized or in service of ideology or idolatry of certain groups, especially Negroes and Homos, the holy icons of commercialism. The way things are going, even slot-machines of the future might be politicized with ideological symbols. Jews control advertising, entertainment, and news media, all of which are capitalist enterprises. And as the #1 priority of Jews is Jewish Supremacism, they are hellbent on using whatever means, even consumer-capitalism, as a tool of power. As Jewish Power relies most essentially on the cuckery of white goyim, Jews use capitalism to spread images, ideas, and narratives that gaslight, shame, or paralyze white identity and interests.

2. The corruption of Gramsci-ism. When Antonio Gramsci spoke of Cultural Hegemony, he hardly had stuff like 'gay' Oreo Cookies or BLM-narcissistic fests in mind. His idea wasn't to take over capitalism to spread idolatry in favor of certain groups. Rather, the idea was for leftists and socialists to gain cultural influence to win over hearts & minds. His idea of Good Culture would have been something like BICYCLE THIEVES or the films of Roberto Rossellini. For him, Marxist cultural hegemony was to destroy capitalism, not to take over capitalism and indulge in narcissistic hedonism as proper platform for good ideas and values. If socialism must have dignity, it must be conveyed through serious and noble manner. In contrast, today's neo-hegemonists indulge in the culture of excess and use such means to convey supposedly important messages. It's like radicalism expressed through a strip-tease.

If Gramsci looked forward to winning hearts and minds with a new cultural paradigm, the neo-hegemonists are perfectly fine with capitalist excess, self-indulgence, narcissism, vanity, and infantilism... as long as those are loaded with the favored idolatry, mainly of Jews, homos, and blacks. So, it's great to 'twerk' as long as it's for BLM or Globo-Homo. It's okay to indulge yourself with wild-partying and girls-gone-wild and wanton hedonism AS LONG AS you remember to pay tribute to Jews, blacks, and homos.

This has obvious appeal to Neo-Hegemonists who are more Cultural Marx Brothers than Cultural Marxists. There is precious little that is Marxist or even mildly socialist about them. They are total capitalists even if they make some obligatory noises about the dangers of 'greed' and the 1%. Indeed, the neo-aristocratic globalists fixed it so that leftism would be changed from a movement of laboring masses and lesser-haves to a movement centered on vanity, celebrity, narcissism, freakdom, and mental illness(as the new normal). Leftism went from the voice of the majority to that of favored minorities, Jews-blacks-homos. This bogus 'leftism' is not about basic justice or equality but the look-at-me obsessions of those infected with 'celebrititis'. It's not about homos asking for tolerance but demanding they be celebrated by the entire world, even in places of worship. It's not about blacks struggling for justice but howling to be the center of attention and affection REGARDLESS of how they act. It's not about blacks condemning white bigotry and violence against blacks but about them bitching and yapping about how it's unjust for blacks to be brought to justice for bad deeds and criminality. The Civil Rights Movement ran on, "Don't hurt us", but today, it's more about "Shut up when we hurt us." And of course, this is partly due to the fish rotting from the head. Jews are the ruling elites of the West, and they rigged things so that they have license to kill, steal, and feel(the shikses). With Jews having such power and privilege, why wouldn't blacks and homos, two especially self-centered groups, demand similar affection, deference, and privilege? The new 'leftism' is about the nihilism of Jews, blacks, and homos intoxicated with idolatrous megalomania.

Jewish supremacists and globalist elites studied history. They know why the French King lost his head and why the Russian Tsar was mowed down. Them fellers were at least honest in their relation to the masses. They ruled over their subjects. The neo-aristos of Jews and globalists also rule over us, and in more ways than one, they are even more powerful and privileged than the kings and emperors of old. And they know the people may rise against them IF they are seen as the over-privileged ruling elites. And so, they decided to appropriate, indeed confiscate, the cult of leftism for their own uses. This way, they can have the power of ultra-kings and uber-emperors BUT be shielded by their professed 'leftism'. In actuality, they work against the people, but their mantle of 'leftism' creates the impression that they are for 'progress' and 'justice'.
This is why today's capitalists and globalists love it when idiot conzos call them 'communists' and 'leftists'. Imagine that, conzo losers with little or nothing calling super-duper capitalists and their well-funded flunkies a bunch of 'communists'. The right would do much better to adopt socialism, and why not? Nationalism is intrinsically socialist in this sense. It says, regardless of private property, a nation belongs equally to all its people. It doesn't matter how rich or poor someone is. The nation belongs equally to the rich and the poor. Therefore, the rich national must make common cause with the poor national, at least as fellow patriots. He may be rich while the other is poor, but they are fellow nationals, and as such, there is a bond and obligation that goes beyond dollars and cents. But globalist capitalism tells people that the Nation is an outdated and archaic idea. The only thing that matters is a system of global networks whereby the elites of the world all collude with another. The rich national has no obligation to fellow nationals. Of course, this doesn't apply to Jews. While Jews push ultra-individualist libertarian deracination for white goyim, they themselves have a sense of Jewish brotherhood and sisterhood. Even as they pressure whites to give up every last vestige of white identity and interest, they press upon whites to support Jewish identity and interests. Jews even got Jonathan Pollard sprung from prison, and the freed Jew is now in Israel urging fellow Jews all over the world to betray goy nations for Jews Uber Alles. No wonder Jews grow stronger as a group while whites are dividing into successful white individuals and unsuccessful white individuals(who are derided by successful whites as 'losers'). Rich Jews look out for lesser Jews, but rich whites sneer at have-less whites as 'losers' who should use opiates and die. If rich whites care for anything other than themselves, it is in accordance with the gods controlled by Jews. So, white goy elites sing paeans to Jews, homos, blacks, and even illegal immigrants while spewing venom at the 'deplorables'.

3. Another factor is the catholicization or 'christmasization' of capitalism. Look back into Christian History. Christianity was not a happy creed. It was about self-denial, sacrifice, poverty-as-virtue, turn-the-other-cheek, and other righteous deeds & values. In contrast, paganism was a lot more fun and colorful. Paganism indulged in pleasure, appreciated beauty, celebrated life as a circus, and had space for vanity, narcissism, and egotism. The Greeks and especially the Romans knew how to have a good time. Christianity looked upon much of paganism as sinful, wicked, demonic, satanic, and degrading. Christianity was severe and spartan in its mode of life and expression. It was deeply ideological. And yet, the Catholic Church didn't want pure Christianism. It was too gloomy, depressing, and judgmental. And so, the Church found ways to fuse the spiritual righteousness of Christianity with the colorfulness of paganism. This way, the Catholics could have the cake and eat it too. Practice Christianity but in a colorful pagan way. Make the faith more festive and cheerful. Of course, the Church was careful to reject the more licentious aspects of paganism and shape paganesque expressions into something holier and sanctimonious. Still, Christianity in its spiritual purity was too stark and depressing for the Catholics who found a way to fuse Christian ideology with pagan idolatry. If pagans, lacking deep spiritual grounding, were drawn to Christianity's profound faith, it was the case that Christians, lacking color and cheers, were drawn to the excitement offered by paganism. While some pagans rejected Christianity to the end while some Christians denounced all vestiges of paganism, the Catholic Church arrived at a synthesis of faith and festival. And this has been especially true of Christmas. Ostensibly a somber observance of the birth of Christ, it has turned into a kind of pagan bacchanalia of materialism, partying, and hijinks. Jesus and Santa.

In our post-Christian age, people of the West have been clamoring for new 'spiritual' meanings, and of course the Jews, as controllers of media, academia, and entertainment, get to choose the new gods. And the new gods are the globo-trinity of Jew Worship, Negro Reverence, and Homo Devotion. This new trinity constitutes the new faith. But just lamenting the Shoah, crying about Slavery, and recalling how homos used to be called 'fags' wouldn't be much fun. They need color and excitement, sass and zing.
This is where the symbiotic partnership with 'pagan' capitalism comes in. Capitalism, often characterized as crass and trashy, is redeemed by its association with Sacred Jews, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. And in turn, the Jewish cause, black cause, and homo cause are made cool and fashionable by capitalist color. Consider the marketing that goes into AIPAC conferences. It's like the freaking Emmy Awards night. Jews hire publicity firms to put on a big show with fanfare and razzle-dazzle. Indeed, what is the Academy Awards ceremony all about? Hollywood is mostly about marketing crass entertainment, but once a year to burnish its image Hollywood puts on a big show about how it cares about art, quality, meaning, and values.
Even though the moralists and activists may resent the power of money, they are also dependent on and grateful for the money that comes their way. So, if Marxists sought to totally do away with capitalism, the neo-catholicist 'left' is happy to form a symbiotic relationship with Big Money. The Golden Calf is also the golden goose for the activist community. Same goes for the so-called Green Energy movement. It's really bait-and-switch. It's about Jews invoking environmental concerns to replace goy-owned fossil-fuel industry with Jewish-owned fossil-fuel industry, except that the latter has been packaged with 'green energy' credentials when, in fact, most of the Jewish-backed industries are overwhelmingly run on fossil-fuel. (As for nuclear energy, Jews oppose its proliferation because other nations might, like Iran, have the potential to develop nukes. Whatever is good for Israel.) So, the Jewish oligarchs of 'green energy' aim to take over entire sectors of the energy industry, and the 'green' activist community is flush with donations. Even though the latter are mere tools, they like being in the limelight in their roles as the saviors of the planet. But then, the clergy played much the same function in European history. They mostly served the ruling elites but got housed in nice big churches and hogged roles as spiritual-moral voice of the community.

4. In a way, the fanfare around LGBTQ and BLM makes sense in accordance to the logic of capitalism. The favoritism for homos and blacks owes more to capitalist logic than socialist/Marxist logic. After all, capitalism is far more idolatrous than communism is. Granted, there were massive Stalin and Mao cults in Soviet Union and China. But the monopolization of iconography by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other top leaders meant that everyone else had to remain on the human level. In Cuba, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were like gods but everyone else was merely human, equal to others. And when Soviet Union did away with the cult of personality after Stalin's death, it was mostly humanist. It was a repressive and restrictive form of humanism but humanism just the same. Humans had value as humans, neighbors, comrades, fellow citizens, and etc. Not as idols, icons, stars, and divas.

And in a way, the West was wrong to assume that the communist world was about nonstop propaganda. While propaganda could be overbearing and shrill at times, most of the arts, culture, and entertainment in the communist world was humanist than ideological. They were about people faced with daily problems, something anyone in any part of the world would recognize. So, on one level, communism vs capitalism wasn't entirely about radical propaganda vs apolitical pleasure.
It was also a matter of humanism vs stardom-ism. When youths in communist nations hankered for blue jeans, rock n roll records, and Western fads, they weren't merely seeking escapism from ideology and dogma. They were bored with humdrum humanism and were besotted with the narcissism and celebrity-cult of the West. While some resisted communist ideology in favor of Western freedom, others rejected social humanism in favor of capitalist idolatry, i.e. they weren't so much striving to be free as to fall under the spell of Western excess of vanity and diva-cults.

Apart from elevating Marx, Lenin, and some local ruler to high heaven, communism offered humanism as the proper mode for most people. Accept and appreciate people as people, as fellow workers, patriots, and comrades. Don't put on airs like you're something special. Don't be aloof and 'cool' like you're above the fray. In contrast, especially with the rise of youth culture around Elvis Presley, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and the Beatles, capitalism turned into a mass idolization of celebrities, stars, and divas. Nihilo-Narcissism pushed humanism aside in the West. The French New Wave got started with the humanist 400 BLOWS by Francois Truffaut. But on the eve of May 68 disaster, Jean-Luc Godard was already pondering the emergence of youth centered on 'Marx and Coca-Cola'.

But over time, people forgot about Marx altogether, and if there are young Marxists today, they got it from The Clash or Rage Against the Machine, except the Machine could easily appropriate the 'rage' that was never anything more than moral narcissism to parade onstage by shallow divas.

If the current order was truly about 'cultural marxism', then it would certainly not favor homos who are natural materialists, narcissists, egotists, and aristos. Homos have always been deferential to the rich, privileged, and/or famous. No wonder the US deep state is teeming with homos who work for NSA and CIA to smash other nations. And globo-homo agenda isn't about tolerance for homos(a good thing) but compulsory celebration and deification of homos and trannies as new angels, even new messiahs.
As for the Negro agenda, one could argue it is more in line with 'cultural marxism'. Negroes, after all, have roots in slavery, and many of them toiled in low-end jobs on farms and factories. But is that the reason why Negroes get so much attention? No, if that were so, how come browns don't get much attention? Browns were conquered by whites and mostly toiled as peons and servants in South and North Americas. Even when white libby-dibs feigned outrage over Trump's "kids in cages", it was less about the illegals than about JEWS, i.e. border security reminded all these libby-dibs of Jewish Refugees during the Holocaust, LOL. (And now that Biden's administration is putting the kids in 'cages', they aren't cages anymore according to the Jewish-run media.) And if 'cultural marxism' is about the oppressed, there is precious little discussion of the American Indians, the most tragic people in the world who permanently lost their homeland to foreign invaders. And there's hardly any talk of Palestinians and Arabs destroyed by Wars for Israel cooked up by Zionists.

So much for 'cultural marxism'. So, the reason why blacks get special love is due to 'cultural capitalism', not 'cultural marxism'. It owes less to the history of slavery or Jim Crow than black success in the idolatrous fields of capitalism, mainly in sports and pop music. It also helps that Jews own the media and much of sports industry and have much to profit from black ability and talent. And of course, Jews associate 'white guilt' with blackness because blackness is most potent in paralyzing white agency and unity. After all, people feel more guilty about having done wrong to the superior than to the inferior. It's like there's more outcry over someone killing a grand elephant than a lowly warthog. As whites idolize Negroes as rappers, athletes, and super-studs in the capitalist-hedonist order, it was only natural that so-called 'woke' capitalism would come to favor blacks and BLM mainly due to the higher idolatrous value of the Negroes.
So, in a way, capitalism's promotion of globo-homo and BLM isn't so much a fusion of 'right-wing capitalism' with 'leftwing ideology' but the logical outcome of capitalism's obsession with vanity and idolatry, finally leading to the moneyed apotheosis of whatever has the most 'idolic' value. It's hard to think of two groups more narcissistic and exhibitionist than blacks and homos, and not surprisingly, under Jewish media orchestration, BLM and LGBTQ symbols are often displayed side by side. This is 'cultural capitalism'.

“THE LIE OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT” MIKE PEINOVICH, APRIL 10, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"government tyranny degrades individuals"

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

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

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

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

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

Aftermath of the Khmer Rouge madness

Ceausescu and Kim Il-Sung

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

'Communists' and 'Fascists' as the Tools of Capitalists — Why Jewish Capitalists in Israel are allied with 'Fascists' while Jewish Capitalists in the West are allied with 'Communists'

The thing about capitalists is it's difficult to find people to fight for you. After all, capitalism is about rule by rich oligarchs. While people will fight and use violence to protect their own property, most people won't go out on a limb to defend the privilege and wealth of oligarchs and uber-bourgeoisie. You buy guns to protect your own home and family, not to defend Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

Now, what will people fight for other than for their own family and property? People, especially those with rightist inclinations, will fight for blood & soil, nationalism, and tribalism. People, especially those of leftist inclinations, will fight for the cult of justice or messianic ideology. Rightists prefer the sacred, leftists prefer the sanctimonious. Rightists will fight for their hole in the ground, leftist will fight for holier-than-thou. Neither rightists nor leftists want to fight, kill, and die for the sake of rich people.
And this is why capitalists need 'fascists' or 'communists' as shock troops. It's like the rich oligarchs and Jewish globalists needed 'Neo-Nazis' in Ukraine to pull off the Maidan coup. This is why the oligarchy and deep state in the US recruit Jihadis and ISIS to fight in Syria. Not because the oligarchs and religious nuts believe in the same thing but because the oligarchs know that only Jihadis have the balls/nuttery to fight to the death.

So, there has been the history of fascism and communism but also the history of 'fascism' and 'communism' as the tools of capitalists, i.e. capitalists used those ideologies/movements as tools and weapons than as desired objectives or goals. Generally speaking, the goy conservative capitalists supported 'fascists' to fight radical revolution and Jewish Power to keep their privilege and maintain order. Though there were Jewish oligarchs who also supported the 'fascists', especially in Italy, many more Jewish capitalist oligarchs funded the 'communists'. Not because they wanted the communists to really win and take over but to serve as shock troops against the 'fascists' and 'anti-Semites' supported by the goy conservative oligarchs.
Now, given that fascism is far more tolerant of capitalism than communism is, one might think most Jewish capitalist oligarchs would have supported the 'fascists'. After all, Italian Fascism and National Socialism made peace with capitalists whereas the communists who gained total power wiped them out. But Jewish oligarchs were loathe to support the 'fascists', especially in Germany, because fascist elements were so anti-Jewish whereas the communists, though anti-capitalist, were opposed to 'antisemitism' and had a large Jewish contingent. Jewish oligarchs thought, "The communists may take away our property but they won't kill us." Of course, they hoped that the 'communists' would never really take power. They figured the 'communists' would be too busy combating 'fascists' to ever get around to toppling capitalism.

But in Israel, the Jewish oligarchs have united with the 'fascists' because 'fascists' there are Jewish. The alliance of Jewish fascists and Jewish capitalists in Israel is akin to the alliance of German fascists and German capitalists under National Socialism. The fascist-capitalist alliance is more natural/organic than the communist-capitalist one for obvious reasons as fascists seek to control capitalism whereas communism seek to eradicate it. The main reason why many Jewish capitalists supported communists(as the lesser of the two evils) against the fascists is because most fascist movements in Europe(and its crypto-types in the US) happened to be anti-Jewish. But in the case of Israel, we see a very natural alliance of Jewish capitalists and Jewish fascists.

In the US, the most visible 'fascist' elements are anti-Jewish. They are opposed to capitalism to the extent that the current incarnation is 'woke', but they are not anti-capitalism per se. If capitalism were pro-fascist, most fascists would be okay with it. In contrast, communism is intrinsically opposed to capitalism for what it is. So, we'd expect capitalists to prefer fascists over communism.
In a similar vein, communists in the US should be more anti-capitalist than anti-fascist. After all, communism emerged BEFORE fascism as a war against capitalism. Classic Communism even argued that fascism is just a tool of capitalism. In other words, capitalism is the ROOT of fascism: the hammer used by capitalists to beat down workers and prevent communist revolution: No capitalism, no fascism. Then, the communists should be mainly attacking the capitalists as the very source of fascism, a mere manifestation of capitalism. But Antifa and other supposedly radical leftist elements have been mostly serving the all-powerful capitalists in their hunt for mostly imaginary 'nazis' and KKK. If Antifa and such types are communist or radical leftist, why do they overlook the real and growing power of their core ideological enemy, the capitalists, while chasing after Nazi or KKK unicorns? And if Antifa and communists are the main ideological enemies of capitalism, why is US capitalism either supportive or at least tolerant of them against the 'fascists' who would welcome an alliance with capitalists as long as they aren't 'woke' or anti-white?

It's because identity trumps ideology. Just like Hollywood capitalist Jews protected and used Hollywood Jewish communists, Jewish capitalists and Jewish handlers of Antifa see eye to eye on the main threat to Jewish Power: White Liberation and White Agency. In Israel, Jews have no need for Antifa and the like. Over the years, the Jewish Left has been losing ground in Israel because Jews there face no threat from the Goy Right. Thus, Jewish capitalists are better off promoting Jewish fascists. But 'fascism' in the West is dominated by goyim who tend to have hostile views toward Jews. So, Jewish capitalists must clamp down on 'fascism' in the West by supporting the 'communists'. (But Jews will then support 'fascists' in Ukraine against Russian interests. Jewish power does indeed play it by ear.) And as Antifa has been infiltrated and guided by Jewish agents, its main agenda is always to batter down any vestige of white identity or white liberation in the name of fighting 'nazism' and KKK when, in fact, it's to keep whites cucked and servile to Jewish Power.

Via ADL as intermediary, the US police force has been trained by Israeli agents who've mastered the science of crowd control.

Now, one may ask why goy capitalists in the US, even conservative ones, are tolerant of Antifa and the 'radical left' while always virtue-signaling against any sign of white identity or interests as 'Nazi', 'KKK', or 'white supremacist'? Why aren't they like the German Conservative Oligarchs who supported the National Socialists? It's because, since the end of WWII, Jews-Blacks-Homos have become the holy trinity of the West. Shoah-MLK-GloboHomo are so revered in the West that even goy rich go along, sincerely or cynically. Just like there was a time when one had to be Christian to gain prominent positions in European society — the main reason why certain Jews converted to Christianity — , anyone who wants to be someone in the neo-'spiritual' order must profess fidelity to the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Also, as whiteness is the New Devil of the West, even goy conservative capitalists dare not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Communism's Appeal to the Third World & Russia prior to post-WWII New Capitalism that Allowed Greater Participation of the Non-West

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/plastic-recycling-and-jousting-jews/

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:

Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.

In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.

So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.

Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.

I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.

And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.

The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.

The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.

Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.