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.

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/

Commentary on "The Allure of Protective Stupidity"(by Steve Sailer)

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-allure-of-protective-stupidity/

Not sure Stalinism offers the best understanding of what is going on.

Communism had to be simple because it was about the pride of work, dignity of labor, simple virtues of proles. Back then, the bourgeoisie had all the privilege. Workers were barely literate or semi-literate. More literate in places like Germany but still less educated than the bourgeoisie with fancy taste and refinement. In the story of the princess and the pea, the girl notices the pea because she is really of royal background. If she were a true prole, she would have been content with a hard wooden bed with a bunch of peas. Just any place to sleep.

Especially because communism came to power in backward Russia(and later even more backward China), the themes had to be simplified even further. In USSR, communism was less about the workers inheriting wealth and property from the bourgeoisie(that had been hoarding it all) than about turning peasants into proles to build a modern economy. According to classic Marxism, the contradictions within capitalism would lead to revolution. But because capitalism would have already built a modern and wealthy economy, revolution would be about taking the loot of the rich and sharing them equally among the workers. Also, the workers would have collective ownership of factories, land, and resources. And with more leisure and less work, workers could lead moderate ‘bourgeois’-like lifestyles. They would work about 4 hrs and devote other time of the day to art, culture, ideas, and etc. The bourgeoisie would lose out as a class, but bourgeois-ness would remain as lifestyle. In habit, culture, and attitude, Marx was even more bourgeois than Adolf Hitler who was half-bourgeois and half-bohemian. He didn’t so much want to destroy everything bourgeois as elevate workers to a point where they too could partake of the good stuff enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.

No such luck for Russia and later China. When the Revolution happened, the majority were still dirt-poor peasants. Because there wasn’t much wealth to take from capitalists, a whole new economy had to be built. That meant the workers had to be driven to work even harder. They had to be tough. There was no time for nonsense. It was work, work, and build, build. So, naturally, the ideology had to be simplified for the masses. Trotsky scoffed at Stalin’s ‘second-rate’ intellect. Lenin and Trotsky were hyper-intellectuals. Marxist ‘Greeks'(as Nassim Taleb might describe them). Stalin was a Marxist ‘Roman’. He was about getting things done, and the fact was communism would have to build a modern economy from ground up as there wasn’t one to take and inherit from the bourgeoisie(that was much smaller in Russia). And then, later Mao made Marxism even simpler because China was even more backward than Russia. In the Soviet Union(at least until the 60s when there were some burgeoning signs of a consumer economy), the main theme was about the basic needs of survival. It wasn’t about choosing which pastry and wine but having enough bread and water.
US was much better off than the USSR, but then, universal prosperity didn’t arrive until about after two decades after WWII. At the turn of 20th century, majority of Americans were still on the farm. Great Depression and WWII led to hardships and shortages. After WWII, 50% didn’t have indoor plumbing. So, even though there was certainly more choice than in the USSR, most people had to do with basic stuff.

But from end of WWII to the present, US and Western Europe have continued without a great depression. There were some recessions(some serious) along the way, but life got easier for more people. With everyone taking substance for granted in a world where even poor people grow fat, style took precedence. And this goes for ideology as well. When a lot of people were hungry, the ideology was about bread. And when wars destroyed so many lives of common folk, the ideology was about peace. But there’s no shortage of bread. And recent wars have killed just a fraction of lives lost in WWI and WWII. And there’s no draft. So, ideology has turned into a game of personal choice. It’s like shopping for various kinds of cheese, wine, candy, chocolate, and etc.

Oddly enough, consumerist mentality went better with leftist ideology. This seems counter-intuitive because capitalism was on the ‘right’ and socialism was on the ‘left’ during the Cold War. But if leftists are more likely to complain, nitpick, bitch, and fuss about social problems, it means their mentality is more like that of the finicky consumer with ‘customer is king’ mentality. Jews are known for haggling and negotiating things down to the last penny. Homos are known for being fussy and bitchy about everything. They are less likely to be content with any product. So, the consumer who is never content with any product and the progressive who is never content with society share the same kind of mentality. In a society where consumerism is king, leftism was bound to take on features of consumerism.
So, today’s ‘progressivism’ is different from yesterday’s when the theme was Bread for Every Man. Same bread for every man? How boring. Just like consumers want lots of choice among various breads, cookies, and pastries, the new ‘progressivism’ is like 31 flavors of Ice Cream. Even within homo ideology, there is ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bi’, ‘trans’, ‘queer’, and many more. And people can mix and match their grievance products. So, a New Muslim can intersect his identity with ‘gay’ identity, feminism(which also comes in many flavors such as slut pride, vagina mania, corporate feminism, etc), and immigrant-identity(legal, illegal, undocumented, New American, New Jews, etc). Just like there are many kinds of Comfort Food, there are now many kinds of Grievance Products.

And capitalists appreciate this PC branding. As rich folks and big corporations are always worried about being called out for being greedy and profit-obsessed, how convenient for them to market grievance-approved products… like Gillette that is against ‘sexual harassment'(all by white men) and Nike that features Kaepernick. That way, they can rake in the dough while posing as ‘caring’. And the fussy consumer mentality and griping ‘progressive’ mentality fuse into one. Some snotty consumer who wants to buy the very best is also glad to know that the product is buying is also ‘woke’. It flatters both his status and standing. In a way, corporations appreciate micro-complaining and micro-bitching. Such gives them more of a rationale to crank out new and improved products. Sometimes, the new stuff is indeed better. Other times, like so many variations of smart-phones, it’s mostly hype to rake in more bucks.

Your average conservative is more likely to be ‘socialist’ in his tastes and outlook. He is more likely to focus on basic needs and basic values. Less likely to be fussy wussy about the very best. Less likely to complain that not everything is as he wants it. But people who are content with basic bread and stuff make less demanding consumers who want more and better. Can anyone imagine John Wayne character complaining that his coffee ain’t the fancy kind? In contrast, homos are always bitching about everything, and they can be a real pain in the ass. But you have to give credit where it’s due, and so much of improvement in consumer goods was driven by people who always found faults in something. Germans were hardy but also extremely thorough, which made them obsessed about creating the ever-more-perfect machine or system. It’s no wonder they built a greater economy than Russia with all its resources. Culture of Complaint can do some good… in the right measure.

The Power of Iconography and Iconoclasm in the J-WOW or Jewish War on White

https://www.takimag.com/article/identity-stalinism/

A basic concept that explains much fashionable moral reasoning in the current year is “Who? Whom?” While promoting the collectivization of agriculture in 1929, which led to the Ukrainian Holomodor, Stalin announced:

The fact is, we live according to Lenin’s formula: Kto–Kovo? [Who-Whom?]: will we knock them, the capitalists, flat and give them (as Lenin expresses it) the final, decisive battle, or will they knock us flat?

Other principles of morality believe in objective standards of behavior, but Stalinism assumed that something was good if the good people (e.g., Stalinists) did it, but bad if the bad people (i.e., those hated by Stalinists) did the same thing.

Similarly, under today’s rules of Identity Stalinism, while the aggressor, objectively, was obviously the man banging his drum in the boy’s face, that adult was nonwhite and leftist, while the child was white and a Trump supporter. So, by the rules of Who? Whom?, the assailant had to be the victim and the victim the attacker.

Identity Stalinism or Identity Hitlerism?

Stalinism was about class war. Who/Whom was determined mainly by class(though 'class' could be defined rather flexibly). After all, peoples of all ethnic backgrounds participated in the Soviet project. Josef Stalin himself was a Georgian working with many non-Russians to rule over the Russian Empire.

On the other hand, I suppose the current PC is Stalinist in the Orwellian sense because of political fluidity amidst ideological rigidity. In some ways, Stalinism was hard-leftist and Marxist-Leninist, but in the end, whatever Stalin said was the ultimate truth(until Stalin said something else). So, Nazi Germany was enemy forever prior to 1939, friend from 30 to 41, and enemy again from 41 to 45. Such discrepancy was less problematic with fascism that favored ideological 'creativity' and pluralism, aka the Third Position. In contrast, Stalinism claimed to be the highest achievement of Marxist-Leninist ideology but so often deviated from its ideals according to Stalin's whims. And, there is something similar in the politics of the current West. For one thing, the Truth is less about a set of values or principles that the whims of Jewish Personality. So, "Nationalism good for Israel, bad for Hungary. Nukes good for Israel, bad for Iran. Cheney bad for failed war in Iraq, but Trump also bad for wanting to pull out from Middle East."
In some ways, PC is about rigidity of passion. PC folks easily get triggered by the slightest deviance, and yet, rules change so fast that even many PC folks aren't sure of the latest trends and what they're supposed to bark at and when. One difference between Stalinism and Globo-Homo is there was genuine ideological underpinning to communism whereas Globo-Homo is less about ideology than iconography. A kind of ICON Curtain has descended on the West, and that is why the image of the white kid with 'smirk'(looked more like a bemused smile to me) was so triggering. According to PC, white male, esp with MAGA hat, is the Iconic Image of Evil. And that was enough for the Iconoclasmic rage. Iconoclasm is the Rage-Orgasm of the globo-homo progs. Iconography for the good, iconoclasm for the bad. Even the use of terminology is iconocentric in current PC. Marxists spoke of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, terms emphasizing economic stations of peoples. But a term like 'white privilege' conjures White Face as evil. And a term like 'people of color' creates a mental image of people of various races and colors. And it's telling that women are now so much into vagina and even wear 'pussy hats' or clothing shaped like actual poons. Icunts. And when we think of homos, we don't really think of ideas or values. We just think of homo-as-saint characters on TV shows, 'rainbow' flags, and 'gay pride' parades. And homoshering of food is more fun than koshering. We aren't sure which foods are 'kosher' or why, but look at those 'rainbow' pack of Oreo cookies. Right, I just love to bite into food thinking of homos buggering each other or a guy having his penis cut by Frankenstein Medicine.

The problem for Jews is they don't have much iconic status. They once did as comedians in a more inhibited and cerebral age. Back then, Jews as subversive agents had lots of iconic value as agents for greater liberty. Lenny Bruce wasn't a looker but his foul talk seemed daring. But we now live in a shameless age of cultural filth, and so, no Jewish guy can score points just by being subversive or going on and on about his pud like Philip Roth or Ron Jeremy. And as our culture is anti-intellectual, Jews won't gain much ground by being like Norman Mailer -- novelist and public intellectual -- and Susan Sontag, an essayist who wrote on difficult matters, the Jewish Mind gets less respect. There was a time when the culture made a big deal of Woody Allen trying to make serious movies, the American Bergman. While the culture has grown more uninhibited in terms of sex and violence, it has grown more stunted intellectually due to power of PC and idolatry(over ideology or as the new ideology). Things got so crazy that it takes real courage for someone like Jordan Peterson to say, "Wait a minute.. that man is a man, not a woman." The culture is retarded and anti-intellectual... or it is pseudo-intellectual or schizo-intellectual. It's not sane about anything. Jewish comedians used to score points by using wit to subvert sacred cows. It was easier to do in the past when Sacred Cows were associated with Power, thus 'punching up' to Wasps and White Christians. But now, the Sacred Cows are associated with Powerlessness even though Jews, homos, and blacks have lots of power. Comedians can still beat up on whites, but at this point, it's like beating a dead horse or feeding a fed horse. Norman Mailer warned of the 'fascism of the left' as more dangerous because, traditionally, the left defined itself as the power of freedom against tyranny and repression. But when the struggle itself turns dogmatic and hardline, there is no place to go for freedom. People went to the left for freedom it couldn't find on the right, but if the left is for dogma, then freedom is dead all around. Granted, the dangers of the Left were evident from the beginning with the French Revolution. And Orwell wrote the perfect book on Stalinism or radical leftism as tyranny beyond tyranny. Still, many people in the West chose to believe the failure of Eastern Communism had less to do with ideology than Oriental Despotism of Slavicism.

Because Jews have less iconic power now, they must maintain grip-and-whip on their proxies with the more iconic or 'idolic' power. They are blacks due to sports and music. And homos for their flaming narcissism. Most POC groups have no iconic power but, as the saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Diversity has been promoted as an iconic image of New America where All the World is drinking coke and singing(or maybe 'twerking') in perfect harmony. Because Jews control finance, academia, media, deep state, courts, law firms, and most whore politicians, they have lots of tricks to control the dogs. Jews are masters, and their proxies are like dogs. But, dogs are not always easy to train. Sure, you can make them track a scent, but dogs sometimes have a mind of their own.. or they might become distracted by something other than the scent. Or, what if the dogs mistake YOU for the scent. This is problematic for Jews because the 'scent' of whiteness is sometimes detected on Jews by non-whites. "No, bad doggy, my smell is holocausty-whitey, good. Go after nazi-whitey, bad." Also, it takes some time and effort to train dogs. Some of these immigrant groups come from nations where people have been trained to dislike Jews. Now, it's a tall order for Jews to re-train Muslims and such folks to love Jews. But maybe they can be trained to bark and bite so furiously at Bad-whitey that they won't bother with Jewish-whitey. This is why yellow dogs are especially useful. Yellows come with either neutral or pro-Jewish attitudes(because they love to suck up to power), and so, Jews can train them to be like Sarah Jeong. As for folks from Latin America, Jews know they can easily make them bark at Gringo. White Latinos have this envy for Anglo-Americans, and so, Latin whites and Jewish whites make common cause to take more from northern whites. As for the browns, they feel resentment against blanco. It doesn't matter whether it's Latin whites or gringo whites. Even as they want to live under richer gringos, they are filled with inferiority complex, and Jews play on that. But Muslims and blacks are problematic dogs to train. Muslims have a very proud religion that isn't about turn-the-other-cheek. Also, POC ideology actually favors them against Jews in a way. Many folks around the world see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as WHITE Jewish colonialists vs brown oppressed. As for blacks, they are dawgs than dogs, or dogs-with-attitude. Unlike yellow dogs and brown dogs, blacks are not easy to train. They like to let the good rabbits run and chase after them. Also, as dawgs are semi-wolf-like in aggression, they get pissed if the master demands too much. Or black dawgs go too far with the aggression. When the Jewish master tells black dawgs to bark at whitey, he doesn't necessarily mean that they should run wild and burn down entire cities, messing things up for gentrification as well. But black dawgs often get out of control, as with BLM fiasco. (So, Jews have been trying to spin it as controlled by Russia.)

Jewish Power is crucial in the equation because the elites get to call the shots through control of the Megaphone and Methadone. Jews can rouse people to hatred or soothe them with happy feely stuff. Take the Women's March. Why was it shut down for being 'antisemitic' but not 'anti-Palestinian'? After all, many Jewish women in feminism support Zionism that crushes Palestinians in West Bank. Also, lots of Jewish women in media, academia, and Deep State have pushed policies that spread Wars for Israel all over Middle East and North Africa. Why didn't anyone sound the alarm about how feminism and the Women's March movement have too many Zionist and Lesbian women who's been supporting neo-imperialism, Zionist tyranny over Palestinians, and globalist wars? It's because Jews control the means of discourse, the platforms, and the money. To put on massive events, you need money and good media coverage. Jewish Power is okay with Women's March being full of Zionist women and lesbians who support the Deep State and Neo-Imperialism, BUT my oh my, something must be done about all those 'anti-Semites'.
Consider the anti-BDS laws. It is the Jews who invaded Palestine, drove out native folks and who continue to occupy West Bank. Jews also violate international norms and have 300 nukes made from stolen uranium from the US. But the US sends billions in aid to Israel, and both Political Parties suck up to Jewish Power while Palestinian-Americans and their supporters are fired and blacklisted for standing up for justice for Palestinians. Now, it'd be one thing if one could choose to support or condemn Israel OR support or condemn Palestinians. A matter of personal conscience and liberty. But in the US, one has no choice but to favor Israel over Palestinians in all the institutions and industries that count. If you're homeless, you can use free speech. But if you're a person of any consequence, you will be utterly destroyed if you support BDS.

Jewish anti-whiteness has several facets to it.

1. There is fear based on actual history. There have been times when White Christians and Neo-Pagans did hurt Jews real bad. Jews have deep historical memory and know well that history can change fast. So, there is genuine Jewish fear of White Power.

2. There is whiteness as convenient scapegoat. This is especially useful for Jews because they are the new ruling class. Generally, those on top get the most criticism and abuse from below. Jews don't mind criticism of the elites in Israel because both elites and people are Jewish. So, the criticism of elite power in Israel isn't about 'antisemitism' but abuse and corruption. But in the US, Jews fear that criticism of Jewish elites can turn into anti-Jewish animus or call out on what is essentially Jewish supremacism. Then, it's convenient for Jews to have so many people blame 'white privilege' for all the problems. Even as or especially because Jews constantly vilify Wasps, Jews need them to stick around if only as Evil Icons or Straw Men for bashing. Wasps are the useful decoy or degoy. So, in Hollywood movies, the Face of Evil is usually some Waspy type who heads a corporation or department. Or some Russian-type.

3. Another reason why Jews are so anti-white is because they are so dependent on white. Even if whites don't become anti-Jewish, Jews hate the notion of white autonomy, or whites feeling pretty good to be white. "It's Okay to be White" pissed off so many Jews. If whites feel that way, they will gain pride and confidence. They would no longer need to atone by obeying a morally superior holy group for redemption. But the fact is Jewish Power is all head and no body. For example, how could the US military serve as the arm of Zionists IF white generals and soldiers feel that the US military exists mainly to serve and defend the US, not to serve in Middle East wars for Israel? So, Jews have to inject continuous doses of 'white guilt' to make whites lose pride and confidence. A guilty people feel they must serve others for atonement, and Jewish Power naturally says 'you must serve us'.

The Diversity Stuff is really just a ruse. If most Jews are really into Equal Justice for All Peoples, why do they insist the US support Israel against Palestinians, Syria, and Iran? The problem for Jews is that they are essentially pushing a tribal agenda spun as universal agenda. To fool us, Jews use terminology like 'diversity' and 'inclusion' AND iconography of People of Color, but when we look at the nitty-gritty details of globalism, it's always JEWS FIRST and ISRAEL FIRST. Look at US vs Russia, US vs Iran, US vs Palestinians, US vs Syria, US vs Libya, and etc, and the Surest Common Denominator is they are all designed to serve Jewish interests. I mean, what do Mexican-Americans care about Syria? What do black-Americans care about Iran? What do hillbillies in W. Virginia care about expanding NATO to Ukraine? What do Filipino-Americans care about Libya? What do Italian-Americans care about BDS? It's all about Jews, but Jews know they can't sell it as such... so we are told that a nuclear-armed Iran is going to blow up the US, Russia is out to grab the world, China is planning to take over everything, and other such nonsense. Now, I'm thinking that many POC at elite levels know that Jews are full of it, but they go along with the charade because it's their only ticket into the corridors of power and privilege. And this is why Jews love to parade around Obama. He's been a good boy who did the bidding of Jews and their homo allies. He was made president and was showered with millions and millions of money and glorious media coverage. Uncle Charm.
That said, there is something to admire about Jews. Just consider. Look at all those Muslims in the US military who take orders from the Zionist-controlled government to go destroy Muslim nations. If Muslim-Americans are ordered to drop bombs to kill Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, they will do so. But imagine if Muslim-Americans have an average IQ of 130, take over much of media and elite institutions. Suppose they use their media and money power to vilify Israel as the greatest abuser of human rights, a 'New Nazi Nation'. Suppose the Muslim-American elites steer the US to use sanctions to kill 100,000s of Jewish kids and to employ shock-and-awe tactics to blow Israel to smithereens. How many Jewish-Americans would join in this massacre? Probably none. On that score, Jews are better than white cucks and Muslim morons.

4. Another reason why Jews and POC are so anti-white is they are addicted to whiteness. Despite all the anti-white iconoclasm, the fact is whiteness still has tremendous iconic value. Black athletes want blonde white women. Look at Tiger Woods. He was celebrated for his mixed-race-ness but he never went for mixed-race women but for Aryan-looking women. Look at silly Asians with their hair-dyeing and plastic surgery, or their videogames with white-looking characters. Hayao Miyazaki's movies were all set in some white fantasy lands before TORORO, and even there, Asian characters are drawn with features that look more Caucasian. And in Latin America, brown folks are addicted to Soap Opera with mostly white characters. And men in Turkey and Middle East got the Natasha Syndrome.

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/17/world/istanbul-journal-natasha-syndrome-brings-on-a-fever-in-turkey.html

https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/24/russia-bond-girls-oped-cx_mk_1125kaylan.html#2515ef1b61aa

Because all the world wants whiteness -- good governance, personable-ness, ability & competence, sexual attraction, balance of reason and emotion, etc -- , they hate the idea of whites owning whiteness. If whites own whiteness, then whites would get to decide what to do with their lands, passion, abilities, sex appeal, legacy, and etc. What's the difference between a woman of dignity and a whore? Woman of dignity has control over her body and decides who can be with her. In contrast, a whore is open to anyone with a few bucks. (Odd thing about Abortion Rights is it's sold as women's control over her own body but actually promotes behavior where she has less self-control because she can always negate the unwanted pregnancy with sucking out the fetus. She can act like a whore without suffering the consequence.) A woman of dignity owns herself and her own body. She gets to determine who can be with her. A whore, on the other hand, has to do what the pimp tells her to. Her body must put out to all comers willing to pay.
Similarly, white dignity and autonomy would mean that whiteness has value in and of itself. It has meaning as heredity, legacy, heritage, and history. If whites are unique and have dignity, they can decide their own destiny and say NO to non-whites who want to partake of whiteness.
Then, the ONLY way to make whiteness accessible to all the world is to commoditize it into a product, and the end-logic of this is the pornification of whiteness as meat. And it won't be long before globo-homo forces will call for legalization of prostitution.
In a way, what was done to Slavic women in Israeli and Arab brothels was hardly different from what is being done to whiteness as a whole all around the world. Whites are being told that they don't own their whiteness. White lands are not white. White history is not white. Ancient Greece was not white. Medieval Europe was not white. White heroes are not white. (Let's cast blacks as Achilles, Julius Caesar, Lancelot, and Hamilton.) White bodies are not white and put out to other races as servings and offerings. So, if 100 million black African men move to Europe, each is deserving of a white womb to produce black babies. And the US as white-envisioned and white-made nation? No way, that's 'racist'. Just let tons of browns from south of the border barge in and grab SWPM or Stuff White People Made. Even though the psycho who killed the plastic surgeon for passing 'white features' to Asians was a nutter, he had a point. Another race was appropriating specific features of whiteness for itself. He was accused of 'white supremacism', but aren't Asians the Real White Supremacists by undergoing surgery to replace 'ugly' Asian features with 'beautiful' white ones? And all these immigration patterns have one thing in common: We want to be with white than with our own kind. Jewish immigration always preferred whiteness.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-11/news/mn-22701_1_white-supremacist

So, this aspect of anti-whiteness is really a paradox. Jews and non-whites beat up on whitey to destroy the notion that proud whites own whiteness. That way, ashamed whites will market whiteness as just a commodity for all of humanity to buy or partake of.