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/

Dangers of Jewish Ethno-Stalinism or Tribal-Dictatorship — Biggest Contradiction of Current U.S. Power is between Jewish Power and Universal Principles — End of History and Beginning of Beastory — How Jews are METO(More Equal Than Others) over the Rest of Us

What was one of the most striking features of Stalinism? It was premised on communist principles of equality and justice for all. Stalinism was nothing new in terms of tyranny as brutality and repression have been around since the beginning of history. What made Stalinism perverse was the contradiction between its principles and its practice of power. Granted, the very term ‘Stalinism’ implied a perversion of communism from a universal-egalitarian ideal to a cult of personality, an idolatry centered around an individual elevated to quasi-divine status. At least in this respect, communism was a bigger moral failure than Italian Fascism and German National Socialism, ‘ideologies’ that openly and honestly insisted that a strong leader with power of vision and charisma should rule and define the destiny of his people. Though Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were anti-individualist when it came to mass politics, they were ultra-individualist when it came to the Great Leader, Il Duce or Der Fuhrer. Presumably, such a man was so awe-inspiring that he needn't operate by the rules of ordinary folks. He belonged to the pantheon of the greatest men in history. It was as if they were imbued with the stuff of myth. In the 19th century, many Romantics regarded Napoleon that way, seeing him more as god-man or force of nature than merely a military leader or historical figure. A man of destiny.

In contrast, communism claimed to be about ideas and principles than idols and power. Sure, communists would have to gain and even monopolize power to realize their Utopian project, but the end-result of such monumental endeavor would be a world in which all peoples would be equal in freedom, work, justice, and responsibility. Granted, modern communism came to be defined by Karl Marx(though communism as an idea predated him), just like much of modern psychology came to be, at least for a crucial period in the 20th century, shaped by Sigmund Freud at the expense of other more empirical but less imaginative experts. Some may argue this was 20th century communism’s fatal error, the allowing the thoughts of a single individual to exert such vast influence on an idea and movement. Beginning with Marxism, communism was less a generic idea of social justice based on collective ownership of property than the prophecy of an individual who, as Modern Moses, insisted that communism must be something more than a blueprint formulated in the minds of men: It was a historical inevitability that no will or power could stop. It was only a matter of when. Prior to Marx, communism was more a matter of social philosophy than grand history, i.e. communist ideals arose from the minds of men, and communist reality could be achieved only by the determination and will of men committed to revolutionary change. Without such conscious will and decision-making, communism would never be realized in the world. In other words, communism was the will of man. Men had to make it happen. As such, it was kind of humanism. Early communists were like the pagans who believed in a plurality of gods and heroes. Nothing was certain, and history was determined by the clash of wills and visions of men. The winners would decide history.
In contrast, Marx believed that consciousness follows material conditions. Though an atheist, Marx believed in a power beyond the will or wish of men. This power was History, a monomaniacal force like the Jewish God. Just like individuals are helpless and powerless before the one and only God, mankind cannot do anything to change the course of History. People can only be agents of History, like people are only pawns of the one and only God. At most, people can try to understand this uber-power; and when this power demands change, one must be ready to ride the waves or be swept aside. According to Marx's view of History, as economic factors change, social relationships also change, and such shifts affect the way people view reality and their place in it. There is a historical logic and dynamics beyond what people may wish to think or believe. Also, most people cannot think or imagine beyond the material limits of their reality. The material reality must change before the mind follows and changes accordingly; it's like in evolution, organisms react/adapt to the changing environment. Economic reality changes with the evolution of production that, in time, comes to favor one class over another. The rise of trade eventually came to favor the merchant-bourgeoisie over the aristocracy. And as Marx saw the future, the dire contradictions within capitalism must inevitably lead to the rise of the proletariat and the fall of the bourgeoisie. While Marx wasn’t averse to individual will and commitment — indeed, one of his boastful comments was that the role of scholar isn't merely to study but change the world — , he thought the Revolution couldn’t be hastened or delayed by much. When it will happen, it will happen. It’s like a pregnant woman may try to have the child earlier or later, and she might alter the date of birth by a few days, but the fact remains most children are born after around 9 months.
Because of Marx’s elaborate theories and deep intellectualism, many communists convinced themselves that Marxism wasn’t really a personality cult but merely the best and most complete theory of communism as revealed by a great thinker. Supposedly, it was like Darwinism that merely attributed the discovery of evolution to the English scientist: Not a reverential cult of Charles Darwin as a know-it-all genius but credit due to the man who first worked out the basic theory of how evolution works. Likewise, Marx was seen as the first social scientist who figured out the true working dynamics of history. Still, whereas Darwin was respected as a great scientist, Karl Marx did come to be revered as a near-divine figure in the communist canon. Perhaps, the theme of justice is more powerful and emotionally charged than the theme of facts. Whereas Darwin merely figured out how biology works(on the amoral level), Marx figured out how history ultimately works to bring about a just world for all mankind. Truth is like ice, cold. Justice is like fire, hot. That mankind may have evolved from apes was mighty interesting, but it didn’t do anything to improve the lot of man, but the idea that material history eventually resolves its contradictions by toppling the exploitative class in favor of the toiling masses was deeply heartening to many who’d gone through the often traumatic Industrial Revolution.
That said, because Karl Marx remained a thinker all his life and never gained political power, his official status was that of a man of ideas. One might even say Karl Marx was too good and pure to dirty his hands in the world of politics with its betrayals and compromises. Similarly, Moses remained a prophet but never became king. And Jesus preached ideas and died for them but didn’t go about the ‘petty’ business of setting up organizations to spread the Gospel far and wide. Muhammad notwithstanding, when the man of principles also becomes a man of practice, much of the luster is lost.

It’s usually the case that the thinker or prophet retains a degree of purity in that he dreams big dreams and dies before his theory is put through the wringer of practice that has a way of mucking things up. After all, even the most pristine, cautious, and well-thought-out plan often goes wrong when put into action. Even the most powerful thinkers cannot foresee all the details and complications. Also, those who involved in the practice often turn out to be madmen, incompetents, hustlers, opportunists, egotists, or deeply flawed individuals. And for this reason, it’s hardly surprising that the failure of communism was usually blamed on men like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao than on Karl Marx himself. Plenty of True Believers insisted that the practitioners of communism misinterpreted, betrayed, abused, or perverted True Marxism. The chances are that a system ruled by Marx himself would likely have failed too, but we will never know as the Great Man died before communism became a real political force in the world.

What we do know is that communism, as practiced by men like Vladimir Lenin, Bela Kun, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and etc., proved to be failures. Granted, not all communist nations were guilty of mass-killings, and furthermore, plenty of grisly acts were committed by right-wing and capitalist nations in the 20th century. But in the end, communism failed to deliver all the things it promised. It lost to capitalist nations by standards of materiality, freedom, and justice. If communist nations had produced less goods but nevertheless managed to offer more freedom or justice, that would have been something. But over time, it became more apparent by the day that capitalist nations were not only able to produce more goods but procure greater progress in justice and freedom. In contrast, not only did communist nations lag in technology and consumer goods but failed to deliver freedom and justice as promised. Diehard purists may argue that Marxism cannot be blamed for this because communism came to power in mostly pre-industrial nations, thereby turning Marx’s theory on its head. Marx argued communism would follow late capitalism and then the proletariat would inherit the earth from the fallen bourgeoisie. Marxism was a theory of inheritance, not installation, of industry. After all, Marx himself argued that no force was as revolutionary and transformational as capitalism, and for that very reason, despite its evils, it was an absolutely crucial stage toward the development of communism. Just like there must be night before dawn, there must be capitalism before communism.

As no fully developed capitalist nation turned communist, we still don’t know if post-capitalist communism will work wonders or not, but we can still guess as to how such a system will turn out. While the U.K. didn’t turn communist after World War II, the Labour Party did nationalize many key industries, and that didn’t do much for the economy. If anything, the more market-oriented European economies did better. Also, the paucity of material incentives in communism makes one wonder if a capitalist-made society will remain prosperous for long under the new rules. And facts of human nature suggest communism is, at best, over-zealous idealism blinded by narrow definition of ‘justice’. Still, given the rising contradictions of capitalism in our globalist world, it is safe to say that the End of History(as suggested by Francis Fukuyama) failed the understand the power dynamics and its implications for the future.
In terms of Fukuyama’s definition of ‘History’, he was more right than wrong. The end of the Cold War witnessed the closing days of the battle of Big Ideas. Oddly enough, the smaller, humbler, and more moderate ideas had won over the Big or Grand ones. Moderate Liberalism won out over Radical Leftism with its Macro Theory of History. And seemingly, moderate nationalism and moderate internationalism won out over ultra-nationalism that was once synonymous with imperialist ambition. In a way, one might say it was the triumph of the Anglo/American model over others, far left and far right. But one wonders if Anglo/Americanism won out mainly because of its wisdom and good sense or its good luck. While one can find much that is praiseworthy in British-American ways & values, would Anglo/American power have been so great if not for the superb luck that Anglos got to conquer, settle, and develop North America, the best land in the world? And were ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ really crucial in the development of the United States as a great power? Suppose Imperial Germany had taken North America and developed it along autocratic lines. Wouldn’t it have been just as powerful with all the land and resources utilized by a talented and hard-working people? Indeed, when we compare liberal democratic UK and autocratic Germany in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the latter was gaining over the former. So, perhaps, ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ have been over-emphasized as the reason for the power of the United States.
Anyway, the closure of the Cold War did bring about something like the End of History in that people were no longer into mega-ideologies. According to Fukuyama, this was due to the fact that ‘liberal democracy’ triumphed over the final Big Idea of Marxism, the grand theory that claimed to hold the key to the workings of history and culmination of justice. In contrast, ‘liberal democracy’ made no such claim and made incremental progress based on liberty, empiricism, pragmatism, individualism, ingenuity & innovation, and free flow of ideas. Instead of one Big School dictating the Truth, liberal democracy allowed many schools and shops to bloom and offer their ideas and products in the marketplace of choice. Termites won over the elephant.

And yet, Fukuyama was wrong in one significant way. Though he valued liberal democracy for its freedom, moderation, and pragmatism, he also elevated it as the Final Idea that would define and dominate the world. The problem of such view was in assuming that The Idea has final power over the Forces within the System. According to Fukuyama, since Liberal Democracy prevailed over Communism(and Fascism), the dominant force in the West is Liberal Democracy, i.e. nothing, no one, and no group in the West can become greater than Liberal Democracy that is all about ‘individualism’, ‘liberty’, ‘free speech’, ‘rule of law’, and etc. But in truth, ideas have no life of their own. Even though every idea favors something over something else, it is also malleable in the hands of those who have the power, especially lots of power. Also, Liberal Democracy doesn’t preclude the monopolization of power or dominance by a certain group. The sheer prevalence of blacks in the NBA and NFL is obvious proof of that. Thus, the End of History with Liberal Democracy as the Final Idea can easily lead to the Beginning of Beastory with the most talented, intelligent, strong-willed, egotistical, maniacal, and/or organized groups using liberty and freedom to accumulate the most power for themselves. And with such monopolization of power, they can easily manipulate the Rule of Law and ‘liberal democratic’ principles to serve their narrow tribal and/or egotistical principles.
Granted, under a system like the US, no group will be able to gain the power wielded by Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, but given the current condition and global trajectory, it is very possible for a few groups to gain such market and elite dominance as to dictate their agenda and narrative to the rest of us. The passing of Big Ideas from the world stage doesn’t guarantee that the moderate rules and principles of Liberal Democracy will hold sway over all the world or even the West. This might have been the case IF everyone and every group in the West were equal in talent, intelligence, drive, ambition, and egotism, but the fact is certain groups are far more talented and driven than others. As such, they will gain so much more power in a state of relative freedom, even entire monopolies. Just like liberalism in sports only led to black domination and near-monopoly in many position, liberalism in industries and institutions led to the pre-eminence of Jewish power in so many areas, indeed to the extent that we live under what might be called the Ethno-Stalinism of Jews. Thus, the beastly ambitions of certain groups gain a stranglehold over the principles of Liberal Democracy. It is the Beginning of Beastory.

What is the similarity between Stalinism and Jewish Power in the US? Josef Stalin was the leader of a communist state where everyone was supposed to be equal in power, property, and justice. Now, given the nature of reality, it was hardly surprising that the leader of a communist nation would be ‘more equal than others’(or METO). Such is to be expected even from the most principled leader in the most principled community. But Stalin wasn’t mildly METO over the people of the USSR but totally METO over them. The rules that applied to others didn’t apply to Stalin at all. He could do just about anything and get away with anything. He wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god over men. While he could condemn millions to imprisonment or death, others could hardly criticize him. Indeed, it was deemed a crime to show insufficient enthusiasm for the man and whatever he muttered. Such tyranny would have been less perverse IF the USSR had been founded on the principle of Stalin-Worship, but it wasn’t. As brutal and ruthless as communism was from the beginning as a political movement, the idea was that radical will and violence were necessary to sweep away the old decrepit order to make way for the new where all would be equal. Of course, such outlook was hardly unique to communists. The US in World War II was willing to use ruthless means to defeat the Evil Enemy so as to lay the groundwork for a New World Order amenable to US interests and ideals. Many people rationalized communist violence in the same manner that others had justified violence in the name of Christianity, Islam, Homeland, Enlightenment, Civilization, and/or Freedom. Most white Americans acknowledged the tragic dimension of taking land from American Indians but believed it to have been justified as savagery and wilderness gave way to towns with schools and churches for womenfolk and children. In that sense, communist commitment to violence as a force of change was hardly out of line with historical narratives: Means justify Ends.
But Stalinism’s hyper Cult of Personality was something else. It didn’t merely compromise communist principles but totally overrode them, in effect turning the USSR into a kind of Stalinstan. And for Stalin to have more individual worth as the infallible leader — so infallible that even when events proved him to have been wrong, everyone had to make believe HE was right and history was wrong or ignore or rewrite history altogether — , the people of the USSR had to have less individual worth as citizens of the state. In time, Stalin wasn’t merely a giant among men but a god among minions. While the lives of millions could be expended by a mere twirl of his finger, no one could find fault with any aspect of the man and his erratic whims. If he said black is white and white is black, you had to nod along and agree. If he changed his mind, you had to agree again, but he might have you killed because, earlier, you had been ‘wrong’. Never mind that you’d only agreed with the Great Man because he’s always right. But if one man is always right, then all those around him bound to be always wrong because they lack the immunity of the Great One. Stalin could change his mind all the time and be right at every turn because the only law he lived by was "Stalin is always right". That gave him immunity from being wrong. So, he could go from A to B to C, and he would have been ‘right’ in all three cases because he is always right. But as those around him had no such immunity or license, they would have been wrong at every turn because they also switched positions from A to B to C. If the current state says C is correct, those who’d pledged to A or B would have been wrong. But of course, Stalin was never wrong because he was right even when he was wrong because he was above the law, with the only law applying to him being "I’m always right."

We see something like Stalinism with Jewish Power, though some might call it Political Trotskyism as most Jews preferred the Jewish Trotsky over the Georgian Stalin. By ‘Political Trotskyism’, we mean the nature of Jewish Personality and Will to Power than the Marxist-Communist ideological underpinnings of Trotskyism that no Jew(at least in power) believes in anymore. In the US, Jews are not merely somewhat METO(more equal than others) but totally so. Jews are always right, even when wrong. And goyim are ‘wrong’ even when they agree with Jews and reiterate what Jews have said. Plenty of Jews have said the Tribe does own the media. They said it with pride. But if goyim agree and say Jews control the media, they are denounced as ‘antisemitic conspiracy theorists’ and dragged through the mud. Jews claim to push for mass-immigration and celebrate the prospect of whites becoming minorities in their own nations, but if whites notice as much and say Jews are behind Diversity-mongering, they are attacked as ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’. Jews can say whatever they like. They can even brag about their sinister plans for other races and nations. They can taunt others and spew bile, but if you, as goy, take notice of Jewish attitudes as particularly Jewish, you are ‘wrong’ and denounced as an ‘Anti-Semite’. Just like Stalin was always right(even when wrong) and his victims were always ‘wrong’(even when right), the same kind of dynamics exists between Jews and goyim. The charter of the Jewish supremacist organization ADL is premised on the notion that in 99% of Jewish-Goyim relationships, Jews must be ‘innocent’ and goyim must be ‘guilty’. So, it’s perfectly okay for Jews to stereotype, demean, defame, and pigeonhole certain groups of goyim(especially whites) as ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘paranoid’, and/or ‘hateful’, but goyim better not notice general patterns of behavior among Jews(unless such happen to be positive and flattering).

As with Stalinism, it is the sheer hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Jewish Power so repulsive. Unlike Ivan the Terrible who ruled openly as an iron-fisted tyrant in the Age of Tsars, Stalin ruled as Secretary General of a ‘republic’ committed to equality, justice, and liberation. So, the sheer discrepancy between what the USSR claimed ideologically and how Stalinism operated in reality was absolutely outrageous, so much in fact that Stalin had to tighten the totalitarian screws to make sure that no one said the Obvious: Stalinism was Tsarism x 1000. Though there were some social improvements and certain impressive achievements in the Soviet Union, if the system was equal in anything, it was in forcing blind obedience to the State that went from Stalinist dictatorship to oligarchic one-party rule.


*Incidentally, it appears Jews at Youtube manipulated algorithms so that if one searches for "Stalin Netanyahu applause ovation", no video that draws comparison shows up even though MANY have observed the oddity or similarity. It goes to show that Google/Youtube isn’t really ‘leftist’ but Jewish-tribal-supremacist. If Google Jews were truly ‘leftist’, why would they cover up for Netanyahu’s regime that is more ‘far right’ than even the most right-wing government in Europe? If Jews are so ‘liberal’, why do they push for Anti-BDS legislation that silences and destroys the lives of those who call attention to injustices faced by Palestinian underdogs?*

With Jewish Power, we see the same kind of contradiction in the US and the West in general. Jews make the most noise about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘rule of law’, and ‘freedom’, and yet most of what they do is to secure special privileges, supremacy, and hegemony for Jewish Power. Indeed, more often than not, what Jews SAY is merely a convenient cover for what Jews DO. Jews TALK to distract us from how they WALK. Think of a Jew who walks to Point A while making so much noise about how he’s headed to Point B. We need to judge by what Jews do, not by what they say. But even what they say go against what they say. Jews say the New America is no longer about Eurocentrism or ‘white privilege’ but about equal rights and respect for all groups, but in the next breath, Jews insist that America must regard Israel as its closest and greatest ally, and that all Americans must be especially sensitive to Jewish feelings uber alles. Never mind all the anti-Muslim movies made by Jewish Hollywood. Never mind all the anti-white movies(usually set in the American South) produced by Jews. Jews also make lots of movies and TV shows with evil Russian monsters and yellow-peril villains. So, Jewish Power can defame and demean any nation or people, casting it or them as the Enemy of America. Jews can declare Iran or Russia the Great Enemy, but if Palestinian-Americans and their sympathizers try to draw people’s attention to the plight of those in the West Bank and Gaza as the result of America’s blind and mindless support of Zionist tyranny and terror, they must be shut down with Anti-BDS laws and resolutions. This is why Jewish Power is essentially ethno-stalinist. The stark difference between what Jews say in one moment AND what Jews say in other moments(and really DO) is totally outrageous. And just like Stalinism could perpetuate itself only via totalitarian tyranny that compelled the tyrannized to exclaim that they were equal, happy, and liberated under Stalin’s rule, the ethno-stalinism of Jewish Power insists that we all tell ourselves, others, and our Jewish masters that there is nothing more American as Apple Pie and 1776 as praising, flattering, revering, serving, obeying, and worshiping Jews. We must love Jewish Power like Winston Smith loved Big Brother in 1984. Unlike with Stalinism, heretics are not dragged off to be shot, but ethno-stalinist Jewish Power is very effective in maintaining control because Jews know that the fate of the nation is decided by a handful of elites. So, as long as Jews can buy off politicians and threaten goy economic elites with total ruin(by defaming their reputations as 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic') if they deviate from the Judeo-centric Narrative and Dogma, just about everything is under control.
Also, as Jews have perverted the freedom of so many Americans by addicting them to hedonism and vices, so much of American liberty doesn’t go toward seeking truth and real justice. Generally, half of Americans only care to use their freedom for mindless pleasure, and the other half of Americans, having been molded by media/academia controlled by Jews, have a hard time conceiving of truth and justice beyond what they’ve been spoonfed since kindergarten. They grew up with the ideology and idolatry as controlled by Jews.

For a truer America, we need something like ethno-de-stalinization, just like the Soviet Union sought to de-Stalinize itself after the tyrant’s death(or murder) in 1953. But it’s difficult to change old habits, and vestiges of Stalinism remained to the very end of the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was that failure to truly root out Stalinism that prevented real reforms that could have made for a better system. Likewise, our de-ethno-stalinization must be total and absolute. It must not be a half-measure, especially as Jews have virulent personalities and radical wills. Just like there is no moderate way to deal with cancer, there is no soft way to deal with Jewish Power gone cancerous in the West.
Cancer is perversely contradictory in that it's about more life that leads to sure death. Cancer produces more cells, thus more life, but it also disrupts balance within the organism. Likewise, Jewish Power works like a contradiction. It speaks of more equality and justice, more progress, but just about everything that Jewish Power does is really to increase and maximize Jewish Power at the expense of all else. Jews are pushing for More Diversity not because they want to share power equally with all groups. No, it is only to create divisions, distrust, and strife among goyim so that Jews at the top can play goyim against one another. The result will be a society that becomes even more unequal and unjust, much like California where the rich(especially Jews) keep getting richer while too many people fall through the cracks and live in a state of ethnic, cultural, and political distress. And if indeed California is the future of America, we can look forward to a one-party state. It is time to wake up, see Jewish Power for what it is, expose its obnoxious & radical hypocrisy, and implement a drastic program of de-ethno-stalinization.

Commentary on “Mayor Pete Butt-Gig and the Crackup of Christianity”(by Pat Buchanan) – Religions vs Religiosity

https://buchanan.org/blog/mayor-pete-and-the-crackup-of-christianity-136855

In some ways, religiosity is stronger than ever. Indeed, paradoxically enough, the reason for the decline of traditional religions is because they no longer offer the moral high and high ground of religiosity. People are abandoning them not because they are rejecting religiosity but because they can find it or more of it in something else.

Now, religiosity is not the same thing as religion. Religiosity is the state of strong commitment, righteousness, and/or moral outrage. Religiosity can be gotten from anything, even non-religions. Marxists and Maoists were surely riding high on religiosity as they firmly believed that history, humanity, truth, and morality were on their side.

A religion has power only if it retains the element of religiosity. Consider so many religions that have fallen by the wayside. Zoroastrianism for example. Today, it is mostly a matter of scholarly, mystical, and/or theological interest. Almost no one gets worked up over it.
Some people seek out Eastern Mysticism, but it will never gain power because it lacks religiosity. Buddhism, Taoism, and such religions are about peace of mind, the search for the Way, the harmony. This was one reason why the East was less dynamic than the West, the culture of which was driven by Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. According to the Greeks, if there is A and B, the two must duke it out. Thus, the philosophical and historical pendulum swings violently back and forth, left and right. It causes a lot of friction and even trouble, but it also sets off lots of sparks. If both A and B remain viable, the dialectics continues and keeps shooting off sparks, some of which are destructive, some of which are constructive. But if A or B were to overcome the other or arrive at synthesis, it goes up against a new force: C, D, E, etc. As for Judeo-Monolithics, it says the ONE idea is absolutely true and all the power must be exerted to spread that idea far and wide. This is the core of Western Messianism and puritanism. Greco-dialectics made for dynamism, and Judeo-Monolithics made for commitment, aggression, and expansion. The Crusading or Jihad Mentality.

In contrast, Taoism and Buddhism seek to rise above conflicts. Taoism seeks the Way, or the hidden harmony behind all chaos. It urges people not to involve themselves directly in world conflicts and instead to recede and contemplate with a cup of tea. Buddhism says everything is an illusion, and people should meditate to reach Nirvana and eternal extinction. With such spiritual outlooks, it's no wonder the East was less dynamic(though it allowed for longer stretches of peace and stability, albeit of the repressive kind by today's standards).

Modern religiosity thrives on psycho-cultural legacy of Greco-dialectics and Judeo-monolithics. Pat Buchanan loved politics all his life as a kind of sports. Political season is like sporting season. And so many people see the world in terms of 'we are right, and you are wrong'. Most people don't seek the middle-ground or the Way. They savor the dialectical bloodsports of politics. This owes to the pagan Greco-dialectical tradition. But Greeks and Romans, with their many gods, weren't really into the cult of self-righteousness. Through endless discourse, they believed somethings were more right than others, but they didn't believe there was anything or any people that was the holiest in the world for all eternity. They regarded everything, even the great gods, being in a state of flux.
In contrast, Jews did see the world in absolutist and monomaniacal terms. They weren't just another tribe, but the Tribe, the Chosen, and their God was the only true God, and they were blessed by the true God. So, Jews were filled with sanctimony and (self)righteousness, and this mindset flowed to the West via Christianity. If Greeks politicized conflicts, Christians spiritualized and moralized them. In the Athens vs Sparta conflict, both sides knew that it was all about power, economics, and influence. Sure, each side called on their gods for favors, but it was a conflict of 'mighteous' than righteous. It was dialectical politics. In contrast, infused with the mindset of Judeo-monolithics, Christians saw their conflicts in strongly moral and spiritual terms. So, there was a greater sense of moral outrage in conflicts involving Christians(which is why the US tries to morally justify everything it does around the world, a factor that blinds so many Americans to the true nature of what is really going on). Each side among Christians was totally holier-than-thou, even though many of the wars were triggered by political or economic factors than spiritual or moral ones.
The Thirty Years War was even more destructive and harrowing than the Peloponnesian War because of the sense of spiritual outrage. If Spartans and Athenians were merely seeking political advantage over the other, Catholics and Protestants, armed with Judeo-monolithic moral outrage, was trying to totally crush the other for all time. When Spartans finally won, they let Athens survive. But if either Catholics or Protestants had gained total victory, the losing side would have been totally crushed and rubbed out. But as it happened, the stalemate finally led to some kind of understanding, and the art of Greco-dialectics prevailed over Judeo-monolithics. Catholics and Protestants would have to co-exist in lively conflict and not try to crush the other totally in the spirit of moral/spiritual absolutism.

Why did Christian religion lose its religiosity in the 20th century?

We know the usual suspects. The rise of science undermined religion, especially among the elites. Around the time the US was founded, many of the most intelligent people in both Old World and New World still believed in God, sought meaning in God, attended religious schools, and spread the Gospel. Religion back then had spiritual and moral authority, from top to bottom.
But with the rise of modernity, most intelligent people abandoned religion, and if they did remain religious, it was on the personal level than on moral, spiritual, and social one. With best and brightest eschewing the religious life, the leadership came increasingly from the less intelligent segments of the population. Also, as religious authority lost prestige, fewer men were willing to give up worldly happiness for God. Back when the Catholic Church was like the Harvard of the West, many intelligent men were willing to sacrifice sex and good times to serve God. As priests, they had much respect in society. But when society no longer regarded priests as anything special, what was the point of giving up sex, marriage, and good times? So, an increasing number of priests came from eccentrics, derelicts, perverts, and homos. Some homos sought repentance for their sinful ways by serving God. Other homos figured they would take over the Church and make it 'gay' to serve toot-toota-loop homo vanity.

Mainline churches replaced saving souls with saving the world with good work. But what is 'good work'? As worldly matters and issues were defined by secular forces, Mainline church's idea of 'goodness' came to be defined by academia and media. Then, it's no wonder than Mainline churches now think god is all about the 'gays'. After all, Ivy League, Hollywood, and NYT said so. Evangelicals were more traditionalist and moralistic, but they were dumb, and dummies lose out to smarties. Being dumb and childlike, Evanjellies could easily be manipulated by the Power. It's no wonder so many Evanjellies are into 'muh Israel' and 'Jews are holy' even though Jews despise them and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. Also, Evanjellies put emotions before dogma. It's all about the FEELS. Then, it is no wonder that homomania is making inroads even among childlike Evanjellies. Also, as most Evanjellies, like Mormons, suffer from inferiority complex of status and class, they tend to suck up to the rich and powerful. Look how Mormons are changing full-steam ahead toward homomania because the rich and powerful now worship it as their main cult. And many Evanjellies are suckers for televangelists whose shtick is 'god made me rich' and 'Jews are great cuz they are so rich'.
As for the Catholic Church, it shot itself in the foot by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. While some of the reforms were good and necessary, others presented the Church in the position of weakness, especially via Jews and modernity. The main mode was of concession and contrition, and this put the Church on the moral defensive than offensive. Instead of judging the world with the One True Faith, it sought forgiveness from the world. Thus, being a Catholic came with less religiosity and more perplexity.

While people may be drawn to religions for metaphysical or philosophical reasons, religion has power ONLY WHEN it has the element of religiosity. Religious or secular, people are more prone to organize, unite, and rally IF they the run the fever of religiosity. This is why the anti-homo voices tended to come from the religious. There are non-religious people who oppose the homo agenda, but they feel less worked up because they just believe it is wrong, not an affront to God. There are secular people who are anti-abortion, but again, they see it as ugly and wrong, whereas religious people see it as a grave sin. Because of their element of religiosity, the religious often united to push for or against certain issues.

This is what Jews hate about Christian religiosity. (They hate Islamic religiosity too, but at least in the West, they make alliances with Muslims against Christians.) Those armed with religiosity are more likely to leave the house, meet with others, gather together(esp in churches), and protest. Even when people dislike or oppose something, the chances are they are not gonna do anything about it unless they are armed with religiosity. They see it as a personal matter -- "I don't like it" -- than as a grand moral/spiritual one -- "It is an affront to God".
But Jews fear Christianity far less now because it's either been bled of religiosity or infected with neo-religiosity of PC, e.g. all those churches that are now all about Diversity, Globo-Homo, Anti-Whitey, Holy Negro Worship, and Jew-Worship. Catholic Church is no longer a force of religiosity because it's in cucky-wuck apologetic mode. "We are sorry so many of our priests buggered boys". "We are sorry for having aided and abetted imperialism, genocide, etc." "We must fill up Europe with Africans and Muslims because Christians have so much to atone for." There is no moral pride or spiritual authority. It now even has what looks like closet-homo pope, aka the Poop, who says Europe must be Afro-Islamized as fast as possible. Because the Church is still officially opposed to 'gay marriage' and abortion, progs still eye Catholicism with disgusts and trepidation. But because it is so cucked and wussy, traditional Catholics feel nauseous about sticking with the Church. There is hardly any real religiosity found in Catholicism anymore.

But people love religiosity because it's like a drug. It gives them the high of moral sanctimony, the rush of holier-than-thou rage, and a sense of unity with 'history is on our side'. The thing is religiosity can be gotten from anything: Ideology and 'Idology'(or idolatry as ideology).
Those Red Guard lunatics during the Cultural Revolution were surely filled with righteous religiosity. Incidentally, the Cultural Revolution showed that religiosity had little to do with truth and more to do with control of information and indoctrination. After all, Mao's policies had killed tens of millions in the Great Leap Forward. He should have been disgraced forever based on historical facts, but with control of propaganda and the military Mao and his gang were able to instill countless young people with fever of religiosity and set them loose to smash 'class enemies' in ruthless abandon and righteous rage.



It's like no amount of destruction done by Black Savage Reversion, Crazy Jewish Supremacism, and Nutty Homo Perversion has made any real dent in the holiness of those three groups. Given all the black crime and thuggery, one might think Americans would have wised up to the fact that blacks are the crazy savage race, but Jews control the media and they keep rerunning the Emitt Till and MLK narrative over and over. And come Superbowl season, white cucky-wucks are back to worshiping blacks as sports hero demigods. And given what Jewish Power has done to the US in terms of financial distress and foreign Wars for Israel(that created WWII situations in Middle East), you'd think people would have wised up to Jewish power by now. But every year, it's Holocaust this, Holocaust that, and "Jews are eternally holy holocaust people" and "If you notice Jewish power, you're an anti-Semite." So, even 'literally Hitler' Trump spends most of his time with his lips wrapped around Netanyahu's pud. And given the HIV mess caused by deranged homos, you'd think people would have woken up to the danger of homo influence and practice. But Jews(who run the media) 'sacralized' homos in movies, TV shows, and advertising. And Jews associated homos with the 'rainbow', and whore politicians just can't get enough of pontificating about how the New Normal of morality is all about celebrating homo fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting.

If Rob punched you but has the megaphone and says that you punched him while he makes himself out to be the poor poor victim, people will side with Rob and denounce you and maybe even punch you. Worse, even people who saw Rob punch you may not come to your aid because Rob's megaphone can attract many more people to his side. Or, even those who witnessed Rob punching you may believe you deserved to be punched because you're a bad person. This is what Jews are doing with 'punch a nazi' meme. They are saying that if Jews, Antifa, or blacks attack whites who happen to be 'nazi', then the righteousness belongs to the puncher because 'nazis' are evil and deserve it. This is how religiosity works. It's not so much about objective definition of right or wrong or legal or illegal. It's about holy vs unholy. It's about blessed vs the wicked. Just like Christians in their hyper-religiosity could be inspired to carry out violent acts against heathens, the PC crowd can be driven to rages of religiosity to attack any people and feel good and righteous about it.

As Jews control academia, media, entertainment, and whore-politicians, they control the levers of religiosity. Academia writes the sacred texts, the canons of officialdom. Media relay them as 'news' and sermons. Entertainment turns certain figures and narratives into idols. And whore-politicians use oratory to push the acceptable narrative.

People are leaving the church and flocking to PC, Homomania, and Afromania because most of the hottest religiosity is now to be found there. PC slogans and chants about 'Diversity' and 'Inclusion' are the new mantras and catechisms. And 'gay rights' became Gay Rites, a neo-religion. There was a time when NO ONE was worked up over homo issues. At most, some supported the legalization of homosexuality because they figured homos were born that way. Also, they figured homos are deserving of individual rights too. It was a legal matter, not a moral one. No one thought there was innately holy about being a homo. No one felt he was holier or more righteous because he was pro-homo.
But Jewish media spun the HIV crisis to make homos out to be victims of something akin to a holocaust even though homos did it to themselves by acting like a bunch of butt-bang-boys in bathhouses. Movies like PHILADELPHIA and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN made homo lust the highest and most tragic kind of love. Homos were made into saintly icons. Such ploy would have been thought outrageous when the US was more religious and moral, but in Boomer-dominated America of the 1990s and 2000s, it went over with post-religious people and young people raised on degeneracy. Also, as Bush II was such an awful posterboy of the Christian Right, young people turned away from religion. Furthermore, what with religions being so cucked & apologetic while AND homomania got more judgmental & aggressive, young people realized that there was more religiosity points to be found on the holy-homo side than on the religious side. While homomaniacs are passionately and aggressively sure of their cause and position, the Religious Right seemed confused, cowardly, and castrated. As Jews came to dominate the GOP and bought off most top church leaders, NO ONE on the Right mounted any counter-attack against homomania. They kept their heads down like the worthless Rich Lowry lest they offend Jews as allies of holy homos. Also, young people, raised on celebrity culture, were addicted to the cult of the cool. So, what some pop star or famous actor said mattered more to them than what some crusty religious type said. Mormons for one are really a bunch of Mammonites who will sell their mothers down the river for thirty pieces of silver. Look at those worthless piles of shit Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.

Now, it may well be that the current religiosities of PC may blow away. After all, where is Maoist religiosity today? Where is Stalinist fervor? Secular forms of religiosity have short-shelf lives because history proves them wrong. History proved communism wrong. All the icons and altars to Marx and Lenin came to mean nothing to Eastern Europeans with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Hitler, who was once the much revered icon of glory among Germans, has been disgraced. In contrast, God cannot be deposed and may yet win again in the long run. That said, in any given MOMENT in history, those with more religiosity win over those with less. And the fact is religions have lost the fire of religiosity either because people lost faith or because the religions have become cucked and apologetic. There was a time when to become a Christian was to be filled with a sense of salvation, glory, and pride. Now, joining the church means you should kneel before a homo and apologize for the church's 2000 yrs of 'homophobia' against guys like Butt-gigs who thinks dicks-up-my-ass is great because 'god made him gay'. Using such logic, a fatso should take pride in his gluttony since god made him want to pig out like a hippo. And I suppose a drunken Irish can argue that his alcoholism is a wonder to behold because god made him want to hit the bottle.

Ideologies can be full of religiosity because they offer a formula for understanding history and fixing humanity. As such, they are more than mere ideas but a worldview of 'what REALLY happened' and 'what must happen'. It has an element of prophecy, and so, ideologues are armed with religiosity. In time, ideological religiosity may fade as people get tired of the same-old-same-old and/or because the promises don't come true. This was true enough with communism.
Or, even if the ideology does succeed -- such as the Americanist individualist-capitalist ideology -- , it can lose its righteous luster if critiqued endlessly by radicals and subversives. Notice how the very founders and makers of the American nation have been so drastically 'discredited' by Jewish use of PC that now says MLK is the true 'founding father' while all those 'dead white males' were a bunch of hypocrites who owned slaves. (Never mind Jewish bankers funded much of 'white supremacist' imperialism around the world, and Jewish immigrants worked alongside whites to wipe out Indians and enslave & exploit blacks.)
In our increasingly post-literate age or what Christopher Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion, the power of 'idology' or neo-iconography may now matter more than ideology. Why are so many people reverential toward rappers even though all they ever say is 'muh gun', 'muh dick', 'muh bling', 'muh ho', and etc? Because idolatry makes them look cool and badass, and that's enough for neo-worship in our deracinated and degenerate age. But then, because of the narrative and iconography of the Noble Negro as victim of 'white racism', the image of black cool is fused with image of black tragedy, and this makes them even more potent as idols for young people to worship and that means a lot of religiosity points in the 'idolic' worship of the Negro. And of course, nothing is holier to SWPL crowd than the holy holy of the 'rainbow' valley. Compared to that, what does the current Church have to offer except butt-hurt apologetics and "I'm sorry".

Commentary on "Lying about Judeo-Bolshevism"(by Andrew Joyce) — Judeo-Bolshevism and Judeo-Christianity — Karl Marx & the un-tamable Beast of Capitalism — The Jewish Culture of Prophetics and the Nuclear Mind of Jewish Will to Power, aka the Schwill of Spaceballsian Schwarzian Magnitude

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/03/02/lying-about-judeo-bolshevism/

The notion of Judeo-Bolshevism is as problematic as the notion of Judeo-Christianity.

While Karl Marx and many early communists were ethnically Jewish, they were not happy Jews nor were they secret supremacists pushing a radical agenda for crypto-Jewish-hegemony. One could argue that their Jewish genetics(especially intelligence, personality, and temperament) shaped their attitudes, perspective, and worldview -- after all, the political grows out of the personal -- , but there's no doubt that men like Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky were sincerely committed to World Revolution premised on the Brotherhood of Man.
Now, on the subconscious level, were they driven by tribal-megalomaniacal energies going back to ancient times? Perhaps, but it can't be ascertained one way or another, only speculated. While it's true that Jewish historical experience on both the personal and social front shaped the Marxian worldview, this can be said of any group. After all, every people interpreted and practiced Christianity in their own way: Italian Catholicism, German Lutheranism, Southern Baptism, Negro Church, etc. And when communism spread around the world, it was 'nationalized' differently in every nation. Owing to variances of history, demographics, culture, and tradition, Cuban communism was distinct from Romanian communism that was distinct from North Korean communism. Then, it should hardly surprise us that Marxism was indelibly stamped with the Will of Jewish Personality because ethnic Jews played such a prominent role in the formation of radical communism. Likewise, Ayn Rand's theories of individualism were far more radical and prophetic than those of relatively restrained Anglo tradition or pragmatic American tradition. Rand may have considered herself secular and godless, but she had one powerful Jewish personality. Marx and Jews didn't invent socialism or communism but gave it a distinct ethno-charge that, for awhile, achieved critical mass to alter the rotation of the world in a new direction.

Karl Marx and many early communists were secular Jews or Anti-Jews(just like Nietzsche was Anti-Christ), and many had negative feelings toward Jewish religion(as a drag on Jewish progress) and Jewish bourgeoisie(as a driver of inequality and injustice, thereby instigating more anti-Jewish sentiments among the pauperized goyim). Later, the Chinese communists would feel much the same way about their own culture. Maoists attacked Confucianism as a dead weight around China's neck that prevented progress; they also attacked capitalism as the tool of collaborators and imperialists(as Chinese capitalists had profited from business with European, American, and Japanese aggressors). People like Marx, in rejecting both ancient Jewish tradition and modern Jewish capital, hoped to find a new path which would lead to the resolution of all contradictions, be they class or tribal conflicts. A world in which all classes would merge into one, a world in which Jews and Gentiles would just be comrades committed to equal work, equal leisure, and equal commitment to arts and culture.
Tremendous changes were afoot in a world turned upside down by the Industrial Revolution as Karl Marx noted in THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. The reason for Marx's emphasis on economics owed to the realization that the material dynamics behind capitalism was fueling the greatest revolution in human history REGARDLESS of ideas or arguments for or against it. The rapid transformation of the world from the late 18th century to the 19th century owed little to ideas. After all, there had been ideas as radical or even more so all throughout history since the beginning of time. Besides, the politically less radical UK and Germany(which was ruled by the Kaiser and reactionary ministers) underwent far greater material revolutions than France where radical ideas and movements were more commonplace. If ideas alone can change the world, the Ancient Greeks, who were so rich in ideas, would have changed everything. But they didn't because they lacked the materialist dynamics that could take on a life of its own. Today, some people worry about A.I. superseding mankind and taking over the world, but in the 19th century, hyper-economic forces took on life and logic of their own and could not be stopped. Once the industrial revolution took off due to a confluence of cultural, legal, and material factors, humanity was confronted with a power much bigger than philosophy, religion, politics, tradition, and privilege. It was as if capitalism had unleashed the Beast driven by market forces of greed and profit. As Karl Marx saw it, NOTHING could stop this Beast. No idea, no plea, no movement, and no amount of moral condemnation could stop it. Indeed, Marxism was meant less as a manual for action against capitalism than as a preparation for the day when the Capitalist Beast will collapse from its own contradictions. The most that Marxists could do is ready themselves for the eventual day when the Beast has collapsed from its own weight and can be finished off by radicals who'd been waiting patiently with sharpened spears. It's like the story of Cyclops in THE ODYSSEY. As the one-eyed giant is too big and strong, the men have no chance of defeating it. So, they just wait for the gluttonous and self-indulgent giant to gorge on food and wine to the point of becoming incapacitated, and it is then they strike.

Intoxication of Cyclops

Marx understood the power of the Beast of Capital. As the material world changed, traditions and conventions faded, and it led to both spiritual malaise and visionary renewal, and this is what Friedrich Nietzsche became the prophet of, indeed the rare non-Jewish one. And as the new order allowed more individual choices unloosed from old restraints, sexual temptation was bound to be a key factor in capitalism for its profit potential. (Capitalists would seek to commoditize sexuality, anarchists would seek to weaponize sexuality, and communists would seek to re-moralize sexuality in terms of men and women as comrades.) Anyway, with so much of the Old Way fading fast but without new truths to replace them, the era from mid-19th century to Fin-de-Siecle was bound to be a time of prophets, visionary artists, and radicals. Jews played a prominent role in this period because (1) they've long had a prophetic mindset and tradition and (2) freed from the confines of Rabbinical Messianism, modern Jews could apply their prophetic outlook on the secular world. Incidentally, we are living in similar times today as (1) there is exponential growth in technology that has taken on a life of its own (2) old credos have lost their authority while new ones offer little more than empty idolatry of holy Holocaust Jews, Magic Negroes, and 'rainbow' Homos (3) calamitous times are afoot due to demographic upheavals. There is also the great contradiction between the conceit of 'liberal democracy' and the reality of rule by tribal oligarchy of Jewish Supremacists.

Karl Marx believed that money is to Jews what alcohol is to the Irish. Jews take to money like leeches to blood. Marx lamented how Jews practiced the Shylock Doctrine wherever possible to make profits on the backs of long-suffering humanity. He was convinced that the only way to resolve the Jewish Question was to rid the world of capital. A kind of Economic Prohibition. Jews, more than any other people, had become intoxicated with capital as the result of their experience as financiers, middlemen, and money changers.
But the end of capital could not be brought about by any leader or movement. The power of capitalism and the beast it unleashed were too powerful. Such a force could only be brought down by its own internal contradictions, and then and only then, the radicals would pounce on the Beast and finish it off. But, in some ways, Marx saw capitalism as the biggest blessing for mankind. No pain, no gain. As merciless, greedy, and ravenous as capitalism was, no force had been as powerful and effective in transforming the world from rural backwardness & aristocratic privilege to urban awareness & mass consciousness. And once the ownership class were eventually destroyed by the contradictions of capitalism, all the property, infrastructure, and wealth they'd built and accumulated would fall into the hands of the workers. Capitalism was like the greatest forest fire of all time. It led to much destruction but cleared the deadwood and provided fertilizer so that new trees could grow, hopefully by feeding on the nutrients equally.

The early communists were both Jewish in ethnicity and anti-Jewish in agenda. But this could be said of early Christians as well. All early Christians were Jewish, and then, for a long stretch, the majority of Christians remained Jews(or heretical Jews). The term 'Judeo-Christian' might indeed be applicable to this period because the movement was so heavily dominated by heretical Jews and had yet to completely sever ties to Jewish tradition(much in the way that Freudianism had trouble recruiting anyone but eccentric Jews to the field). Early Christians were both Jewish and anti-Jewish in espousing a new faith that grew out of Judaism but also railed against it. But then, Jesus Himself had been rather ambiguous, sometimes portraying Himself as a reverent bearer of tradition, at other times intimating that His mission is to change everything.
As Christianity is a universal faith, once its flames spread and caught on with the gentiles, it naturally came to be dominated and defined by gentile converts & their children than by the descendants of the Jewish early Christians.
Same was true of communism. Given its universal character, communism was bound to attract many more non-Jews than Jews in the long run: China, Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, and etc. Especially when Israel allied with the US and communist Jews began to feel stirrings of Zionist pride(or were suspected of such), the hammer came down hard on many communist elites of Jewish background... though, all in all, your average Jew in the USSR or Eastern Europe was probably better off than your average goy, not least due to higher IQ, adeptness at economic bootlegging, and connections to rich Jews in the West(however tenuous). American Jews did a lot of favors for Soviet Jews though, in fact, your average Jew in the USSR was better off than your average goy Soviet.

In the early years of Christianity, Jewish Christians were persecuted by Jews and disdained by pagans. But eventually, they managed to capture the imagination of pagan Rome, and then the movement took on a life of its own. It is somewhat analogous to what happened later with communism as it passed from Jews to Goyim. While it's important for us to remember the horrors of communism and the Jewish role in it, we also need to ask why Jewish-created worldviews had such a messianic impact on humanity. Kevin MacDonald has written about the Jewish Culture of Critique, but he has yet to fully discuss something that is more important: the Culture of Prophetique. According to MacDonald and his admirers, Jews are the Eternal subversives who deconstruct and undermine the social order, especially that of the goyim. But no idea or movement can gain such momentum and power as communism did for a time just by being anti-something or counter-something. It has to be FOR something too. And this is where the Jewish Power of Prophecy comes into play. Communism presented the final prophetic formula that would unite science, sociology, economics, morality, history, spirituality, and creativity all in one. It envisioned a new world of justice, equality, and brotherhood of man, and this inspired many people(mostly goyim) around the world. We must give the Jewish Devil his due in the sheer ability to think big and convert masses of mankind.

Why do Jews control so many goyim? Why are Jews the hands while goyim are the clay? It's because Jews have had the chutzpah and audacity to think big, to imagine the one and only God. Jewish Prophets reached beyond the scope of most men and sought to peer into the mind of the all-knowing Deity. It is this bigness of vision and thought that has made Jewish Thought so paradigmatic in world history. In the 20th century, who was the most influential author? Franz Kafka. Who was the most admired film-director with cult-like following? Stanley Kubrick who made 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Jews use the Culture of Critique to clear the way to fulfill the far more important Culture of Prophetique. Unless goyim learn to think 'bigly', their minds will always be the clay in Jewish hands. Even when Jews think up utterly crazy and stupid shit(like Homomania or Diversity Is Our Strenght or DIOS), they gain such mass following because they do it with such energy, drive, vision, and determination. Like many people, I think Ayn Rand was nuts, but THE FOUNTAINHEAD is something more than a dry theory on individualism. It is individualism as far-seeing and far-reaching heroic mythology. Western Civilization produced many great warriors, scientists, philosophers, artists, leaders, inventors, and etc, but no prophets... with the possible exceptions of Martin Luther, Ludwig van Beethoven, Richard Wagner, Friedrich Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Carl Jung, Martin Heidegger, and Adolf Hitler, all Germans by the way. The reason why the world burned to the ground from fires emanating from Central Europe was due to the friction of Jewish prophetic power and Germano-Aryan prophetic power. History couldn't take that much heat. Upon losing World War II, Germans have suppressed their romantic passion and now await national death. They have lost the power of will. Jews still have prophetic power, but all their wealth and privilege have turned them decadent and degenerate, and their current vision for the world is 'worship the holy homo and franny tranny' and 'worship the mandingo with mega-dong'. Anyways, those with prophetic power will rule over those without. Prophets claim to see the world and history from a higher perspective. As such, they can look further into the distance for meaning and truth, past and future. People who lack the prophetic vision just follow those with the vision. As Jews have verbal ability, they use terminology to define the world to buttress their preferences and prejudices. So, terms such as 'racism', 'antisemitism', 'homophobia', and 'xenophobia', as defined by Jewish Academia(in the role of modern rabbis) and Jewish Media(in the role of modern calls to prayer), set the 'terms of service' for those who are unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves. Those who don't think or think small will always be owned by those who think big. Just like the big fish eats the small fish, big brains own the smaller brains. Romans knew how to conquer with swords and shields, but it was the Jewish mind that conquered the universe with visions of the one and only all-knowing God.

In the 19th and 20th century, Jewish capitalists had an ambiguous relation to communism. On the one hand, they saw it as a threat, as did all capitalists. But they also saw it as a useful weapon against the much loathed Russians. But then, foreign policy is always a game of ‘enemy of your enemy is your friend’. FDR allied with Stalin against Hitler. Nixon met with Mao to use China against USSR.

Also, with the fading of religious faith, many young idealistic Jews decided to join the messianic movement of communism as their ticket into the modern world. Judaism no longer had much meaning for them, and Christianity was too much the faith of the enemy; furthermore, Christianity was also fading in the modern world. But many Jews loathed communism and radicalism as threat to tradition or bourgeois privilege, something Western European Jews had plenty of. Though Jews were more likely to take part in radical politics, there were powerful Jewish forces that did everything to oppose it or lent it support only selectively against certain enemies -- but then, it was the right-wing German government in World War I that sent Lenin back into Russia to stir up trouble. (Jewish Radical and Jewish Capital in the 20th Century didn't fully go head-to-head for two reasons. They had to work together to defeat Tsarist Russia, contain Nazi Germany, and topple WASP elites in the US and UK. Also, the rise of Zionism served as a quasi-fascist compromise between Jewish Capital and Jewish Radical as both agreed on the Jewish National Project. Eventually, with the fading of communism and bourgeois culture[of respectability] altogether, there was the Convergence of Jewish radical energies and Jewish capital excesses in the worship of the Holy Homo and Magic Mandingo.)

HAIL CAESAR! Foretaste of the Great Convergence or New Covenant of Jewish Capital and Jewish Radical in the Realm of the Tootkin-Fruitkin.

Similarly, many Jews have long had ambiguous feelings about Jesus, St Paul, and Christianity. In some ways, Jews regard Jesus and St Paul as traitors, renegade Jews, and heretics. Jesus and St Paul took the sacred Jewish fire and passed it to the filthy goyim who, once empowered by the Faith, came to persecute Jews as Christ-Killers. Jews have regarded Jesus and Paul like Zeus regarded Prometheus who stole fire from the gods and passed them to humans. Prometheus was 'crucified' too, albeit with an eagle than with a cross. And yet, Jews also feel immense pride in Jesus and Paul because those two Jews changed the world. Romans conquered tiny Judea, but a simple Man from Judea and a handful of His followers managed to conquer the souls of all Romans and beyond. That is tremendous prophetic power. Europeans were unable to produce their own prophets. In contrast, Arabs produced their own in the figure of Muhammad who, taking inspiration from Judaism and Christianity, came up with his own vision as the basis of a New Book. In contrast, European Christians came to worship a 'Jew on a stick', being unable or unwilling to come up with their own prophecy.

Whatever one thinks of Marx, Freud, Rand, and Leo Strauss, they thought bigly. Sure, there was the element of Jewish networking to promote Jewish thinkers, but that alone wouldn't have done it. Suppose the media expend lots of resources to promote Mexican or Polish-American thinkers. How many bold or exciting Mexican or Polish-American thinkers are there? Neocons were a bunch of a**holes, but one reason why William Buckley caved to them and why Paleo-Cons were swept aside was because Neocons thought bigly. Crazy but bigly. Jewish Mind has more Forward Thinking. In contrast, the goy Buckley-Mind saw history in terms of pleading, "Stop, please oh please" and goy Fukuyama-mind saw history as, "Gee, I think it stopped, didn't it?"
For Jews, history is a ongoing process of propheticism, and that is why they rule. It has something to do with higher IQ among Jews, but there is another factor. Jews have greater intellectual drive and will. After all, reason and logic alone are neutral and objective. They don't necessarily favor one side or one vision. To be prophetic, one has to tap into the energy source of the mind. It's been said East Asians have IQs comparable to white Europeans, and some East Asians are as smart as Jews. And given East Asian success in academics, one might expect them to produce the next batch of Big Thinkers, but where are the Asian Marxs, Freuds, Rands, Friedmans, Strausses, and etc? Though East Asians have proven themselves adept at learning and mastering established knowledge, they've been lackluster in coming up with new visions and revelations. Francis Fukuyama is maybe the most renowned Asian-American scholar, and the guy certainly has an encyclopedic knowledge about lots of things, but his main contribution to the discourse has been "It's all over, and Liberal Democracy won, and that's that." It's like the Tokugawa Dynasty calling for an end to all further progress and change in the conviction that it has reached the 'end of history' for Japan. As for white people, they've been highly talented in innovation, creativity, adventure, analysis, and enterprise, but they seem to lack the prophetic will(and the only people who somewhat had it, the Germans from Martin Luther to Adolf Hitler, totally immolated themselves).

HAIL CAESAR! Romans, the master conquerors of physical space.

HAIL CAESAR! Jews, the great conquerors of spiritual space.

Also, white people, with special roots in Greco-Roman and Germanic consciousness, tend to favor the actions of the body. Greeks and Romans erected countless tributes to physical health and beauty. They became masters of warfare and conquest. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were tireless conquerors. British were renowned for science and philosophy but also reveled in adventure, war, and conquest. They had a powerful martial culture. And the cowboy came to epitomize the American frontier spirit of the pioneer. White people developed a tremendous heritage in knowledge and thought, but their conquering spirit was expended on physical conflict, conquest, and domination. Indeed, body was for conquest, and the mind was for reflection and analysis. In contrast, Jews learned to conquer with the mind. As a race of rabbis and merchants, Jews didn't have much chance to play warrior, conqueror, and adventurer, unlike the fighting-and-dominating goy aristocratic classes of Europe. So, the conquering energies had to be expended within the cerebral and spiritual space of mind and soul. Surrounded by much bigger physical powers since ancient times, Jews knew they had no chance against them in one-on-one combat. But through the power of mind and will, Jews could imagine and own for themselves the greatest conception of God and then imagine peering through His eyes and hearing from His lips the prophecy of what must be. Thus, Jews developed the nuclear mind. In physics, we learn of different kinds of energy. Simple physical energy, more potent chemical energy, and ultimately nuclear energy. Mind works the same way. Most people use 'physical' energies for mundane thinking. Their minds don't function beyond 'what I want now'. The more advanced minds could be said to exercise 'chemical' energy. More sophisticated and educated, they use complex methodology and abstract concepts to solve problems or spark new ideas. And then, there are minds that have the combination of intellect, knowledge, will-to-power, and bigness of vision that can drop the bomb that changes history itself. Such men are rare, but a good number have been Jews in ancient and modern times. And the Arab Muhammad, who dropped a nuclear bomb of his own, was inspired by Jewish prophecy. Indeed, one could argue that even Germanic prophetic will was, in some ways, a reaction to the emergence of Jewish Will in the 19th century. No Jews, no Hitler. And Richard Wagner's great opera of DIE NIBELUNGEN was a Teutonic counter-prophecy against the Jewish Will to take over the world. Jews have atomic minds, and that's why their ideas blow away the competition. It's not necessarily because Jews are correct or sane but because they think bigly & boldly and also minutely & incisively. After all, the devil is in the details if you want to split hairs or split atoms. Einstein pondered everything from the biggest galaxies to the tiniest atoms.

In the end, those who conquer souls win over those who conquer bodies and lands. Alexander the Great conquered vast territories and spread Hellenic culture, but when his armies departed, it was as if they'd never been there. And Hellenic cultural influences, though beautiful and enticing, didn't inspire souls and faded away into nothingness. Same with the Mongols, among the greatest conquerors of all time. When they were on your land, you bowed and trembled in fear before them. But once they were gone, they left nothing but bitter memories that they were a bunch of a**holes. But consider the tremors of Islam that still reverberate in the lands it conquered. Why? Because Islam conquered souls that felt grateful for having been redeemed by the True Faith. And Christianity also had a long great run as a conqueror of souls in Europe and then around the world. This drive to conquer souls arose from Judaism that birthed Christianity and Islam, and it had to do with the prophetic will and the nuclear mindset. Just like no physical or chemical energy can match nuclear energy, no 'physical' mind or 'chemical' mind can match the 'nuclear' mind. Jews have the power to set off nuclear explosions of the mind that paradigmatically alter the landscape. Marxism was one of those nuclear explosions of the mind that changed the world.

Ultimately, communism was a double-edged sword for Jews in USSR. Initially, Jews had much to gain as many of them were in elite positions and as the New Order outlawed discrimination on basis of religion and ethnicity. Also, communism destroyed 50,000 Churches and wiped out much of the Orthodox clergy that was regarded by Jews as ‘antisemitism central’ and bastion of reaction.
But then, communism also put brakes and obstacles to Jewish success just as Marx had intended. Without accumulation of capital and all the things it could buy(such as media, entertainment, vice industries, whore politicians, real estate, and etc.), there was a limit to what Jews could do.
As communism was egalitarian, it prevented any group from rising way above all the others and accumulating limitless wealth. Also, the egalitarian ethos eventually led to massive 'affirmative action' policies that came to favor non-Jews over smarter Jews. Furthermore, the humanist-moralist element of communism made it difficult for Jews to use vice industry, gambling, advertising, drugs, and pornography to corrupt and control the goy masses with cults of vanity, hedonism, narcissism, and degeneracy. So, in the long run, it was a net loss for Jews under communism. It was with mastery of capitalism(especially in the US) that Jewish Power came to inherit the world. And it is this power of Tribal-Capital and 'testicular fortitude' in Prophecy that keep Jews far ahead in the field of dreams.