https://www.unz.com/ishamir/america-repeats-russian-follies/
Far from feeling hostility, for many years (at least since the early sixties) Russians considered the US a model to follow. Nikita Khrushchev, the powerful ruler (1953-1964) who ditched Stalin and removed his remains from the Mausoleum on the Red Square, was fascinated with the US. He imported US corn (maize) and considered this American staple the key to Soviet prosperity. Those were the days Russia discovered jazz.
Surely, the Soviet elites and Soviet youths were fascinated with different features of Americanism. Leaders and managers were impressed with American industry, enterprise, and engineering. The youths were into American popular culture. But even in the US, there was a division as well as a connection between industry and leisure. Industry had roots in Protestant Work Ethic, self-restraint, discipline, organization, moderation, and delaying gratification. In contrast, especially with the rise of youth culture in the Rock n Roll Fifties, the new expression among the young was "Let's Live for Today", a variation of the Negro "Let the Good Times Roll". The American Sixties mocked the 'conformist' Fifties. Hippies gave the middle finger to the military-industrial complex, good ole patriotism, and the traditional family. And blacks rose up and burned US cities and triggered mass white flight from.
The mantra of the youth culture was, "We wanna be young forever and don't want to be like our parents with their middle class 9 to 5 jobs." Like Dustin Hoffman's character in THE GRADUATE says, he wants to be different. It went from THE WILD ONE(where normal small town folks are the good people harassed by bikers as neo-barbarian outlaws who need some taming) to EASY RIDER(where drug-dealing bikers are the good guys searching for truth whereas the small town folks in the South are vicious redneck villains). Youth culture merged with the anti-war movement, giving the impression that the New Culture was anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-bourgeois. But was it truly leftist? Not in the classic sense because much of youth culture and counterculture was based on consumption of capitalist products like TV shows, youth fads, Rock music, and other forms of pop behavior. As it was said of the May 68 Movement in France, it spoke Marxism but drank Coca-Cola and wore Blue Jeans. The hippies were likely to have posters of both Che Guevara and the Beatles. In a way, it didn't make much sense. Guevara and Viet Cong were about discipline, organization, self-sacrifice, and sober commitment to the revolution. In contrast, Beatles, Beach Boys, and the Rolling Stones were about having fun and leisure made possible only by industrial civilization of capitalism. Hippies could be merry pranksters because they could afford vans mass-manufactured in factories. Youths could put off growing up because there was an over-abundance of food and other products; unlike youths in the past, they could put off the future and live it up.
But many in the Capitalist West feared that the fruits of capitalism would rot from too much leisure and self-indulgence. Many felt that the Communist East would eventually win. Not because communism was more productive but because capitalist prosperity fostered decadence, narcissism, hedonism, immaturity, and impossible expectations. The spartans would defeat the athenians. And when US couldn't prevail over rice-and-rat eating Viet Cong, the morale sunk further in the West. But the 60s generation eventually had to grow up and be productive. Also, the ever-adaptive and fluid character of capitalism found a way to incorporate 'youth rebellion' and 'leftist subversion' and turn them into corporate brands. New Capitalism would stress rewards than virtue. The capitalism that was rooted in the Protestant Work Ethic stressed the virtue of hard work, sobriety, saving, delaying gratification, and long-term planning. The new capitalist 'ethos' was 'get paid, get laid'. The danger of Dionysianism was lack of focus and discipline in favor of fun and pleasure; but, it could be made to fuel ambition and industry if a shameless society told everyone, "It's glorious to be stinking filthy rich." In earlier times, there was always a sense of capitalism being sinful, greedy, and dirty. This owed to Christian influence, especially the puritanical kind. So, capitalism back then had to be justified as a means of hard work, saving, and using wealth for social good. Also, the rich were less ostentatious, especially in Protestant countries. It was seen as bad form to show off one's wealth. When rich Americans displayed their wealth more conspicuously in the late 19th century, it was called the 'Gilded Age' and the oligarchs were called 'robber-barons', and there was a backlash.
There was a fusion of Dionysianism and capitalism in the Jazz Age and Weimar Period of the 1920s, but the Great Depression and the sacrifices demanded by World War II sobered up the elites and masses again. The Depression led both FDR and Adolf Hitler to power. During the New Deal, capitalism had to be revised and justified on moral grounds. And during WWII, capitalism was redeemed a force of patriotism. During the Cold War, capitalism was made synonymous with democracy and the free world in a struggle against communist tyranny.
But with the rising Middle Class and the explosion of youth culture, capitalist ethos underwent a fundamental transformation. It faced the danger of being seen as the enemy of youthful spirit and mini-revolutions unleashed by the Counterculture. It was the Power of the Man. It feared being associated with the norms of earlier times. It didn't want to be seen as 'square' and 'lame', or 'bourgeois'. So, capitalist 'ethos' went from the Apollonian to the Dionysian model. Capitalism figured that the masses could be made to work hard not for greater virtue and saving but for more vice and spending. "Work harder, get paid more, get laid more." The people in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET are indeed motivated to work harder and longer... in expectation of more drugs, more women, more fun. There are already signs of this in Billy Wilder's THE APARTMENT.
The US military followed a similar trajectory. During the Vietnam War, the rock-and-youth culture seemed antithetical to military discipline and organization. The military didn't know what do about young men in Vietnam who were more into smoking dope than shooting guns.
Ultimately, youthful Rock n Roll mindset was incorporated into military 'ethos'. Rejigger war as a grand Wagnerian Rock and Roll spectacle. We Will We Will Rock You. Shock and Awe. In JARHEAD, we see the military use a scene from APOCALYPSE NOW as pep rally for war. In a way, youth culture was rebellious, but it also made young people more immature and easily manipulable, like dogs. While John Wayne war movies like SANDS OF IWO JIMA is no great work of art, they make the viewer focus on stories and characters. Same goes for TWELVE O CLOCK HIGH. In contrast, New Hollywood made violence far more immediate, visceral, and spectacular. So, even an ostensibly 'anti-war' movie is more exciting than old pro-war movies. And the thrilling moments can be screened to soldiers to pump up their fighting spirit. Like Rock n Roll. The Clash was a leftist rock band, but 'Rock the Casbah' became the anthem of American Soldiers bombing and invading the Middle East.
Even when Ron Kovic joined the military, it wasn't for fun and good times. He joined to serve his nation, to be a patriot and hero. It was a self-sacrificing act. Today, soldiers still get killed and many end up maimed, but the idea is the military is a fun, cool place to be. Recruitment centers bait young men with video games. And the military serves much better food, even lobsters. And if you get killed, family gets big bucks to blow at Las Vegas.
Anyway, the US found a way to fuse hard-work mentality with house-party mentality. No more need to appeal to virtue, dignity, and sacrifice to make people work harder. No more talk of saving money to take care of your family. Just appeal to how they're gonna have more money, spend more money on fun stuff, and come closer to living like their favorite skank-ass celebrities. And there is always debt and more debt. But can this last forever? While more fun is an effective incentive to make people work more, it degrades morals, souls, and families, and that means more kids will grow up in dysfunctional environments. Also, when a society has gotten so permissive, more fun isn't as enticing anymore. There are tattoos, piercings, video-games, gambling, pornography, hook-up sex, countless TV shows, free music, and etc. easily accessible all over. At least in the 70s and 80s, teens had to flip burgers to make extra money to buy records and go to movies. Now, some young slob can sit at home and get all the free music and free movies he or she wants. And many young skanks can make easy money by showing their bare butts on some internet sites. And when so many are taking drugs, legal or illegal, they may be further sapped in energy. Dionysianism has failed all those children of parents ruined by or dead from opioids and other drugs.
They can’t possibly understand why this great civilization is committing suicide; but then, who does?
America is not a great civilization. It is a great experimentation. As a civilization, it is an outgrowth of European History, mainly that of Anglos and Germans(and Irish). Anglos laid the foundation, Germans did much of the hard work, and Irish did much of the dirty work. Negroes in the South did a lot of the hard work too, but unlike Germans, Negroes are worthless when left to their own devices. Germans have an inner-overseer. There doesn't have to be an overseer to whip them and say, "work harder, you Kraut". They have an internal overseer or inner-seer who guides them to work and be disciplined. In contrast, unless an overseer is threatening blacks with the whip and calling them 'no good lazy ni**er', blacks just want to go jungle-boogie mode and tear things apart(as they done in Detroit and so many places).
America is both a continuation of Western Civilization and a break. This break led to a grand experimentation that resulted in many fruits, often as poisonous as sweet.
Americans as individuals were freer to pursue whatever works. They were more pragmatic and result-oriented. There was less sentimentality about the past and less reactionary forces to hamper the advancement of whatever worked better. This led to rapid advances in technology and industry. But this relentless American pursuit of the 'better' was more questionable in other fields, especially pertaining to pleasure. Pursuit of Happiness could be a positive thing. But so often, what offers immediate pleasure comes with dangers. The Protestant Work Ethic mentality and Christian morality once served to counterbalance the primacy of pleasure. But as social restraints eased through the years, the pursuit of better-pleasure led to the rise of ever more licentious pop culture and social attitudes that, though 'liberating' in the short term, had long-term negative consequences. But because of the popularity and profitability of the 'better' in entertainment, the norm spread worldwide and has become global. Rap music is a good example. As most people are dolts, they find immediate pleasure in rap culture. Michio Kaku praises it as an example of global culture. But what is its effect on the souls of youths? It's utterly degrading. A world full of youths yapping like moronic ghetto jivers in da hood? This is progress? Seeking the better in science/technology and the higher(or deeper) in the arts/culture is surely different from seeking the 'better' in pop culture and lifestyle. (But then, the advancement in science leads to more technological ease of access in pursuit of pleasure. Paradoxically, achievements of higher intelligence encourage more mass stupidity. Video-games are more advanced than ever but people who obsess over them are more immature than ever. Smart phones have created an army of dummies. Smart people know that most people are dumb, and so new technology must cater to mass-stupidity for mega-profits, which explains all those superhero comic book movies. Lots of high-tech wizardry in service of utter nonsense.) And yet, they all have something in common in that they're part of the American obsession with unfettered pursuit of the better. In some cases, there is better truth and better depravity as a unity, as in PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT. Philip Roth was artist enough to bare his soul and explore his psycho-cultural self. But what does it say about humanity if the light at the end of the tunnel is 'boing'?
Anyway, because America is an experimentation than a civilization, it can go terrifically well or spectacularly wrong. In some ways, it's more dangerous than in Russia. Russia had deep civilization prior to the Revolution, and this civilization persisted through the Revolution and outlasted it. But because America is an experimentation, when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong and there isn't much to fall back on.
Now, America could have developed as a civilization IF it put race, history, and identity above ideas, ideology, and 'values'. And there was a time when America was gloriously race-ist and laying the foundation of a race-based civilization. But in the end, largely due to neo-puritanical preference for principles & values, the impact of mass-immigration, rise of Jewish Power, and white 'guilt' & 'fever' about blacks, the bedrock of white race-ism crumbled away, and Americans came to defend, justify, and promote their country as an experiment in ideas and 'values' than as a unique civilization. Or, in one of the great ironies, Americans came to claim that what was unique about Americanism was its total universality. Anyone can come here and become an Insta-American, and American Values can be spread around the world and people can become Ersatz-Americans in their own nations. Never mind the melting pot; America became a pop-tart. In time, this vision of a nation as an experiment in ideas than a civilization with roots & culture took hold in Western Europe as well, which is why Ireland is now a New-York-San-Fran wanna-be. And it is also the future of Poland as idiot Poles have the Polish Disease and feel inferiority complex as Slavs associated with those 'Oriental Despotic' Russians and desperately want to win approval from the 'more evolved' West that is now all about globo-homo and Negro-worship.
But, this experiment-uber-civilization didn't happen overnight. The Nixon and Reagan landslides from late 60s to the 80s suggest that there was a silent-majority of America as a mostly normal white Christian majority nation-state. The sentiments were there even if inchoate and vaguely articulated. Back then, the insane experiments of the Counterculture could be weathered because the US still had many older folks who came of age in a more civilizational America. Though George McGovern was a decent man, his support from freaks and weirdos got a big NO from the American People. But fast-forward to today, and all the older folks from the Nixon era are dead and gone. And the 'Greatest Generation' are dropping dead like flies or are senile. Today, the boomers are the old folks, and their formative experience was pop-culture-as-main-culture. They aged badly and ungracefully. Compare boomer Jews with older generation of Jews who were more serious. Whatever one thinks of George H.W. Bush, he was a better man than his clownish sons. Billy Boy Clinton? Hillary? Trump and Biden? With elders like these, who need immature punks?
In a way, PC was a continuation of boomer culture and a rebellion against it. It was the product of the 'long march through the institutions' by the boomers but also a Generation X rebellion against what they perceived to be boomer slovenliness, sloppiness, and excesses. Many of the X-generation felt things had to be cleaned up. Gentrification of neighborhoods also led to gentrification of ideas and speech. Of course, there are two sides to PC. One aspect emphasizes niceness, i.e. we should watch what we say to get along better. But another aspect of PC is aggressive and actually urges certain groups to be nasty in order to be 'authentic'. So, blacks must be enraged, homos should be fuming(more often than flaming), Jews should be pushy & obnoxious, and yellows/browns/hindus/etc. should take cues from Jews and hate on whitey; and 'good' whitey should be nasty toward 'bad' whitey deficient in 'white guilt'.
Granted, the seeds of global experimentalism were in the concept of civilization itself. In its emphasis on the city and its connections to other cities around the world, the civilizational ideal de-emphasized the link between city folks(especially the elites) and their roots in the countryside, their bond with common folks, & deep sense of culture. So, the Civilization vs Kultur conflict in the 19th century.
With boomers as the elders, with PC as the reigning ideology, and with Jews-Negroes-Homos as the official idolatry of the US, is there anything remaining of the vestiges of American Civilization? Even so-called 'conservatives' are apt to say American Values or Western Civilization are not about people, race, culture, or heritage. Rather, they're just a set of ideas and values. But this is stupid. If one defines a civilization by its ideas and values, is America not America if democracy were to be replaced by autocracy? Was America not American when it had slavery? Was Germany not part of Western Civilization when under National Socialists? Were the Middle Ages not part of Western Civilization because it was semi-theocratic and had no use for liberal-secular values?
Also, if ideas and values define Western Civilization, then all the world is part of Western Civilization because they've adopted so much from the West. There are parts of India and China, even Iran, where a white Westerner can go and find much that is familiar and in line with the Western lifestyle.
Look at most American youths, and they have no sense of history or roots. The entirety of their mindset revolves around the two PC's of Political Correctness and Pop Culture. For many young people, the defining 'identity' is as potheads. They belong to the nation of grass and the memory of Bob Marley & Jerry Garcia. Many Antifa types only know drug culture and 'ideas' they gleaned from Kurt Cobain, The Clash, Rage against the Machine, and Tranny-mania. Their mentality is entirely experimental without any vestiges of the civilizational, let alone kultural. And US 'conservatives' aren't much better. Their idea of 'conservatism' is 'money is good'. Notice their total subservience to Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Big Tech even as they spread degeneracy and shut down genuinely conservative voices.
Russians perceived the US as a dynamic and orderly society, allowing ample space for individualism, seeding its pop culture and making no ideological demands. This last quality was so attractive to Russians that they enshrined it in their new post-Soviet constitution...
Even when the new orthodoxy was already forming in the US, but it took a few years until an awareness of this change seeped into Russian minds. By 2010, the Russians were so free of ideological limitations that Westerners could no longer even grasp the shocking possibilities.
And yet, it was American dynamism and individualism that led to the current state of affairs: The Rise of the New Idolatry. It's wrong to believe that the US became increasingly ideological under PC. Rather, it became more idolatrous, which is the true underpinning element of PC and 'wokeness'. There are two meanings to individualism, one humanist and the other narcissist. They are apposite and opposite. The humanist idea of individualism says that each individual is deserving of basic dignity, freedom, and set of rights. No matter how humble you are, you should be free and responsible for what you do. This has been the good side of American individualism. But there is another side to individualism, often associated with celebrity, wealth, glamour, and etc. This leads to idol-worship of certain individuals as demigods, the new royalty, the superduper heroes, or awesome beings. Take the Elvis Cult. Or Beatlemania. The worship of Jerry Garcia. The mindless adulation of Michael Jackson when he died. Chris Hedges calls it the 'empire of illusion'. In a way, it's about individualism as the classic American success story. Elvis, a truck driver, becomes a great star, makes millions, and becomes idolized by millions of fans. But if one person can become so great an individual, it means other individuals are losers and nobodies who exist only to idolize the super-stars. It is a kind of imperial-individualism founded on vanity, narcissism, and egotism(even megalomania). It is what Pier Paolo Pasolini warned as 'consumist fascism', the tendency of capitalism to make the masses idolize the rich, famous, and glamorous as super-human and to pathetically ape their image and style. Rather than being content with oneself as a human with dignity, one fixates on the super-stars and dreams that he/she can be a mini-mussolini as pop idol. This is the Trumpian Irony. He came to political prominence as the champion of the little guy. He said while the Hillary Campaign was about "I with Her", his is about "I'm with You". But Trump would be nothing if not for his celebrity, riches, and sham-glam antics. He is an American Idol.
How did imperial-individualism shape current PC and 'wokeness'? How did it lead to the Tri-Supremacism of Jews, Homos, and Negroes? It's simple. Jews are rich, smart, & powerful, therefore objects of awe to anyone who aspires to be successful. Even Trump relied on Jewish connections to make his billions. Jews favored the homos, and besides, homos are creative and stylish, and this has great appeal in a capitalist world that is obsessed with vanity, narcissism, fashion, and the image. People, especially women, can't get enough of 'gay' froopy-doopery because it's associated with dressing well and looking good. And Negroes dominate sports, music, and sex culture, what most Americans are obsessed with. Because Jewish individuals succeeded in business & brains, homo individuals succeeded in arts & fashion, and because black individuals succeeded in sports, funky music, & sex, their imperial-individualism have turned them into godlike beings worthy of worship.
There is no real ideological underpinning to PC and 'wokeness'. If PC is really about equal justice, one of the main moral themes would be, "We need to treat Palestinians and Jews equally in foreign affairs." But where do you see anyone saying "Palestinian Lives Matter"? And if 'marriage equality' is so crucial, shouldn't there be calls for Same-Family Marriage(or incest-marriage), and polygamy? Yet, most people are not interested because incest-sexuals and polygamists are hardly fashionable. Also, they have no support from Jews and powerful groups. (Trannies, in contrast, have come far because of support from homos who are supported by Jews. And pedo-sexuals have made more strides than incest-sexuals and polygamists because there are elements in the Jewish and homo community that are into child-sex.)
So, if we connect the dots, a strain of American Individualism led to the current PC, which is more about idolatry or 'idology' than ideology. In foreign affairs, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jews?" And we must all serve Jews because they are so rich, smart, and awesome. Both political parties are all about Jews, Jews, Jews. Biden and Trump compete to suck the Jewish dong. If PC were truly for equal justice and anti-imperialist, it should demand that the US leave Syria. But PC folks have done everything to hamper Trump's effort to leave Syria because Jews want US to remain and undermine Assad. When PC is predicated on appeasing certain groups than applying moral logic to world affairs, it is not about ideology. Same with BLM. If PC is truly ideological and predicated on racial justice for all, it would condemn not only white bigotry but black thuggery that does harm to so many non-black groups, as well as to other blacks. But blacks are sacred, blacks are cool, blacks are badass. So, one must never criticize blacks or condemn their behavior. Even when blacks do wrong, we must rationalize and find excuses for black pathology, such as 'systemic racism'.
Now, why do Jews and blacks have such power? Because so many Jews and blacks have succeeded as imperial-individuals. GOP officials kowtow at the feet of billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer. So many Americans worshiped Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson. Naturally, narcissistic form of individualism had the effect of lionizing certain individuals who happened to be Jewish or black. This turned so many people into mindless Philo-Semites and/or Philo-Negroids. And no one dares to blame the HIV crisis on homo behavior because homos are so very holy. Why does the Pope refuse to judge the homos and even speak in favor of 'gay marriage'(so-called 'civil union' is just path to 'gay marriage') when he surely objects to incest-sexuals and same-family-marriage? It's because the current pope-a-dope is likely a closet-fairy or some shallow idolater of whatever is fashionable. Still, the vaunted status of Jews, blacks, and homos owes to their success as imperial-individuals in key fields. This is especially due to the factor of psychological association. While it's true that the success of Michael Jordan or Michael Bloomberg doesn't mean that all blacks are good at sports or all Jews are good at wealth creation, when enough blacks or Jews become dominant in a certain field, public psychology begins to feel awe for that group as a whole. "Jews are so smart". "Blacks are good at basketball." And such mass perceptions pave the way for idol-worship.
Of course, there is also the factor of the Holocaust, Black Slavery, and past 'homophobia', but none of these guilt-trips would amount to much without the success of Jews, blacks, and homos. If Jews had an average IQ of 90s and dominated nothing, the Holocaust would now be a footnote in history books. Holocaust is seen as tragic because GREAT JEWS were killed. And if blacks sucked at sports & pop music and didn't excite whites with jungle fever, most people would yawn about slavery and Jim Crow. White people would feel, "So, a bunch of losers picked cotton and had to drink from another water fountain. Big freaking deal." It's like no one cares about Jim Crowitz in the West Bank because Palestinians are regarded as 'losers'. Most people think of Ukrainians and Arabs as losers, so who cares if millions of Ukrainians died in the Great Famine or if hundreds of thousands of Arabs perished as the result of Wars for Israel. That the biggest victims of American History, the American Indians, hardly get any love is testament to the lack of moral logic in PC and the power of imperial-individualism in determining which groups receive the most awe and admiration.
The lesson for Russians is that they should embrace humanist-individualism but be wary of narcissistic-individualism or imperial-individualism. Given human nature, people are hardwired to idolize others as stars, celebrities, heroes, and the like. I mean, what Russian doesn't look up to Alexander Karelin as a 'national hero' for scaring wrestlers around the world half-to-death? Still, this mustn't be allowed to become cancerous. The problem of capitalism is it's an never-ending hype-machine. Under communism, there were famous actors and athletes who were much beloved, but there was a limit to their fame, fortune, and glory. In communist Cuba, athletes win medals for the nation, for the people. It's not just about me, me, me. But under capitalism, the imperial-individual becomes a superstar and there is no limit to his/her fame, fortune, and idolatry. This leads to the sick culture of celebrity-obsession.
Jews weren’t a problem either, for the majority of Russian Jews had already emigrated to Israel or to America, while those that remained in Russia were the assimilated children of mixed marriages.
While many Russian Jews may cause little problem, Jewish Globalist Power has been a huge bane on the Russian nation. It goes back to the Bolshevik Revolution. Then, it returned with the Globalsheviks in the 90s who were about gangster-capitalism than communism. And all the sanctions and encirclement of Russia have been engineered by World Jewry. The fact that Jews openly and rabidly defame and smear Russia while Putin and Russian government must either keep mum or praise Jews/Israel is downright insulting to Russian dignity and pride. Jews pulled off the foul Russian Collusion Hoax, but Putin can't even say, "The damn Jews done it". That is shameful. Jews can be rabidly and virulently hateful toward Russians, but no one better say anything about Jews lest it be ANTISEMITIC! Now, there's no use hating Jews for no reason, but when Jews hate your kind, you should hate them back.
There were no racial tensions; Russia had very few blacks, and they were extremely well treated... People with different ethnicities weren’t discriminated against historically. Tatar and Georgian, Ukrainian and Polish nobles were accepted equally at the Tsar’s Court, and later their representatives sat in Soviet parliament. So while Russians could never understand America’s problem with race, they could always congratulate themselves for being cutting-edge progressives.
This isn't really true. How does one understand so much anti-Russian sentiments among Estonians, Lithuanians, Poles, Georgians, Chechens, and so many groups? And part of the reason why the USSR fell apart was due to increasing ethnic tensions within the empire. Russians got tired of dealing with non-Russians who seemed resentful and parasitic. If all was hunky-dory within the empire, why did the Soviet Union fall apart, as Yugoslavia did as well?
One difference between the US and USSR was the former lacked the totalitarian power to enforce everyone to bow down to the prevailing narrative of harmony among the races. In the US, there was far more freedom for Jews, blacks, and white masochists to call attention to social injustice. Especially as Jews took control of the media, the powers-that-be could make everyone more aware of race problems and get upset. In contrast, even though racial and ethnic tensions did exist in the USSR, the state had total power and could enforce everyone to go along with the narrative that all groups were equal, happy, and harmonious. In the US, Jews and blacks had the power to organize on their own and cause problems. In the USSR, if any ethnic group wanted to set up a Civil Rights Organization and criticize Russian chauvinism or the Communist Party, it would have been crushed. The same was true in Yugoslavia under communist rule. Everyone had to agree that everyone got along well with all others and that there were no ethnic tensions; they were all happy comrades under the sun. If Anglo-Americans had totalitarian power in the US, they could have used police-state tactics to suppress outward signs of racial tensions. It could have compelled the likes of MLK, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton to say, "America be da best country in da world, and white folks good and we all be gittin' along cuz da constitution say we be free and equal, and dat must be cuz da white man say so, and who we Negroes to say otherwise?"
At any rate, given the BAMMAMA factor(blacks are more muscular and more aggressive), the one great advantage that Europe had over the Americas was NO NEGROES. Russia could afford to treat its blacks nice because there were so few of them. But when blacks reach critical mass in demographics, they're trouble. Europe, despite WWI, WWII, and Communism, was a blessed place in having virtually no blacks, whereas the US, though rich and powerful, was burdened with a large presence of the most savage and monstrous race. But Western Europe gave up this advantage by letting in tons of black savages. Poland will likely follow suit as it suffers from the Polish Disease. Will Russia also follow suit? The problem with blacks is it doesn't take too many to undermine the system. It would take a lot of Chinese or Turks in Russia to cause problem. But even a few blacks can lead to disaster because blacks succeed in sports and undermine national idols. As people are so obsessed over sports, black faces in sports means the populace may come to accept and admire blacks as 'our heroes'. This weakens their resolve against black immigration. I mean, how can they say NO MORE to blacks when their heroes are black? This will be the undoing of Japan where black athletes are taking over. Same could happen to Russia, so Russians need to wake up to the Negro threat. Jews and Negroes are alike in that only a small number can do great damage. Even a small number of Jews can fleece an entire economy, as they did in Russia in the 90s. And even a few blacks can topple the native-national heroes in sports. Look at the UK. It used to have white boxing champions. Even if they lost to US blacks, they were national heroes. But now, blacks dominate sports in UK and France, and whites cuck to Negro Idolatry. When a people idolize members of another race as 'our heroes', they are psychologically finished. Even if Russian athletes aren't the best in the world, Russians need to support their own 'national heroes' and not let the ghastly Negroes take over. Just look at the psychological damage done by black domination of sports in the US. White men are now white boys, sappy cucks to Negro manhood, and white girls are jungle-fever whores.
US ‘wokeness’ is globalist, and is designed to undermine and supplant traditional cultures. However, it seemed at first to be an innocent fashion statement. Russia began to get used to the new crazy standards as though they were any other artefacts of America’s McCulture. The first showdown was over gay pride. Homosexuality is not a part of Russian culture...
Because it is globalist, it isn't really American. Or British, French, Irish, or whatever. Indeed, it wasn't long ago when American, British, French, Irish, and other cultures were resolutely against globo-homo nuttery and especially tranny lunacy. Globo-Homo didn't flow out of national cultures but was imposed on them by the Empire of Judea, or EOJ. So, it is less a case of 'US wokeness' than globalist PC imposed on the US. It's like the British Imperialists imposed reverence for British Queen and Country on the Hindus in India. Hindus on their own wouldn't have fallen for that crap. If the US and other goy nations had proud and independent elites, they could have stood up to Jewish Power and influence. But as goy elites have been colonized(intellectually, financially, and/or politically) by Jewish Power, they feel it is their duty and obligation to serve as proselytizers and enforcers of whatever Jews demand. As the masses are mostly sheeple or easily toppled dominoes, when their elites don't stand up for national values and culture, they just follow along. This was true throughout history. When the Romans defeated the rulers of rival domains, the masses just caved to Roman power. The only exception were Jews. Even though Jewish elites collaborated with the Romans, many Jews took up arms or prophecy to say NO. The difference between Jews and pagans was that most pagan folks had no sense of higher truth/power than of their own rulers. In contrast, Jews believed God was bigger than any bunch of Jewish elites, and they felt betrayed when Jewish elites cut a deal with the Romans. Also, the Jewish Covenant informs every Jew that he is equal in the eyes of God. This is why white folks need to invent their own covenant with the Power. It's been the greatest source of power for the Jews.
An attempt to import #MeToo into Russia was completely unsuccessful. The broad idea of harassment just doesn’t click in Russia. There were no witch-hunts like that of Weinstein, no show trials to entertain the masses.
Even though #MeToo got out of hand, the real outrage was that men like Harvey Weinstein were able to get away with that kind of behavior for so long, especially because Hollywood claims to be so 'progressive' and concerned with women's rights. In truth, Hollywood has been about Jewish Supremacism, and Jewish men and women there didn't care about 'shikse' whores being exploited by men like Weinstein and other nasties. (Hollywood is also where plenty of Jews and pedos exploited children.) Then, why did #MeToo happen? Why did the Power allow the bitches to scream foul about the likes of Weinstein and other Jewish men in the media? It could be that the scandal got so big that even Jewish Power couldn't suppress it any longer. There are limits to everything. It's like Anthony Weiner got so out of control that he had to be abandoned by the Power. But then, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell got away with their perversion for a long long time.
Some believe that the #MeToo movement was an unforeseen byproduct of anti-Trumpism. Jews were so obsessed about smearing Trump as a misogynist that they encouraged feminist fury, but it turned out that many women in Hollywood and media had bad things to say about hornball Jewish men who've been overly grabasstic. It's like Mao failed to foresee that the Hundred Flowers Campaign would get so out of control. Mao expected constructive criticism of the bureaucracy, but as more and more voices piled on, Mao and the entire party apparatus became the target.
Anyway, #MeToo was just a passing fad. So is BLM. Jews see them as attack hounds. Usually, the 'outrages' are kept inside the kennel but, when expedient, unleashed with coordination with deep state, big media, and globalist industry, all of which are controlled by Jews. Same with Covid. Would there have been this hysteria about Covid if Hillary were president? No way. Also, consider the difference between Ferguson and Minneapolis. While it's true that Obama and Eric Holder did play the race card, their thoroughgoing investigation of the Michael Brown case was to reduce racial tensions. They figured that, absent of a total investigation, a lot of blacks will spread the meme of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot". Blacks will say the incident was covered up as just another case of white police brutality. But due to the exacting investigation that interviewed everyone and combed over every piece of evidence, the final conclusion was that Michael Brown did charge the officer who shot in self-defense. But in the case of Minneapolis, there was no attempt by the Power to get to the bottom of what really may have happened. Rather, Jews in media, deep state, and big industry just pushed the 'systemic racism' trope, and it was directed at Trump. Under such circumstances, it was difficult for Trump and Barr to get to the bottom of what really happened. By then, George Floyd wasn't just a 'victim' but saint-angel.
So, how much of this 'wokeness' is a genuine movement with legs of its own? Or is it just a tool of Jews who choose which outrage-dogs to let out? Too much of 'wokeness' falls into the category of "If Jews want it, they get it." If 'wokeness' is truly about social justice and has legs of its own, how come it hasn't led a campaign for PALESTINIAN LIVES MATTER or PLM? How come it doesn't organize mass protests over the blacklisting of BDS? How come it has said nothing about Obama's neo-imperialist destruction of Libya and Syria? How come it doesn't condemn the US's recruitment of quasi-nazi types in Ukraine? It's because such would upset Jews who hold the real puppet-strings of 'wokeness' and steer it toward "Is it good for Jews?" Now, Jews do miscalculate at times, and #MeToo was such, where much of the ire ended up targeting Jewish men. But more often than not, 'wokeness' is about making whites hate themselves and making non-whites hate whites. It's about making people suck up to Jews, homos, and blacks as the idols of Tri-Supremacism. No Jewish Supremacist Power, no 'wokeness'. Even though blacks are often the central actors in the Wokeness Play, the producers behind the scene are mostly Jews.
It appears that Russia and the US have developed in opposite directions, for the folly that Americans embrace today is the same folly Russians embraced and rejected a hundred years ago. After the Great Revolution of 1917, Russians also defaced and removed many memorials of its historical past, but those attacks against history did not last long
No, they are wholly different. Superficially, there are some similarities. But the fundamental differences is sincerity vs cynicism and idealism vs decadence. As dangerous and destructive as the communist revolution was, it was a genuine movement to create a just order and a bright future. It was driven by idealism and commitment, even if of radical and fanatical bent. Whatever one thinks of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and the rest of them, they were true revolutionaries with a messianic view of history. And while Jewish communists may have subconsciously and even consciously had Jewish interests in mind, they were no doubt invested in creating a new future based on Marxist(or Marxist-Leninist) principles. So, even though communist violence was insanely and criminally destructive, one can at least credit the radicals as genuine idealists committed to a real revolution. This cannot be said for what is happening in the West. The power pulling the strings is utterly cynical. It's like George Soros doesn't care about migrants and refugees. If he did, he would use his money to stop the Wars for Israel that led to havoc that unleashed the refugee crisis. No, he is a cynical Jewish Supremacist who is simply seeking to undermine goy white nations to further the interests of Jewish Power. Same is true of globalist Jews who control the West. These people don't really believe homos are holy. They know BLM is utter BS. They know #MeToo bimbos are idiots who played whore to horny men. Their ONLY interests is Jewish Supremacism and personal wealth/power. That's it. And they figure they need to crank out 'wokeness' and other forms of PC to energize blacks and Diversity against whites and to make whites feel more 'white guilt'? Why is this so crucial to Jewish Power? Because Jewish Hegemony depends on Jewish control of white folks, especially Northern European types. Without Jewish control of Northern Europeans, Jewish worldwide hegemony becomes deeply compromised. So unlike Jewish communist leaders of the past who were sincere in their revolutionary commitment, the current bunch of Jewish globalists who fund 'woke' nonsense are cynical Jewish tribal-supremacists who are toying with idiot goyim to boost their own power, wealth, and influence. That is it.
Now, it may be true that the 'woke' footsoldiers on the streets are sincere in their commitment. They are true believers and really mean it. But, they are completely useless as ideologues because there's no rhyme or reason to their various manias, lunacies, and hysterics. A communist, high or low, knows what he is about all the time. But the wokemons have no clue. If the Power says they must be nutty about A, they get nutty about A. If the Power says they must be batty about B, they get batty about B. If the Power says they must be loony about C, they get loony about C. People who never cared about Confederate statues are suddenly overcome with rabid fury to bring them down. People who never cared about trannies are suddenly so sure that a man with balls can be a 'woman', and if you disagree, YOU SUCK! The very people who were okay with Stop-and-Frisk that curtailed black crime are foaming at the mouth about BLM. People who praise pornography, rap machismo, and slut-culture are suddenly shocked, shocked, that Trump said something about 'pussies' or there's misogyny in Hollywood. One day, they are marching with 'pussy hats' or vagina-costumes. Next, they are obsessed with Trump's 'Islamophobia'. These are people who cared nothing about all those Arabs/Muslims killed by Obama and Hillary. So, even if these clowns are sincere, they are more schizoid than ideological. Their minds are like TV-sets that simply pick up and replay signals from central command. They are indeed like NPC's, part of some hive mind.
Whatever one may say of communism, it was a sincere attempt to reform society and change the world. In a way, it was a form of Neo-Protestantism, with Karl Marx as much a modern Martin Luther as the Jewish Prophet of Old. Just like Luther and Protestantism struck at the corrupt, confused, cluttered, and elaborate structures of Catholicism and demanded a faith based on clarity of principles, Marx sought to clarify what History is really about and formulate a theory of justice based on that focused understanding. The Catholic Church was the product of the New Faith merged with paganism, Roman imperialism, contradictory canonical laws, moribund tradition, and obscure rituals. It was so labyrinthine and confusing that the idea was that most people would never understand it; they had to leave it up to the experts, the insiders, the hierarchy. But as far as Luther was concerned, anyone could read the Bible and realize for himself what Jesus and the Apostles really meant. And it was rather clear, not obscure. So, why not do away with the obscurantism and syncretism(with paganism) of the Catholic Church that only fostered confusion, ignorance, and lots of corruption, and instead found a new kind of Christianity based on clarity and principles drawn straight from the source? Likewise, Marx believed that historians and social scientists emphasized too many factors that were either secondary or illusory in the true movement of History. History was really a struggle for power. As the real world is a material one, control of material wealth determines true power. Those with more wealth are of the higher class, those with less wealth are of the lower classes. Then, class conflict is the key to history.
This idea had an impact not unlike Martin Luther's vision of the New Church. In this sense, the Russian Revolution was like a neo-protestant reformation writ large in the East. Russian History and Heritage were rich, varied, deep, multifaceted, and complex. But such layers of thought, values, traditions, and hierarchies also meant that the Russian Idea was never simplified and purified into a consistent principle or shining ideal. There was Christianity that spoke of compassion for the poor, but there was also Tsarism that reduced people to subjects of a tyrant. Did God belong to every man, or was the Tsar chosen by God to be father to his people? Is Russia European or Asiatic? Is it part of Western Civilization or a world unto its own? All this led to richness but also confusion, lethargy, and/or apathy. So, imagine the excitement generated by Marxism that promised to sweep away all the cobwebs of Russian history, culture, and politics. Society would be purified to make way for real reform based on the clear laws of history. Finally, Russians would be liberated and awakened from historical hibernation of Tsarist-Orthodox-Oriental byzantinism.
The hope was that Russia would benefit from communism in the way that the Anglo and Germanic world benefited from the Protestant Reformation. A house-cleaning of History and the Soul. But the Neo-Protestantism of communism had one major flaw. If Anglo Protestantism merged with Anglo Capitalism & the virtue of work ethic and if Germanic Protestantism merged with capitalism & moderate socialism, Russian Neo-Protestantism of Marxism-Leninism merged with communist contempt for property-and-investment economics. Even though Protestantism proscribed excessive individualism and self-indulgence, it provided sufficient leeway for individuals to engage in enterprise and build industry. In contrast, communist Neo-Protestantism totally snuffed out individual enterprise in favor of an economy that would be centrally managed by experts and commissars committed to the Revolution. This could work for huge public projects but was fatal to most forms of economic activity.
Anyway, for the Russkies, the Neo-Protestantism of Marxism-Leninism seemed amazing, at least for a moment. Imagine someone with blurry, fuzzy eyesight who is fitted with a pair of glasses that makes him see things with sudden clarity. Imagine a village shrouded in fog that is suddenly bright under sunlight. Imagine someone feeling hot and heavy under too many layers of clothing who is suddenly stripped down to essentials. Russian history and culture was rich and complex but also heavy and burdensome. At the beginning of the Revolution, the Russian people felt like Atlas with the burden of Heritage lifted from their shoulders. The future promised to be a fast train ride to progress and freedom. (But then, communism turned into another labyrinthine burden on the Russian people.) Despite its ultimate failure, one can understand why communism had such appeal to so many Russians. It was like going from the Old Testament with all its contradictions to the New Testament with consistency of vision and principles.
In contrast, there is nothing in today's PC that is about clarity of vision or purity of purpose. It is a decadent indulgence of freaks, gimps, tards, degenerates, perverts, and etc. It's revolution anime-style, with purple-haired fatso trannies, junkies, hipsters, and Negroes animated not by hunger or justice by 'Muh Air Jordans' and 'Muh X-Box'. It's not about Les Miserables but Les Imbeciles.
For Jews, the communist revolution was their last attempt to merge with rest of humanity. Even though many Jews became rich through capitalism, many Jews hated it as Jews became associated with avarice and greed. Business, high or low, is about haggling, and many young idealistic Jews got tired of being associated with money-grubbing. And yet, they didn't want to be proles either. Communism promised them positions as intellectuals, commissars, scientists, engineers, and managers. A society run by idealists than based on haggling and competition among greedy businessmen. Marx himself said the Jewish Question could only be solved by eradicating capitalism that brought out the worst in Jews. Communism would destroy much of the goy order and goy culture, but it would also entail Jews favoring a new identity of 'comrade' over tribal identity and personal wealth. With communism, Jews would leap at the opportunity they missed in the formation of Christianity that could have merged the Jewish World with the goy world.
And perhaps, Jews might have merged far more with the larger humanity if not for Nazism, Zionism, and Americanism. Nazism led to greater solidarity among Jews and a deep sense of tragedy that made Jews feel obligated to preserve Jewish identity. Zionism and Israeli power made Jews proud of Jewishness as national identity. And Americanism made Jews rethink capitalism. If anti-capitalism and anti-Jewishness had been far more prevalent in Europe — with capitalism often associated with Jewish greed — , capitalism wasn't something to be ashamed of in the US. A rich Jew might feel defensive in Europe as the 'dirty Jew', but a rich Jew in the US could feel pride as a successful businessman. There was far less shame in enterprise and profits in the US. So, if many Jews in Europe felt compelled to forsake capitalism in favor of communism, many Jews in the US indulged in capitalism without inhibition.
Now, Americanism also offered Jews a way to merge with humanity. Jews could choose to be American along with so many other Americans. Jewishness could be secondary or forgotten. But over time, Jews became more mindful of their Jewishness. For one thing, they had less reason to be apologetic for being Jewish in the US. Being a Jew in the US was far less problematic than being a Jew in Europe. And if Jews were anxious about their wealth in Europe, they could be proud of being both Jewish and rich in America. Also, unlike communism that had a leveling effect between the talented and the untalented AND unlike Europe where Jewish advancement was hampered by discrimination & restrictions, Jews in the US were far freer to succeed. This meant that American Jews, in gaining far greater success than other groups, were more likely to swell with Jewish pride and feel contempt for dimwit goyim. At one time, many American Jews sincerely believed in nurture-over-nature, but over the years, Jews realized that nature beats nurture by a mile. Of course, Jews will not admit it, but they KNOW.
But all said and done, Jewish Hegemony owes to Jewish control of Northern European types. Core America was created by Northern Europeans, especially Anglos and Germanics, the two most talented white folks. Jewish Power would have been limited if only latched onto Latins, Slavs, Hungarians, and the like. The white folks that really broke through the sound barrier of history and exploded all over the world are the Anglos and Germanics. Even though Germany failed as a world empire, German-Americans became the backbone of much of US industry and management. Anglos were excellent elites, and Germanics were the best managers and engineers. And Irish were good at doing the dirty work that needed to be done, like being policemen and beating a Negro upside his head when acting crazy.
In a way, the very advantage of Anglos and Germanics made them vulnerable to Jewish manipulation. More scrupulous than most peoples, Anglos and Germanics founded and operated a far cleaner and efficient system based on principles, rights, and rule of law. They were more fastidious and conscientious. This led to more wealth and power for them, and more racial pride in their achievement. But the primacy of rules and principles could mean that smarter Jews could beat them at their own game. Beat Anglos in schools and beat Germans in business. Naturally, Anglos and Germanics reacted with some degree of prejudice, resentment, and discrimination, BUT their commitment to principles and culture of conscience meant that Jews could guilt-bait them for having failed to honor and practice their own rules.
Given that Anglo-Americans had the most power in the US, it's surprising that Jews were more successful against Wasps than against 'micks', 'wops', and the like. Irish were ruffian potato-munchers and not above dirty machine politics to keep the power among their own kin. And if a Jew appealed to Eye-talians for fair play, the 'greaseballs' acted like Joe Pesci in CASINO and told the Jew off. It's like Jimmy and Tommy decide to 'whack' the pestering Jew Morrie in GOODFELLAS. So, Jews could only go so far in organized crime and machine politics. In contrast, Anglos were more committed to fair play and were loathe to be seen as tribal and atavistic. Germans were more volk-oriented(and this accounts for Anglo disdain for Germans in WWI and WWII), but Germanics in the US were happy to play second-fiddle to Anglos and be good citizens. So, Jews could more effectively embarrass and pressure the Anglo elites to clear the way for Jewish success and advancement.
Now, this wouldn't have been so bad if Jews who took over as the elites shared in the same sense of honor and shame. But even as Jews baited Anglo hypocrisy and moral failures, they as the new elites were shameless in their tribalism, supremacism, arrogance, and contempt. Whatever rules that apply to Anglos don't apply to Jews. If anyone criticizes Jewish Power in the way that Jews once did with Anglo power, he is hounded and destroyed as an 'anti-semite'. Bill Buckley for all his duplicity could be shamed into a corner. But forget it with the likes of Jerry Nadler, Chuck Schumer, Alan Dershowitz, and Sabrina Rubin-Erdely. Jews denounce whites for Jim Crow but then compel whites to support Jim Crowitz in West Bank. Jews denounce apartheid South Africa while conveniently overlooking the fact that Israel supplied it with nuclear arms technology whereas Mandela was allied with Arafat and PLO.
In a way, Russian corruption, lethargy, and lack of conscience have a silver lining. Sure, they're a drag on Russian progress and productivity, but it means Russians are less likely to be morally manipulated by Jews. If a Jew goes to an Anglo, "Why didn't you let in Jewish refugees during WWII, the Anglo gets all apologetic and pledges to do all he can to right past wrongs." But if a Jew denounces a Russian for killing all those Chechens, the Russian says, "Maybe too much vodka. I need go sleep." A bear is harder to manipulate than a hound.
It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.
So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.
But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.
Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.
That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.
Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.
Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.
It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.
And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.
Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.
Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.