Unlike Classic Marxism, the Current 'Socialism' is NOT about Class Conflict but about the Special Primacy of Jews, Blacks, and Homos — Current 'Socialism' is more about Resentment of the Educated Class than Needs of the Workers of the World

Political Correctness and 'wokeness' have been associated with socialism-communism, but they are now more like Judeo-Nazism with Maoist hysterics about the supremacy of blacks and sanctity of homos. Under communism, the worst possible label was 'bourgeois', and so, anything deemed bad, heretical, or false was deemed 'bourgeois' even if it had nothing to do with the actual historical bourgeoisie. When communists attacked other communists, they accused the other being 'bourgeois'. During the Sino-Soviet Rift, the Soviets belittled Maoism as a 'petite-bourgeois' theory, and the Chinese predictably denounced Soviet Union as 'bourgeois revisionist'. (Marxists also dismissed the Iranian Revolution as 'bourgeois'.) So, 'bourgeois' became an all-encompassing term of excoriation against anything deemed undesirable or threatening to the ruling regime or communist hack-intellectuals. It was like all sides in Christian Europe accused their enemies of being agents of the Devil. "God was on OUR side" while the Other Side was tainted with Devil-worship EVEN IF they all worshiped the same God.

Still, the emphasis on the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils — even Fascism and National Socialism were theorized as mere byproducts of bourgeois capitalism, i.e. the rich class recruited faux-revolutionary thugs to protect its property from the communists and workers as vanguards of the True Revolution — makes it clear that Marxism believed class conflict to be the central issue deciding history and morality. The worst evil in the world was class oppression because it was diagnosed to be the source of all other evils. As Karl Marx said, so-called antisemitism is the cause of class conflict: Because Jews are so maniacal about money, capitalism fuels their insatiable greed, and this leads to Jews acting badly and goyim feeling resentful of Jewish wealth and abuses. Therefore, the ONLY way to get rid of 'antisemitism' and other forms of bigotry is to bring about a communist revolution that would make for a classless society of equality. That way, Jews and Goyim will be comrades, brothers and sisters, under the sun. According to classic Marxism, as long as capitalism exists and bourgeois factors create class divisions, it will lead to other forms of divisions as well. One reason will owe to some groups being more adept at business and extraction; they are more clever that way and gain dominance over other less acquisitive groups. The other reason will be the rich and powerful will exploit racial and cultural differences as a divide-and-rule mechanism. Yet, another reason will be that the masses of proles will be too overworked, under-educated, and beastly in a system of dog-eat-dog capitalism to rise above crude tribalism. Ultimately, the real source of all such bigotries was economic injustice. Make people equal in property and education, and they will appreciate one another more as fellow humans. Marx was convinced that, while Jews may gain great wealth under capitalism, they will always be hated. (Ironically, Jews came to be regarded with greater suspicion in the Soviet Union while they came to be much praised in the capitalist US. American Capitalism, having a less darker history than the European counterpart, may have been a factor. American cult of freedom has been more meritocratic and extols the Winner, especially because of the mythos that ANYONE can succeed. Jews certainly won big. But it also owes to the fact that Jews took over much of the academia and media & entertainment and elevated the Shoah to a quasi-religion and made 'racism', especially against Jews and blacks, the worst possible sin — badmouthing Arabs, Iranians, and Palestinians is perfectly fine.)

Anyway, if capitalism said ANYONE, regardless of race or creed, can become gloriously rich, communism said ANYONE, regardless of race or culture, can be made evil by greed and money. Capitalism said it's great that a Jew or a Christian can become rich. Communism said it's sad that both a Jew and a Christian can be corrupted by money. Marxism didn't spare the Jews. While Marx lamented antisemitism, he didn't regard Jews as innocent pure-as-snow angels who were hated for irrational reasons. He believed they were hated for rational and material reasons: Capitalism brought out the worst aspects of Jewish Character as molded through history(of money-making). So, the only workable compromise between Goyim and Jews was for goyim to drop their resentment on grounds that Jews will forsake their greed. Only then as comrades could Jews and all kinds of goyim get along.

Because Antifa types and other so-called 'leftists' claim to be socialist or even communist — and because so many on the Right love to draw parallels between Marxism/Maoism and current PC madness in the West — , one would think Old Communism is back in force. But actually, so-called Antifa, though claiming to be anti-fascist, is oddly closer in spirit to Nazism that put Race at the center of its worldview. Unlike Marxism that said ANY PEOPLE, both Jews and Goyim, can become corrupted by money and power, the current PC insists that the problems of power is almost always about 'white supremacism'. So, it doesn't matter how rich Jews are, how successful blacks are, how well-off non-whites are. The problem is always about 'whiteness'. If some whites are exempted from total abuse, it is only because they funnel lots of money toward PC to appease the beast. According to PC, a poor white person who holds an American flag and doesn't hate himself & his race is a greater evildoer than super-rich whites like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates who fund PC causes.
As for Jews, blacks, homos, and certain non-white groups, it doesn't matter how rich they are. (Latin American whites are also exempt from the worst of abuse.) You are GOOD simply because you're Jewish, black, homo, or etc. But if you're white(and straight), it doesn't matter how many hardships you face. It doesn't matter if you've been attacked by blacks or fleeced by Jews. You SUCK because you're white.

The notion of 'racism' change from one's attitudes to one's innate character. It went from mutable to immutable. It went from an attitude that anyone can have, borne of ignorance and meanness, to a condition that certain groups are born with, regardless of their attitude. So, you can be a hateful Jew or nasty Negro, but you're hardly 'racist'. You can be a Zionist Jew pushing all kinds of wars in the Middle East to destroy countless Arab/Muslim lives, but that's okay. Jews can dehumanize Russians and white Christians, and that's cool too. And, blacks can do thug-talk, threaten other races, attack other groups, and indulge in all sorts of hateful rhetoric. But no matter what they do, it's always contextualized as 'resistance against systemic racism', that is UNLESS blacks badmouth Jews and homos.
In contrast, if you're white, you are 'racist'(or tainted with the white mark of cain) no matter how much you try to be fair with rest of humanity. Indeed, the reason why white Antifa types are so soul-damaged is they indulge in an insane kind of self-hatred. They've internalized Jewish PC so much that they believe it's no longer sufficient for whites to reject 'racist' hatred against non-whites. Rather, whites must actively hate their own race as innately tainted with the 'original sin' of 'racism'. Thus, White Antifa is less about anti-hatred than pro-hatred-against-the-self. (Of course, Jewish leaders of Antifa happily promote such attitude among their white dolt comrades.)
If Antifa is truly communist, socialist, or Marxist, it should focus mostly on economic issues. In regarding the 'bourgeois' elements as the source of all inequality and evil, they would condemn ALL forms of power, wealth, and privilege. They would hate Barack Obama who's approaching a billion dollars in personal wealth. They should be denouncing Tim Cook and other fancy-pants homos who do the bidding of oligarchs and the deep state. Karl Marx did just this. Though of Jewish origin, he lambasted Jewish capitalists as among the worst bourgeois elements. But no such is heard from current Antifa and of course BLM. Their worldview is essentially racial-supremacist in that good or evil is really a matter of one's identity. So, it doesn't matter what Jews, blacks, or homos do or how much wealth they have and how much privilege they enjoy. They are wonderful and good simply because of their vaunted identities. In contrast, it doesn't matter how difficult one's situation is as a white person; it doesn't matter how much he or she tries to be good and fair-minded. He or she is bad, even 'white supremacist', simply because he or she is white or, worse, refuses to hate himself/herself.

How ironic that Jews who support Antifa as anti-fascist and anti-'racist', a means to expose and hunt down 'nazis' and 'white supremacists', are now the main purveyors of something like a Neo-Nazi outlook. Jewish Power pushes a certain racial essentialism. Jews are forever to be 'essentialized' as the Holocaust People, or Holochs. So, even when Jews act like Nazis and abuse Palestinians, Jews are a bunch of Anne Franks while Palestinians might as well be the 'nazis'. In the most perverse way, Jews have used the narrative of victimization under supremacist Nazis to justify a kind of moral nihilism for Jews, i.e. because Jews suffered so much, they are forever wise, and therefore, everything done by Jews must be grand! In other words, Jews invoke 'Never Again' against the evils of Nazism to act like a bunch of Judeo-Nazis. Just ask the Palestinians.
And blacks are to be 'essentialized' forever as a bunch of Emmett Tills when, in fact, so many black thugs roam the streets and terrorize people worse than the KKK ever did. If Jews really care about humanity, why are they most angry with Donald Trump when he wants to de-escalate wars in the Middle East? Why have the likes of Thomas Friedman praised ISIS as the wreckers of Assad's Syria? If Jews are really against 'racism', why are they perfectly fine with Trump and Pompeo's most blatant form of racial bigotry: the mindless support of Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and other Arabs? And if Jews are opposed to racial essentialism, why do they create TV shows that feature Jews and blacks as noble simply for what they are, whereas whites are villains because it's in the nature of whites to be 'racist' and 'supremacist'?
Jews fool a lot of people by claiming to condemn 'white supremacism', but the notion that some groups are incorrigibly 'racist' whereas other groups, such as Jews and blacks, are always 'anti-racist' is essentially supremacist. A truly anti-supremacist view would argue that ANY group, given the circumstances, could be supremacist. It was certainly the case with Romans and Germanic barbarians. When Romans were on top, they could lord over the Germanics with supremacist arrogance. But when the empire fell apart and the Germanic barbarians rampaged through Rome, who were the supremacist overlords?

Any honest person would admit the current US is animated by Jewish Supremacism, especially in foreign policy and historical memory. When Jews are remembered only as victims of the Shoah but not as perpetrators of mass killings of others, it's like remembering white history only in terms of what American Indian savages did to white settlers but not what the white invaders did to the Native Tribes. And how can BLM be anything but a form of supremacism when it pretends that even obvious black thugs and degenerates are saintly victims of white supremacism while totally overlooking all the anti-white violence carried out by deranged blacks? When blacks rioted and looted, carrying out modern-day pogroms, the Jewish-run media didn't care about the victims because they were white or non-blacks. (While some Jews were negatively affected too, Jewish Power saw it as a gambit to bring down Trump America. One step backward for Jews for three steps forward for Jewish Power.) Indeed, the Jewish PC Narrative mirrors the peculiar manner of Jewish remembrance of Russian History. Jews never let us forget about the Slavic pogroms against Jews but suppress all discussion of Jewish role in Bolshevik violence that literally destroyed millions of lives. In other words, pogroms were worse because thousands of Jews were affected because, of course, a single Jewish life has more value than a million Slavic lives. It's a form of JLM or "Jewish Lives Matter MORE than Slavic lives", especially if the Slavs were slaughtered at the behest of Jewish communist henchmen.

At the very least, because communism identified economic injustice and class oppression as the true source of evil, any group could be condemned for being 'bourgeois'. While the Soviet Union forbade antisemitism, an ethno-racial animus against Jews, it attacked Jewish capital as well as goy capital. So, even though Jews were protected as communists, they could be destroyed like anyone else as capitalists. So, Jews could be good(communist) or bad(capitalist). But according to current Identity Politics of PC ideology, Jews are never bad or wrong. Jews can be Liberal Zionists or Neocons; both are great. Jews can be socialist or capitalist; both are super. Jews are great no matter what they do. Both GOP and Democratic Party expend most of their energies in flattering and appeasing Jews. Democrats will denounce white conservatism but praise Neocons. Republicans will denounce white liberalism but praise Liberal Zionists. Jews are exempt from all blame. Donald Trump was dragged through the mud by Jewish Power, but his main message is "I Luv Israel, and I Kiss Jewish Butt." And in the recent riots, black thuggery and violence were celebrated by Democrats and unopposed by Republicans. Even as cities burned, Trump was sucking up to blacks and making Fentanyl Floyd into a saint-angel.

This is so unlike Marxism or communism where any group, any nationality, or any race could face moral censure and condemnation for evils. Current PC is more like Nazism because it's about the racial supremacism of Jews and blacks(with special honors for Homos). It says certain groups(Jews, blacks, and homos) are infallible, while whites are intrinsically tainted(no matter what they do or say). Sadly, whites brought this upon themselves because they've enabled the current state of affairs. Whites grovel to Jews who demean them most. Whites also hurt those who face the same kind of hatred from Jews. Given Jewish vitriol and venom against whites, the logical thing would be for whites to side with other targets of Jewish hatred. Whites should be main allies with Russia and Iran; whites should be shouting, "Palestine is our greatest ally." But whites, as politicians, preachers, tax-payers, and soldiers, go out of their way to do the bidding of Jews in destroying other victims of Jewish Power. So, even as Jewish Power clobbers Trump and his white Christian Base, they are enabling the total destruction of Palestine. It'd be like Poles sucking up to Nazi Germany even as Germans push them around. It's truly a disgusting sight.

Whatever socialism that remains among the American 'Left' is NOT about the workers. If American 'leftists' really cared about the Power of Labor, it would call for end of immigration which has a scab-effect on Big Labor. They would also support policies that encourage more blacks toward productive work. But the American 'left' condemned welfare reform under Billy Boy Clinton because it 'heartlessly' put conditions on blacks to find some kind of useful employment. American 'left' doesn't care for workers or labor. What goes by the name of 'socialism' in most places is the demand for more freebies for parasites. Indeed, most 'leftists' and so-called 'progressives' look down on most jobs as demeaning and dirty for 'losers'. They don't want to pick up the shovel. They want to use pens. They want the government to produce more 'clean' jobs for bureaucrats, officials, operatives, instructors, activists, coordinators, managers, and the like. They want to be busy doing nothing in bogus jobs that make them feel they are 'saving the planet', 'working for progress', 'raising consciousness', 'fighting hatred', and etc. Over the years, more people got college degrees, but most degrees outside practical fields like science, technology, medicine, and the like are pretty useless. What good are most 'liberal arts' degrees or 'humanities' degrees, let alone degrees in Women's Studies, Black Studies, Gender Studies, and most social sciences? Out of college, all these people with fancy-pants college degrees realize their future is working for Starbucks and serving coffee to people who make lots of money in high tech, medicine, entertainment, finance, and the like. (And those with secure government jobs do pretty well.) And this breeds resentment among many of the educated. Thus, current 'socialism' is not about the proletariat or the working class at war with the rich; rather, it's about college-educated Starbucks workers feeling resentful about having to serve expensive coffee to their much more successful peers who specialized in practical fields like technology or money management. These 'socialists' don't feel any sense of camaraderie with the Workers of the World whom they regard as 'losers of the world'. They don't lose sleep over wage-slaves toiling in Asia to make Nike shoes. If anything, they want the hip and fashionable lifestyles enjoyed by the yupsters, or yuppie-hipsters who work for companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Wall Street firms. In a way, they feel more deserving of the good life because they majored in more 'meaningful' fields like arts, culture, and ideas whereas their more successful 'shallow' peers only care about making money. And yet, they are gravitated to the world of privilege; their dream is to live in a fancy condo, be surrounded by books and music, and attend cocktail parties. But only a handful of people who majored in arts/culture/ideas get to attain privileged slots in society.

Still, given the resentment against the successful, you'd think the current 'socialists' would be most passionately anti-rich. But despite their rhetoric about the 99% vs the 1%, their main passions are for the holy three of Jews, blacks, and homos(and sometimes 'diversity'), while their main ire is directed at 'white supremacism', 'racism'(that means speaking truthfully about blacks), 'homophobia'(that means refusal to celebrate 'gay pride'), and 'nazism'(that means anyone hated by Jews is a 'nazi' who must be punched and destroyed).
Of course, being anti-rich while being mindlessly pro-Jewish makes no sense because Jews are, by far, the richest people in the world. For one to say that excess wealth is evil but then claim that Jews are above criticism is, for all practical purposes, anti-socialist. If Jews, the richest people on Earth, cannot be condemned, it means Jewish Wealth must be protected. And being pro-'gay' is also antithetical to socialism because homos are naturally vain, narcissistic, elitist, and fancy-pants aristo. While there have been some homos on the Real Left, homo nature tends toward catering to the rich, privileged, and the fancy crowd. Once 'socialism' is associated with homo-celebration, Mayday turns into Gayday, which is precisely why rich Jews and the oligarchy(even in the GOP) pushed the homo agenda so far.
Also, celebration of Jews and homos can only be a kind of elite-minority-supremacism. While some minorities are poor and powerless, some are rich and powerful, much more so than the great majority. In the US, almost nothing is said of the plight of American Indians or Muslim-Americans(especially of Palestinian backgrounds), the powerless minorities. Jews and homos, as minority-ruling-elites, count for much more; they are akin to the British Imperialist minority elites in India or the white-Jewish minority elite in Old South Africa.
As for blacks, yes, it's true that many are mired in poverty and backwardness. But blacks are also oppressors as street thugs, predators, criminals, and bullies. It's been said that comedians should punch up than down, but it's not like all members of the group are either up or down. While some whites are above blacks, some whites are below blacks. While rich whites live in communities totally safe from black criminality, other whites are constantly attacked by black thuggery. Just because one bunch of whites are above blacks doesn't mean ALL blacks are above them. Some whites are below blacks. But in Jewish-controlled US, there is this crazy notion that ALL whites are privileged with supremacist power while ALL blacks are oppressed. It's like ALL Jews are forever Holocaust Survivors or something whereas ALL Russians, despite having suffered tragically from Jewish Bolshevism and Jewish gangster-capitalism(in the 1990s and even today under international sanctions), are forever tagged with blame for the pogroms.

What can be done to save the West? It must go Cold Turkey with the truth. And white people have no one to blame but themselves unless they speak the obvious truth: That the West is now Jewish Supremacist and that 'white supremacism' is just smoke-and-mirrors cooked up by Jewish Power to distract people from the fact that the modus operandi is "Is it great for Jewish Supremacism?" Then and only then can whites work toward White Liberation whereupon whites will be telling Jewish Power, "I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more." This will not only be great for whites but for all victim peoples of Jews, such as the Palestinians, Iranians, and Russians. White Racial Disobedience and Resistance to Jewish Supremacism will mean No More Wars for Israel & Zion and no more use of white energies to spread the 'ghaspel'(the ghastly gospel) of Globo-Homo and Afro-Mania around the world. The White Bridges used to spread Jewish Supremacism(and its proxies) around the world must be blown up. If whites resist, the rest of the world will take inspiration and follow suit. If whites cuck and submit to Jewish Supremacism, the rest of the world will do the same. This is the special place whites have in the world. Though the West is Jewish-supremacist and Jewish-dominated, Jewish Power feeds on white submission and obedience. White behavior vis-a-vis Jewish Power serves as the template for all the world. So, if whites suck up to Jews and worship globo-homo-BLM craziness, other races will do likewise. But if whites finally say NO and stand up to Jewish supremacist perfidy, others around the world will also get the message and toss away the shackles. Whites no longer have the power of rule, but they still have the choice between submission and liberation to the rule. And what whites do will determine the direction of history.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lQzSILxdgCOq/

In Defense of Bio-Socialism as Foundation of Family Formation — Free & Bad vs Unfree & Good — Pitfalls of Christian Sanctimony

Marriage of Feminism and Consumerism was bound to lead to miscarriages of biological justice.

In tandem, they go against nature and upset the organic balance of life and society.

To better illustrate this, imagine 4 people: 2 men and 2 women.

Suppose there are 2 well-paying jobs.

First, we need to take human nature into consideration: Men will marry women without jobs, but women don't want to marry men without jobs.

These are the possible outcomes.

Scenario 1. Two men get the jobs. Each man can afford to raise a family, and each is willing to marry a woman without a job. So, each man marries a woman. As a result, two men have jobs and they have wives with whom to raise a family. Everyone gets something. Men have jobs and wives, women have husbands, wives have family. Two incomes support two families.

Scenario 2. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman with the job. In contrast, the man without the job cannot a find a mate because women don't want men without jobs. So, the woman without the job doesn't marry the man without the job.
As the man with the job and woman with the job married, both of their incomes serve just one family. Meanwhile, the man without the job has no money and no family. And the woman without the job doesn't want to marry the man with no job, so she has nothing too.
So, we have all the good stuff in one family and nothing for the other man and woman. Also, because both the married man and married woman work, there is a chance that they will have no kids or just one kid. All that combined income goes to serve very narrow interests. Two get it all, the other two get nothing.

Scenario 3. One man and one woman get the jobs. Each can afford a family. The man with the job marries the woman without a job. In contrast, the woman with the job remains unmarried because she doesn't want to marry the man without a job. Under this formulation, three get something while the man without a job get nothing. The man with a job has a wife, the woman without a job, and they can have a family. The woman with a job has money even if no husband. She has no family but she has money to have fun with. But, the man without a job has no money and no wife. Such a man is destined for something like White Death.

Scenario 4. Two women get the jobs, and that means the two men have no jobs. Since women don't want to marry men without jobs, the women blow all their incomes on themselves in unfettered consumerism. They don't want to have families with 'loser' men with no jobs. Since the two men got no jobs, they lack status, pride, and hope.

Of the four options, only #1 offers something for everyone.

#3 isn't so terrible since 3 out of 4 get something.

#2 is awful because 2 get everything while 2 get nothing. Still, its saving grace is there is the formation of at least one family.

#4 is horrible because 2 get everything but there is no family. All that money is spent on fleeting vanity and hedonism.

Now, one might hope for a world where 4 people can have 4 good jobs, but such a world doesn't exist. There is only a limited number of jobs that can support families.

When women entered the work force in big numbers, they took away lots of good jobs from men. Every woman who got a good job robbed a man not only of a job but of a family. When a man takes a job from a woman, he doesn't take away her chance of having a family because men with jobs will marry women without jobs.
When women take jobs from men, it leads to men losing their market value as marriage prospects. Women not only take the jobs from men but also the hope of marriage and family, the most important thing in life(because people, as life-forms, are created from families and pass down their genes and memory by forming their own families); after all, it's no big deal to quit one job to take another, but it'd be terrible to dump one's family and go off with someone else. Also, in one's golden years, what does a man or woman think back on? Family(children and grandchildren) OR some 9-to-5 job he once had, some consumer item he once owned, or something he once ate at a restaurant? True meaning of human life comes from family, through which the continuity of life, culture, and memory is preserved.

When women have high-paying jobs, their standards go up in the mating game. But since fewer men will have good jobs because women took them, the 'ideal man' will be harder to find. So, women with jobs face a drought in marriageable men. Since they only want to marry successful men and will not settle for anything less, many women would rather blow all their earnings on vanity and self-indulgence. So, the income that, in the hands of a man, could have supported a family ends up serving the vain piggery of a woman hooked to SEX AND THE CITY lifestyle.
Capitalist Feminism is not about the equality of anything EXCEPT the equal(even preferential)opportunity for intelligent and/or attractive women to rise as high as possible to find superior men to be with or submit to. It's about the elitism of seeking liberation from 'beta-males' to be with 'alpha-males'. The psychology of capitalist feminism is essentially quasi-polygamist. Women are encouraged to feel that most men are not good enough for them and seek out the super-male as depicted in FIFTY SHADES OF GREY. Capitalist Feminism is less about liberation per se than liberation from the 'average guy' in search of the 'superior guy' to submit to. It is, ultimately, profoundly hierarchical and exclusionary. Given that people do want the best, such psychology among women is not surprising, but the social consequences of Capitalist Feminism have been devastating to the Modern World.

How did we end up like this? It's because we forgot the lesson that we are, first and foremost, sentimental organisms or life-forms. The role of life-form is to sustain itself. Everyone will die one day and so will his/her loved one, the partner in life. So, how do they 'survive' after death? Through their children who, as continuations of their forebears' genetic lineage, are cultural/personal torchbearers of the community. That's what Judaism has been about, indeed how it got started. It was about remembrance of ancestors by descendants, and it all went back to the Covenant.

Now, we are more than mere life-forms like animals. We have advanced brains that produced and have a need for ideas, values, and culture. Still, all those precious things exist and matter because of the living. All the books in the world mean nothing without people to read them, and every person is the product of a man and a woman(unless we create a BRAVE NEW WORLD scenario of cloning operations by the state). We are more than biology, but it begins with and is made possible by biology. Without biology, there is no being.
And the main source of meaning is in the family since every person was created by a father and a mother and since every person can only 'live on' after death through the DNA passed down to his/her kids who are also the cultural/personal torchbearers of their parents' memory.

But for some reason, the cult of narrow individualism made us forget that every individual is a 'continual', merely one link in the long chain of life. He didn't pop out of a book or materialize out of thin air or come into existence as a figment of someone's muse. Every person is born biologically and become human emotionally.
Because we are surrounded by books, movies, and fantasy, we seem to think reality can be constructed via imagination, 'creativity', or wish-fulfillment. Look at all those families where kids are raised to care more about Disney movies and HARRY POTTER books than about real people around them and those who came before them. (Or, too many people assume that, even if they don't have families and create the new generation, SOMEONE ELSE will. But the chances are, other people think the same way, leaving it up to OTHERS to pass the torch of life and culture.) We've replaced creation with creativity. It's no wonder we've come to accept something like 'gay marriage'. We confuse reality with fantasy, as if the world is created and sustained by Peter-Pan-ism. We confuse production of fantasy with reproductive fact. So, if two lesbians want to believe that they 'had a kid' together, we better go along with this charade. If a man says he is a 'woman', we are expected to agree. After all, how care we pop his bubble of desire? If a bunch of freaks want to turn the study of sexes into a hair-splitting game of ever-multiplying 'genders', we are supposed to accept it as cutting-edge 'science'.

As for consumerism, it divorced pleasure from purpose. Life-forms feel pleasure of food and sex because they must eat to survive and must have sex to produce new life. But consumerism created technologies that allowed wanton eating and wanton sex for pleasure alone. So, gluttony became the New Normal, as with fatso Lena Dunham who gorges on cakes while sitting on the toilet. It's as if she has to eat and excrete at the same time. And like an animal, she humps everyone, and she can sustain such behavior because there are contraceptives, pills, and abortion. Gluttony and Sluttony gone out of control in this one gross woman. This kind of porno-propaganda or 'pornoganda' has become America's main cultural message to the world. America is an exceptional country? Or an excessive cunt-ry?

Also, the idea of freedom has become nihilistic. It's good to be free, but for what purpose? In the end, we must make use of our freedoms. And in making any decision, we are choosing one freedom and losing the others. If we choose to study medicine, we don't have much time to study other things. We must commit to mastering the practice of medicine. If we study chemistry, we must neglect many other fields. If we decide to read a book, then we can't read another book. We have only so much time and energy at any given moment. So, even though we want freedom, every choice 'imprisons' us within one endeavor and locks out all the rest. It's like the scene in the first SUPERMAN movie. If Superman is to save one bunch of people, he can't save another bunch of people. He can't do everything. He fails to save Lois Lane and brings her back to life only by cheating.

So, we must raise the question as to what is more important than freedom. We must ask, what is the main purpose and meaning of life? Is it better to be free & choose not to do what one must or be unfree & have no choice but to do what one must? To the extent that prisons exist, we obviously don't believe in unfettered freedom. Those who use freedom badly go to jail as they are deemed unfit to enjoy freedom as a right. Of course, a libertarian would argue that a criminal must be locked up because his misuse of freedom violates the freedoms of others. In contrast, a man or a woman who commits his/her life to idiotic fun than grows into a mature person and has a family hasn't committed a crime or interfered with other people's freedoms. If we take a narrow individualist view, that is true enough, but if we take a deeper & wider civilizational view, such a man or woman has done a grave wrong to society. If such selfish people are few and far between, it's not a problem, but when they come to comprise a vast proportion of the population, the result is the demographically declining West and dying Japan. Freedom is good, but it is not the highest good.

After all, suppose there's a society where everyone is forced to be a husband or a wife. They are all forced to have families and to devote their main energies toward taking care of their children, the next generation.
Next, suppose there is another society where everyone is free and uses his/her freedom to only indulge himself/herself and not have families.
In the end, isn't the former society ultimately better off since it has families that create new life to carry on the torch? It lives on and sustains itself.
In contrast, what good is the other society in the long run? Sure, freedom is nice and individuals(esp in their youth) can have a good time, but if people used their freedoms to mainly indulge themselves and leave behind no legacy(like so many hedonistic white folks are doing today), is that a meaningful life? And how can there be meaning in the future if there are no new people to strive for meaning?

Now, we want freedom, but we need to use that freedom responsibly, soberly, and wisely. Sadly, everything about our ideology and culture fills our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds with the wrong lessons and vile temptations(designed to lead to addictions). If Lena Dunham, madonna, Emma Sulkowicz, and Ashley Judd are the 'role models' for womenfolk, it's no wonder our society is so diseased and dying. Indeed, even Stalinism or Sharia is better for women. After all, the Muslim Order, repressive as it is, has lasted for over one thousand years. For how much longer can the current debauched and degenerate West last? No matter one's elaborate theorizing about justice and the good life, if those ideas result in a civilization that fails in the most basic tasks of life-making and cultural preservation, they are BAD ideas.
In the end, the worth of a civilization isn't measured by trending ideas or fashionable values. It is measured by its ability to survive and continue. The current West smugly(and sometimes shrilly) pontificates about 'Western Values' as the 'most evolved', but if they lead to socio-demographic decline and demise, the test of time will have proven them to be the wrong values. It's like medicine. No matter what the researchers and doctors say, if it kills the patient, it's more poison than medicine. (Also, keep in mind that 'Western Values' are like the 'Constitution'. Those with the Power get to define what they mean. Jews who currently control the world say 'Western Values' are about Diversity, Homomania, Jungle Fever, Jew-worship, and hating-whitey. It's like Jews say the US Constitution guarantees 'gay marriage'.)

Now, we are not saying that the only viable choices are Western decadence/excess and something like Sharia Law. There is something sane, healthy, and balanced in between. We don't need to see the world in stark terms of either Sharia or Gayria/Whorea. It's like Aldous Huxley in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED called out his mistake in the novel BRAVE NEW WORLD of having presented only two possibilities: Either neo-primitive brutality or orgy-porgy techo-hedonism.

We can have both freedom and meaning.
As life-forms, we are made by biological processes that allow for families to pass down the genetic code, keep alive the memory of ancestors, and preserve the culture/heritage. Family is bio-socialist. The essence of socialism is the subordination of absolute individualism to serve the greater need of the whole community. So, even though taxing the rich at higher rates than others is 'unfair' by libertarian principles, it is deemed necessary by socialism because the rich can afford to pay more for the GOOD of society. Socialism takes into consideration the difference between being rich, being middle income, and being poor. It doesn't just regard everyone as an individual. In a similar vein, bio-socialism takes into account that men and women aren't identical and/or interchangeable individuals on the basis of abstract theories, no more than atoms are individual-and-independent actors in chemistry. Atoms, as parts of a molecule, are always interdependent with other atoms, each of which has a specific role in any chemical combination. If not, there would be no difference between CO and CO2. If atoms are merely independent players, the only difference between CO and CO2 would be that the latter has MORE atoms. But in fact, the chemical formula for CO is deadly to life whereas C02 feeds life.

It's not just about individuals and choice. Men and women are life-forms born into existence by a certain biological process, develop ideally in a sound family environment, and whose legacy is assured by forming families of their own and having children(who will, in time, do the same). So, family must be recognized as the foremost bio-socialist unit in our formulation of what is best for society. In the aforementioned four scenarios of 2 men and 2 women competing for jobs and love in society, bio-socialism will favor the scenario of 2 men getting the jobs since everyone will get something. 2 jobs held by 2 men can support 2 families.

But the family has come under attack by capitalist feminism and other nut-job ideologies. Also, the role of mother has been mocked as 'having babies' as if that is all a woman does: Laying babies like a chicken laying eggs. In fact, babies soon grow into children, and raising a child is about molding him or her into a human with mind, heart, ideas, values, and etc. Every day, millions of new neurons are added to children's brains, and the process of their growth is amazing. Besides, what is ultimately more rewarding for a man and a woman to create than another thinking & feeling human being with heart and soul? Besides, all the products and services offered by professions and jobs exist only to serve human beings. So, creating and developing a new human being is the richest experience in life. It is the foundation of everything. The fact that the current West suppresses the creation of new life and relies on OTHER parts of the world to supply more life goes to show how decrepit our society has become. What good are 'Western Values' if they can't even encourage the creation of new life to carry on with the civilization? Progs say non-Westerners will come to the West, take on Western Values, and carry on. Even if we tell ourselves this is true(though it is not), won't Western Values eventually destroy the newcomers as well because they will be similarly affected and quit creating new life as their white predecessors? Globalist logic of 'Western Values' is like a death cult. You can have more freedom and more stuff to enjoy yourself, but the chances are you won't produce life and will die alone in misery. Therefore, newcomers from the Third World must be taught to carry on with Western Civilization, but then, even if everything according to plan, they will become just as non-productive as whites and fade away, requiring yet more newcomers to take up the slack. It's sort of like the scenario in LOGAN'S RUN where people can have a real Good Time as youthful citizens but must die before they get old so that a new batch of young people can take over. There is no sense of continuity. There's a reason why most of science-fiction offers dystopias than utopias. Technology is no substitute for life.

Life matters. It is why Michael Corleone says at the beginning of GODFATHER III that the most precious things in this world are children. "The only wealth in this world is children, more than all the money and power on Earth. You are my treasure." No matter how much wealth and power Michael accumulates, he will one day die, and then the ONLY people who will remember and care about him are his survivors, his children and grandchildren. His money, mansions, cars, and jewelry have no mind, no heart, no nothing... just like all the dead objects collected by Charles Foster Kane, after whose death, they will be disposed of or sold off to strangers. Only life loves, values, and remembers life.
But in our world, the Ideal is for a guy with well-paying job to marry a woman with a well-paying job(which means one less man with a well-paying job who can afford a family), and since both are too busy with work, the moral-and-mental development of the children is left to PC ideologues(teacher hacks) and the Mammon of Pop Culture that corrupts children from a young age.

The modern world is great for giving us freedoms that our ancestors didn't have and didn't know how to have(or what to do with them). And initially, modern people had both freedom and meaning, a sense of liberty and purpose. They were freed from traditional bonds but still morally and culturally informed by those bonds and values. It's like Michael Corleone has freedoms that his forbears didn't have in Old Sicily, but having grown up in a culture of family and values his sense individuality is informed by those bedrock values centered around family, life, and tradition. He has freedom but also cultural compass.

But as the cult of freedom took on a life of its own via ideological arrogance and hedonistic excess, the connection to a sense of purpose was lost.
Ideology gave people a sense of permanence through ideas when, in fact, ideas only exist in the organic minds of people as life forms. No people, no ideas. Ideas are nothing without minds to appreciate them, and minds are bio-mass of living matter.

If ideology filled people with a false sense of permanence via books & arts, entertainment made people feel that the Moment is Forever. Thus, people lost sight of the larger sense of time and history as they became hooked to pop music, TV, and movies that glorify the orgiastic hysterics of the moment. Humans went from organismic to the orgasmic. So, even middle aged men and women still feel like teenagers as they listen to pop music, watch Hollywood movies about caped heroes, or play dumb video games. And abortion has turned into child sacrifice on the altar of Orgasm-over-Organism.

We need to find a way to reconnect freedom with meaning and purpose.
The pussyhat feminists bitch and whine about 'freedom', as if Trump is going to turn them all into chattel slaves. But in fact, the real problem women face today is the sheer lack of meaning and purpose with all their misguided freedoms. They have freedom, but the choices they've made are terrible, not least because our reigning ideology and culture encourages women to act like tramps in SEX AND THE CITY, Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Emma Sulkowicz, or one of those trashy shallow pseudo-intellectuals who write for NYT or yammer on NPR.

In a way, the oddly perverse alliance of feminists and Muslims suggests at something repressed within the modern feminist psyche. There is something deep inside that is crying out for meaning, order, purpose, and continuance. Is it any surprise that Lindsey Lohan and Sinead O'Connor are leaning toward Islam?

The history of mankind has offered people four basic choices:

1. Forcing people to do what is the right thing.

2. Forcing people to do what is the wrong thing.

3. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the wrong thing.

4. Giving people freedom, and people freely doing the right thing.

The best of all possible worlds will have most people in #4 mode.
The worst of all possible worlds will have most people in #3 mode.

Now, why is #3 worse than #2? Why is a world where people are forced to do the wrong thing better than one where people freely do the wrong thing?
Because in the #2 scenario, there is still a political/social power that can make people do the right thing under a new policy. It is currently forcing people to do the wrong thing, but with a change of course, the system can correct its ways and force the people to do the right thing.
In contrast in the #3 scenario, the people have the freedom/power to do the wrong thing, and there is no higher power to stop them or correct them. This is why black problem today is worse than black problem during slavery. During slavery, whites forced blacks to be slaves, the wrong thing. And slavery had to end. But since whites still had the power, they could make blacks do the right thing with the end of slavery. In contrast, the corrupt and free blacks of today won't listen to anything since they got Agency and Power. But to do what with them? For many blacks, freedom means turning cities into more Detroits and Baltimores. Since the 1960s, blacks used their freedom to turn entire communities into neo-jungles and to bitch, whine, and holler like mad baboons. And since they have all the freedoms and rights under the law, they can just go on acting loutish.
In contrast, blacks in Cuba are in scenario #2. Cuban-style Socialism premised on Marxism-Leninism doesn't really work. It is the wrong thing. It keeps blacks doing what is economically backward and inefficient. However, the state still has control over the blacks, so if state policy were to change one day for the better, blacks can be pressured to do the right thing. In contrast, a lot of American blacks are hopeless. They got the power and freedom, but they use it for total lunacy and jungle behavior. And there is no power above them to say NO. Freedom can liberate but also corrupt, and there is nothing worse than corruption-under-freedom. Unlike corruption-under-tyranny where the people can't be blamed(as they must do as told), corruption-under-freedom means the people themselves freely chose to be vile and venal.

One might say #1 and #4 have same results and so are equally valid. Whether people are forced to do the right thing OR use their freedom to do the right thing, the end result is people doing the right thing. Still, we want freedom. We don't want to be forced to do things. We want liberty(or at least its semblance) than tyranny.

Under system #1, even those who want to do the wrong thing have no choice but to do the right thing.
Under system #4, those with the freedom to do the wrong thing still choose to do the right thing. That is true morality, but it's increasingly harder to come by these days because of family breakdown, cultural decadence, moral degeneration, and etc. After all, in order for people to freely do the right thing, they must be inculcated with good, sound, and healthy values, outlook, and understanding. But just look at the state of PC and Pop Culture. We are raising kids to be self-absorbed tards and snowflakes and loons. Why do so many kids get tattoos? They have no sense of time, of tomorrow and the long-term. They don't think, "Years will pass, and I will regret putting this ugly shit on my skin." No, all they care about is the NOW. If they think it's cool NOW, they must get it and the hell with tomorrow. And if they come to hate their own tattoos, they thinking adding more will fix the problem. What idiots.

In order for #4 to work, we need a society that promotes culture and values of maturity, sobriety, dignity, and integrity, like what Vito Corleone had(except for his role in organized crime, but then he was pressured into that life by thug Fanucci who was fleecing the neighborhood).
But if #4 is rendered impossible because our culture creates tons of idiots with PC and junk culture, then the only option is to go back to #1.

#1 is unpleasant even if it forces people to do the right thing because we want to be free and want people to do the right thing out of moral sense than out of social coercion. Still, #1 is the only option when #4 fails and slides us into a state of #3. The black American community, at this point, can be fixed only through the #1 option. Too many blacks have freely chosen to be total tards and stupid chillun.

Life is a form of energy.
The modern world has tons of energy made possible by electricity. Look at Earth at night from space, and entire areas are lit up with vast networks of electricity. We see the most lights in Western nations and East Asian nations. So much industrial and recreational energy... and yet, so little life energy, so little energy of reproduction. Modern folks are like moths before an artificial light. They are addicted to the false life of industrial energy that fills them with bright light, convenience, and entertainment, but they have lost the sense of real energy, that of life itself, the source of all things. Because industrial energy is so powerful and dazzling, those huddled around it feel so alive, but it's all an illusion. Watching TV filled with flashing images or playing some roller-coaster video-game may feel vibrant and alive, but it's all an illusion. Being around all that industrial energy has sapped modern man of life energy, that of family and creation of new life for legacy.

In contrast, the dark continent of Africa is having lots of kids and producing lots of life. They lack in industrial energy but they have something far more valuable: life energy.
And they will eventually move to the modern world with its aging and dying populations who prefer the artificial 'life' of industrial energy over the real energy of life around family and culture. The problem with black Africans is they have much in life energy but little in moral-and-mental energy that can shape life energy into meaning and purpose. Black behavior is in the mode of hump-and-jump, hardly different from those of chimpanzees and baboons.

Some people say we need to return to Christian values, but it's complicated. For starters, Christianity has always been a mixed blessing.
Christianity is like coal. It offers lots of spiritual heat and moral warmth. But it has to be handled with care with good ventilation. Why? What does coal produce? Carbon Monoxide or CO which is odorless and lethal.
The Church needs a good ventilation system. Yes, the Church teaches white folks to love mankind and be forgiving, and etc. That is a good message to warm the soul. But too much of anything is never any good. And excessive utopian save-the-world sermonizing of Christians can have the effect of CO.
So, we need to ventilate the Church. Give us the sermon about love and forgiveness, but air out the excess sanctimony that 'toxifies' people with holier-than-thou pied-piper-ism of racial extinction. Also, Christians need to be reminded that Jesus never said the world of man could be saved. He only said that man should try to be good and seek the Lord's grace in the afterlife.

Commentary on "2020: Socialist America or Trump's America?"(by PAT BUCHANAN). What to do in One-Party Future? If Jewish Power uses POC against Whites, Whites should use POC against Jews. It's only fair.

https://vdare.com/articles/patrick-j-buchanan-2020-socialist-america-or-trump-s-america

And what would then happen if the Democrats simply held the House, added three Senate seats and defeated Trump in 2020? An all-out effort to abolish the Electoral College that is integral to the historic compromise that created our federal Union. Puerto Rico and D.C. would become states, giving Democrats four more Senators and making America a bilingual nation.

Donald Trump has turned out to be useless. GOP is cooked demographically. It's only a matter of time before US turns into a one-party state like Japan, China, Turkey, or California.

That being the case, it is about time to end the GOP, and all Goppers should join the Democratic Party in a one-party America. The future politics mustn't be about party vs party but about masses(of all colors) against the globalist elites.

And Goppers should go full socialist to hurt Big Capital.

The problem with Goppers is twofold:

White Goppers are for capitalism even though capitalists have pushed for social degeneracy and demographic transformation. Capitalists have certainly NOT been better on the immigration issue. If anything, they've often been worse than the socialists. Also, capitalist monopolists(especially of Jewish ethnocentric bent) are denying free speech and financial services to conservatives(especially in concert with Jewish Supremacist groups like ADL and SPLC).

Why should Goppers be for capitalism against socialism when capitalists use PC to shut down white patriots and POC(people of color) to replace white Americans with? It makes no sense. It is time for Goppers to side with socialists to bring down the capitalists. If that leads to civil war and riots, so be it. It might do some good as many non-whites will flee from a nation racked with economic and social problems. Also, an America without a dominant elite will clear the path for new revolutions that must happen.

Even a bigger problem is the matter of white attitudes about Jewish Power.

Indeed, the single biggest pathology of US politics is this:

Jews use POC(people of color) against whites but whites try to protect Jews from POC in the hope that Jews will appreciate the gesture and side with whites.
Imagine a Jewish guy using a pitbull to maul a white guy, but the white guy tries to protect the Jew from the pitfull that he is using against the white guy. Even though the pitbull is mauling the white guy at the behest of its Jewish master, the white guy goes out of his way to persuade the Jewish guy that the dog is dangerous and may turn on its master; therefore, the Jewish guy should work with the white guy against the mad dog. The white guy, being even more servile than the dog to the Jew, never mentions the fact that it is the Jew who is using the dog against him.

So pathological and pathetic.

Here's a better solution. If Jews use POC against whites, whites should return the favor and use POC against Jews. In any Jewish vs POC conflict, whites should side with POC. See how Jews like it. Let them have a taste of their own medicine. Even a 'white advocate' like Jared Taylor is stuck in this pathetic rut. Even though Jews treat him like they treat Palestinians in West Bank, Taylor goes out of his way to support Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and to protect Jewish Supremacist Power from criticism within his 'white advocacy' camp.

Just look at the pathetic Gopper cucks. Ilhan Omar talks about Jewish power, but Gopper cucks all side with Jewish Power against her EVEN THOUGH Jews have been fanning Muslim-American hatred against whites forever. And even though Jews are working 24/7 to flood white towns with Muslim 'refugees', white Gopper cucks serve the Jews by voting to shut down BDS. What a pathetic strategy. Zionists take over Palestinian towns in West Bank, and Jewish-Americans do everything to flood white towns with Diversity Invasion, but the priority of white Goppers boils down to "How better can we serve our Jewish masters?"

While Jews are using rabid POC dogs against whites, whites are praying for the political conversion of the Jews and beseeching God to protect Jews from POC. So, what good has all this pro-Jewish cucking done for white Americans? Zilch and nada.

GOP is cooked because of demographic changes pushed mostly by Jewish Power. In an insanely diverse nation with no majority group(the America of the near future), should whites side with POC or with Jews?
Well, we know what Jews will do. Jews will keep using POC as attack dogs against whites. Obviously then, the most logical thing for whites would be to use POC to maul Jews in turn. Fight fire with fire.
If a Jew uses a club to beat you, should you try to defend the Jew from the very club that he uses to beat you with? Sounds retarded, doesn't it?
But, that is how retarded whites have become.

Imagine if whites had fought WWII this way. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and all US politicians pledge to defend the noble and wonderful Japanese nation from the Japanese navy while totally overlooking the fact that it is the Japanese nation that is using the Imperial navy against the US.
Sounds surreal, but that is EXACTLY what whites are doing while Jews kick them in the ass with the POC boot.

Commentary on "Bolsonaro: a Monster Engineered by Our Media"(by Jonathan Cook)

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-10-30/bolsonaro-is-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media/

Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Nothing will make sense unless we mention Jewish control of much of Western Media and Finance. And of course academia that produces all the 'thinkers' and strategists and enforcers of law firms, courts, and deep state. While ALL global oligarchs and corporations have some things in common, ethnicity and group-identity do matter. Jewish oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, Chinese oligarchs, Iranian oligarchs, and etc. are all in the Game for Wealth and Privilege, but they don't think alike. The reason why Jewish Power hates nationalist candidates is because nationalism means 'our nation, our people, and our land first'. America First or Brazil First. This is bad for Jewish globalist supremacism because nationalist regimes will put their nation before Jewish globalist interests. Generally, a nation is defined by its majority population. Poland has minorities of non-Poles, such as Vietnamese, but Core Poland is the Polish people. So, a nationalist Poland is about prioritizing the identity and pride of Poles. Now, this shouldn't be a threat to ordinary Jews or even successful Jews. After all, Poland is open to world trade and has gotten over its worst anti-Jewish excesses. So, why are Jews so pissed? Because they seek world dominance and hegemony. And that means making white nations(and some others) prioritize Jewish-controlled globalism over nationalism. Also, nationalism, because it boosts national and ethnic pride and identity, is more difficult for Jews to manipulate. In order for Jews to gain control over a people, they need to suppress national pride in favor of 'white guilt' or Homomania or Afromania. Nationalism is like a heavily shielded phalanx. This is why Jews push Diversity, Homomania, Afromania, and White Guilt. Diversity makes it more difficult for white nations to pull together into one. Homomania undermines moral integrity, and young ones become most excited about waving 'gay' flags in honor of homo fecal penetration. Afromania undermines white manhood by presenting blacks as superior studs with more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. It infects white women with Jungle Fever and white boys with cucky-wuckery. It says black race is superior to the wussy white race that needs to be mixed with cooler blackness. And White Guilt makes whites feel that they are uniquely guilty of historical 'sins', and therefore, the ONLY permitted pride among whites is the Pride of Redemptive Self-Loathing. Then, Jews can manipulate whites into supporting Jews, the people with Sacred Victim Identity.

The problem with Jonathan Cook's brand of leftism is it analyzes the world only in terms of Economic Interests, as if the world is made up of Noble Poor and Evil Rich. He also assumes that all the Rich think alike. Not so, especially when a Rich People happen to have a strong ethnic identity. Jews do have a strong identity, and therefore, Jewish Rich aren't only out for money. They are out for Power in service of Jewish supremacism. Consider the sanctions against Iran. From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense. Lots of Jews can make tons of money dealing with Iran. Iran would be happy to do business with Jewish oligarchs in US and EU. So, why the sanctions? Why are Jews sacrificing business opportunities in Iran? It's because they, as an ethnic-minded people, see Iran as a threat to Israeli hegemony. And take Russia. Jewish bigshots can make tons of money by encouraging more trade with Russia. So, why the sanctions? Because Russian brand of nationalism(though mild) and sovereignty inspires other nations to defy the Jewish globo-homo hegemony. So, unless Cook mentions the Jews, he won't get at the heart of what is going on. Indeed, one reason why even non-communist Jews valued Marxism and ideology of Class Conflict was because the theories obfuscated the level of Jewish involvement in capitalism. By turning the conflict into one between the Workers and the Generic Bourgeoisie, it led people to overlook the fact that Jews had a special role in world capitalism, especially in finance. People don't live on bread alone. Money is nice but ultimately meaningless. Like Sheldon Adelson said, he found true meaning in life by becoming an avid supporter of Israel. Money gave him privilege and power, but Zionism gave him meaning. Granted, there are lots of rich people without meaning. They just rake in all the dough. But such people eventually end up serving those with meaning(whatever it may be) because power is like electricity. In and of itself, it has no higher purpose. It has to be directed at something. So, power from an electric generator is used to power TVs. Or radios. Or computers. Jews use the Juice to serve the Jews. This is why they are so powerful. They not only have money but meaning. In contrast, deracinated creeps like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have no meaning except money, money, and money. So, when it comes to meaning, they follow the lead of the Jews who do have meaning. So, Bezos' Washington Post continues to shill for Israel and Jewish supremacism even though Bezos the Bozo isn't Jewish.

Simon Jenkins:
When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.

Of course, Jenkins is full of BS. Not because he's wrong about much of social media but because he'd be fine with the lies, fake stories, vulgarity, and stupidity AS LONG AS the political outcomes favored globo-homo hegemony. After all, homomania was spread through trash culture, celebrity nonsense, PC mobs on social media, and lots of herd-like hysteria. But people like Jenkins never protested the trashiness as long as it served their agenda. Also, the reason why there are so many crazies in social media is because the globalists have pushed the erosion of roots and culture. So, we have too many clowns who get swept up with the latest trends, fashions, and hypes. If there is one good thing about the spread of nationalism via social media, it is the desire to reconnect with roots, identity, and heritage that give life meaning.

Also, even if social media are full of fake news and conspiracy theories, they are beneficial as counterweight against the power of Deep State and Corporate Media. Alex Jones spread lots of nonsense, but his conspiracy theories did encourage his fans to be more critical and less trusting of the Deep State and globalism. Given that the Deep State is a warmonger and that the big corporations brainwash us with endless BS advertising, it's not the worst thing to be more distrustful and cynical about the Powers That Be. Under Limbaugh-ism, many Americans were led to support the Iraq War. But under Jones-ism, Americans are far more likely to question the US aggression. Indeed, Jones condemned Trump for his attacks on Syria. Social media are filled with lots of alternative truths and lies. But even alternative fake stories are still preferable to fake stories by MSM because, whereas MSM tells lies to support globo-homo imperialist hegemony, alternative fake stories are made to question the Power and oppose imperialism. So, even if not every alternative 9/11 story is true, it still encourages people to ask more questions than just TRUST the Power, which by now is utterly corrupt, not least because it is concentrated in the hands of Jews who, unlike Wasp elites of old, will not tolerate any criticism of them. Jews say we must condemn 'white nationalism' but ignore the fact that 'white nationalism', like other forms of nationalism, is a reaction to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews in media say they are going to do to white people what they did to Palestinians -- replace them permanently -- , of course nationalism against Jewish supremacism is going to be a response. Jews claim that they stand for a polyglot multi-cultural society against 'white supremacism', but Jewish vision of Diversity isn't about all peoples sharing power equally and proportionately. No, it's about Jews at the top using the Diverse Mass against white people. It's like British using their multi-colored troops to put down national resistance in the colonies. If Jews were truly for equality and proportionality, they would be pushing for a New Social Order in which Jews own only 2% of wealth, 2% of media, 2% of Wall Street, 2% of Hollywood, 2% of gambling, 2% of Silicon Valley, 2% of Law firms, and etc. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population. But Jews never seem alarmed by the fact the the 2% is gaining more of the wealth, privilege, and power. So, Jewish opposition to white nationalism is to protect Jewish supremacism. Jews seek to use Diversity to create divisions against goyim so that the 98% won't be able to unite against the 2% that rules the West.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.

If Trump is an intensification of the worst impulses of neoliberal order, why are Jews and Deep State so angry at him and even cooked up Russia Collusion nonsense to derail him? If neoliberals are all about greed, why do they oppose Trump's wish for peace with Russia? It will mean more business opportunities for US corporations and businessmen? NeoLiberal is Judeo-Hegemonic, and Jews put their identity and power above all things. The fact is the US is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth. So, when Trump says he is a nationalist, it is a green light for other nations to follow suit. Neoliberals hate this because their increased profits depend on Free Trade Globalism. Also, Jewish supremacism depends on suppression of national identity and pride in goy nations, esp white ones. Money isn't everything, and Jews know this. Germany is the biggest and richest nation in Western Europe, but it is politically among the weakest. Why? It's nationalism and identity have been totally suppressed by Shoah-Worship and German Guilt. So, Jews can run circles around Germany despite its great wealth. In contrast, Hungary, though much smaller and poorer, has pride of identity, and that makes it difficult for the likes of Soros to run roughshod over it. It's not only about money and class. Jews know that national identity is the most unifying force in a nation. Indeed, even a poor backward nation like Vietnam was able to expel a superpower like the US because of the power of nationalism. Rich people, middle people, and poor people can become one under nationalism. Even socialism works best along with nationalism. Nationalism breeds trust and shared sense of destiny. Socialism works better within homogeneity than amidst diversity where some groups feel they are being robbed by others. Because socialism works best within the national framework, the fascist-socialism is the best kind. Sweden's success didn't owe to democracy or liberalism. It owed to homogeneity, intelligence, trust, and unity of rich-middle-and-poor. But look how the social fabric and social welfare in that country is beginning to fray with Diversity Invasion that fills the nations with leeches.

Trump and Bolsonaro are not logical CONCLUSIONS of the world order. They are limbo-figures. What they stand for is inconclusive and contradictory, not least because the nations they rule over are now so diverse, fractured, and messy. Trump has been all over the map, partly due to his impetuous nature but also due to Deep State obstacles that have sabotaged his plans for making up with Russia, ending war in Syria, and erecting a wall along the border. Because of these pressures, Trump has been forced to be even tougher on Russia to prove he's not a Russian agent.
While the super-rich may prefer Trump's tax cuts, they are not just about money. Most of the super-rich hate Trump because they are either Jewish and/or Globalist. Jews hate Trump for reviving nationalism(that may stand in the way of Jewish supremacism), and globalists like Bezos hate Trump because they are post-national and see the entire globe as their oyster for the taking. A nation, even a nation as big as the US, is too small for their scope and ambition.

Do the globo-oligarchs prefer 'fascists' like Trump and Bolsonaro over true socialists? Maybe, but keep in mind that Bernie Sanders stood with the globalist oligarchs against Trump in 2016. Also, Sanders seems to be just as anti-Russia and anti-Syria. So, is Sanders really a Socialist First or Zionist First? As for Jeremy Corbyn, the Establishment's opposition to him has little to do with his economic policies. The Power knows they can always pull the strings and manipulate things to rein in socialism no matter who wins. The reason for all the ire against Corbyn has been his pro-Palestinian stance. Most media are owned or financed by Jews. If Corbyn just played at being socialist and waved the Israeli flag, Jews would be seeing him as their boy. But Corbyn has often sided with Muslims and Palestinians, and this pissed off Jews. British Jewish elites pushed mass-immigration-invasion into the UK to use non-whites against whites. The Jewish narrative was 'we noble Jews and you noble colored against those evil racist whites'. But Corbyn listened to Muslims who said, "Racist Jews are killing Arabs and waging evil wars in the Middle East" and agreed, even if mildly. And that set off the media firestorm against him.
So, what do Corbyn and Trump have in common despite their different economic theories? They are both hated by Jews. Jews hate Trump for igniting 'white nationalism'(against Jewish supremacism), and Jews hate Corbyn for supporting Palestinian nation-hood(against Zionist supremacism). The failure to mention the Jewish Power in this is either a blindspot or craven cowardice on the part of Jonathan Cook.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US... Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule.

Hugo Chavez became virtual dictator. He rose through army ranks, and he used cronies in the military to back him. The reason why his successor is still in power is due to strong-arm tactics. Also, Chavezism failed for two reasons. Total dependence on high oil prices and promising freebies to masses of Diversity. Even as Chavez railed at Uncle Sam, his nation's economy depended totally on American capitalism. Without US consumers buying Venezuelan oil, there was no economy to speak of. Also, Venezuela is a low-trust and low-talent society. All that race-mixing led to too much low IQ and high-impulse African genetics. And, Diverse societies lack trust. White elites in Venezuela don't feel a common bond with the masses. And mixed-race people are confused in identity and feel nothing in common with native Indians. With such low talent, its economy depended on selling oil. And when oil prices were high, Chavez could dole out freebies to the masses to gain popularity. But he did nothing to expand industry or encourage enterprise. When oil prices plummeted, the whole thing collapsed. Socialism only works in tandem with nationalism and productive capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth that can be taxed. No taxation, no socialism. Communism was about all the economy run by the state, and that was one huge failure. Also, socialism requires trust. People must think in terms of paying into the system and getting things back. In low trust societies, people try to pay nothing in while getting everything out. Now, a homogeneous people can be lacking in trust too. Look at Greek national character(though, to be sure, Greeks are much mixed due to endless invasions). But diversity makes it even worse. This is why any socialist who rejects capitalism and nationalism isn't for real. Socialism must rely on healthy capitalism that can be taxed. Socialism must maintain national unity that allows for trust and common bonds. This is why Swedish socialist policies must be for Swedish. If Swedes conquered Poland and Hungary and tried to maintain socialism for all three peoples, it'd be a mess as there would be too many divisions. How did Soviet socialism work throughout its vast diverse empire? Non-Russians got tired of Russian imperialism, and Soviet elites got sick of providing free stuff to an empire of leeches who did minimal work but demanded maximal benefits.

The real problem of Latin America isn't socialism or lack of socialism. It's diversity. Socialists will say all the world will become nice if they adopt Swedish social democracy, and libertarians blame the failure of Detroit on 'socialism' of the Democratic Party. It's all BS. Swedish social democracy worked for Sweden due to its racial, social, and cultural factors. Sweden will fail as it fills up with Diversity. Its social democracy will not work in an African nation with too many contentious tribes, low IQ, and lack of cultural capital. But then, libertarianism will also fail in places like Detroit because blacks are predisposed by genetics to be wild and crazy. Yes, that is race-ist but race-ism is truth. Races evolved differently to have different talents. Blacks are talented at chucking spears at hippos and running from them. They didn't evolve for civilization. They were not domesticated by evolution. Bringing them inside civilization is like bringing in coyotes and badgers into the house. They still got the wild genes.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America.

What about Cuba? Castro gained total power, and while the Cold War was on, the Soviet Union provided it with generous subsidies. But what did Castro create? Nothing. His entire economy depended on freebies provided by the Soviet Union.
There are good things about capitalism and socialism, and societies need combination of both, but Cook's worldview is simply, "It failed because socialism wasn't allowed to take over totally." Has he forgotten about how the Chinese rejected Maoism? How the Soviet Union collapsed? Communism doesn't work. Also, history teaches us that capitalism isn't a universal panacea either. While capitalism allows for great freedom and opportunity in business, it is also fiercely competitive, and some nations are bound to do better than others(or some groups in any nation are bound to do better than others). So, Hindus are far more adept at business than blacks in Africa. Chinese, with their generally higher-IQ population, have done better with capitalism, along with Japanese. In contrast, low-IQ nations failed with capitalism. Chinese have also done much better under capitalism than the native populations of Philippines and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, socialism isn't some panacea. I know socialists feel justified in pontificating about it because socialism is about 'social justice', but the world doesn't work simply on the basis of chest-thumping 'good will' and 'righteousness'. The fact is too many Latin American nations are too diverse, too divided, too low in IQ, and etc. to succeed with either capitalism or socialism. So, both libertarians and socialists are wrong when they apply their theories on the global scale. The best that such nations can hope for is a kind of humanist national neo-fascism where elites instill the people with some positive national character. It won't fix problems overnight but can set the nation forth on a sound long-term path that favors the right kind of genes and habits. Bolsonaro isn't such a character because he's essentially a lout.

Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

It's about the Jews. Jews hate Corbyn because he's pro-Palestinian. It's not about socialism. Jews and British oligarchs don't fear socialism because they can easily pull strings to undermine it, like they've done under both Blair and Cameron. What they can't stomach is how Corbyn gave moral support to Palestinians and Muslims opposed to Neocon wars. That is the good side of Corbyn. And his socialism isn't bad either. But he too is an idiot because he's for mass colonization of UK by Africans and Muslims. Ironically, even as he denounces Zionist colonization of West Bank, he totally supports the Third World colonization of the UK. This is why being a socialist isn't enough. One must be a social-nationalist.

Finally, the problem of putting socialism or class consciousness at the center of meaning is that class is too fluid. Consider all the immigrants in the US who began on the bottom but whose children rose to the top. If someone has a working-class father but becomes a rich person, what should be his 'class consciousness'? There are legit class interests, but class is not a deep identity(and ever-changing along with technology). Also, a society cannot function with a single class; communism tried to utter failure. It's natural to have several classes(and many sub-classes) due to differences in talent and specialization of tasks. So, how can the various classes co-exist and cooperate? With nationalism. Nationalism instills the elites with the sense that the masses are part of the national family to guide than merely economic units to exploit. And nationalism instructs the masses that the rich elites are okay as long as they use their wealth and talent for the good of the national community.
But globalism undermined this. Globo-elites, libertarian or proggy, pretend to care for ALL humanity, but that is of course impossible. So, they end up making noises but doing nothing except fill their own pockets... like Bono. It's like a parent who neglects his own children by pontificating that he loves all the children in the world. All talk, no walk.

The best societies are ones where socialism serves nationalism. The cooperation among the classes based on shared identity, trust, and culture of responsibility. Globalism and Diversity undermine all this.