What 21st century America under Jewish Rule has in common with 19th century China under Manchu Rule — On Jews and Queues, and When Will White People cut off their Mental Queues? — How Jewish Globalism uses the White Weakening to strengthen their grip over World Goyim — Jews and 'Spigotry'

American Renaissance has done important work, but it is ultimately useless because it pulls its punches or willfully misses what should be the main target: Jewish Supremacist Power. Take Jared Taylor's commentary of the US military in the video below. It's pure Pat-Condell. He blames everything but will not name the power behind the mess. Shhhh about the Jews.

SEMPER DIVERSITY by Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance

At this point, why should Taylor lament that Mexican-American soldiers proudly display the Mexican flag? Why not, when the US flag represents nothing abroad but 'twerking', Jewish supremacism, Wars for Israel, mindless animus toward Russia, ridiculous paranoia about China, nonstop hatred toward Iran, complete nonsense about Venezuela, BLM stupidity, and global dissemination of globo-homo ludicrousness? Americanism meant something when Anglo-Americans(and those properly Anglo-Americanized) ruled the nation with pride and confidence. Then, Americanism was based on the Great Compromise: A move toward a more merit-and-rule-based on the part of Anglo-Americans who took the land from the Indians, brought blacks in chains, and encouraged mass-immigration to develop the land. In return, non-Anglos would acknowledge the Anglo-foundation of America and try to be Good Americans. That compromise is no longer relevant because the US is now totally Jewish-supremacist, meaning the New Americanism is predicated on just about everyone and everything revolving around the question of "Is it great for Jews?" If Jews want it, they get it... eventually. No wonder the First and Second Amendments are now hanging by a thread. Jews don't like the Constitution now that they got total power.
Other than Jews, Jared Taylor should be blaming his own Wasp kind. Why did they hand over power to the Jews almost completely? That was the beginning of much of the rot since. Taylor bitches about blacks, Mexicans, and etc. not being properly patriotic in the new order, but who created the new order? Jews spearheaded the making of New America, but Wasps just played along. If Wasps are such worthless cucks to Jews, why should it be surprising that nonwhites would no longer respect whites? Of course, given that most nonwhites would find it odd if Jews told them, "Americanism = Jewish Greatness", Jews encourage the next-best-thing, which is anti-whiteness or 'scapewhiting'(scapegoat whitey for everything), as it unites all nonwhites with Jews in the War on Whiteness. War on Whiteness or WOW is great for Jews as it morally shames and paralyzes whites into having no pride and prestige, which translates into having no will and agency. Filled with shame and 'white guilt', whites become mired in mode of redemption, the terms of which are decided by Jews who advise Total Support for Zion, More Wars for Israel, More Diversity, and More Globo-Homo(proxy of Jewish Power).
The source of the problem is the Jewish-White relations. When whites handed over power to Jews, Jews made the key decisions, and those have been premised on whatever-necessary-to-secure-Jewish-power. #1 priority for Jews is then White Submissivism to Jewish Supremacism. If Taylor will not discuss Jewish Power, it's like complaining about the smoke without mentioning the fire. Also, does it make sense for whites to bleat about blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. when whites themselves cravenly collaborate with Jewish Power? Whites, especially the elites, don't stand for what is good for America as a whole. They suck up to Jews and support Jewish identity & Zionism. When whites act like that, why should nonwhites be good American patriots? Whites have led the way in betraying the original Americanism. In some ways, nonwhites, such as blacks into black power and Mexican-Americans into Mexican pride, are more admirable because, at the very least, they are tribal-patriotic about their own kind. In contrast, whites have betrayed both White Power and Traditional Americanism. They are now allergic to anything white-and-positive but also utterly lack a general sense of Americanism. White 'liberals' love to virtue-signal by supporting blacks, diversity, & globo-homo, AND white 'conservatives' love to cuck-signal by waving the Israeli Flag & yapping about how Israel is "America's best, greatest, closest, and dearest ally." Both groups fail at simple generic patriotism based on rules and principles. For white 'liberals', blacks are higher than other groups, and for white 'conservatives' it's Jews-uber-alles. In the current order, Jews encourage nonwhites to wave their own identitarian flag AGAINST whiteness while encouraging whites to wave the Zionist flag. In a way, one might say this Jewish strategy is foolish. After all, if nonwhites are made to be anti-white and if whiteness is made to be synonymous with support-for-Israel and praise-of-Jews, might it not lead to nonwhites being anti-Israel and anti-Jewish as well? After all, if whiteness = love-for-Jews whereas non-whiteness = anti-whiteness, wouldn't it lead to non-whiteness = anti-Jewishness since whiteness is so closely associated with cucking to Jews? Jews bank on two factors in this strategy. They figure (1) nonwhites are too dumb to connect the dots or (2) even if nonwhites connected the dots and became more critical of Israel & Jewish Power on account of whiteness = support-for-Zion, it will draw whites even closer to Zion as white-knight-defenders of Israel against the rising tide of darkies. We see scenario 2 play out with both Mitt Romney and Jared Taylor. They hope that powerful Jews will like them more if they stand with Jews against the 'antisemitic' darkies. It's like Jews encourage Ilhan Omar to be anti-white while white conzos beat their chests as noble defenders of Jews from 'Anti-Semites'.

Also, we must keep in mind that Jews are using white-elites as the template for goy-elites around the world, and of course, once the elites in other countries are turned, it's only a matter of time before the masses are turned as well. Consider the spread of Christianity in Europe. The elites adopted the new faith, which then spread among the masses as well. In a way, anti-white-ness in the US seems to weaken America. When the white elites of the majority population are so blamed-and-shamed into self-abasement mode, it does seem weak and pathetic indeed. How can America exert power abroad when it's so full of self-doubt? And yet, white cuckery is meant to serve as the template for other elites around the world, especially in the satellite countries. Indeed, look at the impact on Japan. For the longest time, the Japanese Way was seen as the opposite of the American Way. But Japanese elites(and those of Taiwan and South Korea) take cues from white elites, and they too promote 'diversity', globo-homo, mass-immigration, and 'anti-racism', i.e. opposing foreign invasion is 'xenophobic'. So, the white-weakening also serves to weaken the goy elites(and masses) of other countries that still take cues from the White Way. This is especially significant in East Asia, the only non-white part of the world that substantially caught up to Western standards of development. As these nonwhite elites come to worship the same gods(controlled by Jews) that white elites do, they also grow weak and fall under the sway of Jewish Power. White elites used to be gloriously race-ist and made common cause with white masses. Nowadays, white elites claim to be 'anti-racist' and look down on white masses as 'deplorables' or 'domestic terrorists'. And such attitude has spread in East Asia as well. And of course, it's the Standard in Canada and EU with 'leaders' like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron. So, the white-weakening doesn't necessarily lead to a weaker America vis-a-vis other countries. If anything, precisely because most elites around the world ape the White Standard, they follow the White Way and weaken themselves... of course to the total delight of Jews. If only whites were affected by PC, the West might grow weak relative to the rest of the world. But insofar as the elites of the Rest ape the elites of the West(who now cuck to Jews, celebrate homos, and idolize Negroes), White Weakness is leading to Goy Weakness across the globe, which is just what the Jews want: All the goyim weakened. Now, Russia, China, and Iran are relatively free of Western Power, but this is only politically and militarily. Culturally and intellectually, many educated people over there still look to the West as the standard of 'progress' and whatever is thought to be 'more evolved'. Indeed, notice how most of the children of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian immigrants in the US and Canada turn into mindless minions of PC.
Another way that White Weakness can actually be a boon to US global power follows the logic of Christian morality. Christianity was about humility and guilt, and one would think such an ethos of passivity would have led to Western Decline, and indeed, some made the association between Christianity and the Fall of Rome. But later, this cult of humility filled Western Folks with spiritual-and-moral righteousness. Their sense of sinner-guilt before God made them feel holier-than-thou, thereby justified in conquering and converting other peoples. A similar kind of logic is behind PC. It's true that, on the one hand, it fills white Americans with guilt, shame, and doubt about their entire history and heroes. Whites now cuck before Jews, Negroes, homos, and even trannies. And yet, such cuckery also fills many whites with righteous indignation. They believe America and the West are better, superior, and more justified precisely because they kiss the sacred Jew's ass, wash the holy Negro's feet, and suck the tranny's magic-dong. Some of the most zealously aggressive whites are the 'woke' ones who feel that precisely because they cuck so hard to the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos, they are better than not only 'racist' whites but many peoples around the world who aren't so 'woke' or keen on revering the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. After all, Chinese don't wash the Negro's feet, Russians don't bend over to Holy Homo, and Iran doesn't suck up to Jews. Today, the 'woke' US military is dropping lots of bombs in the Middle East painted with BLM and globo-homo symbols. Negroes are especially useful to Jews because Negrolatry has become the Moral Currency of the World. If there was a truly global currency, it would feature MLK or Mandela(or George Floyd). America says, "We've come a long way because we now feel so sorry about what was done to the Negro", and China, Russia, & Iran say "America is tainted for its 'racism' against the Noble Negro." So, China, Russia, and Iran, in using the Moral Currency favored by America, fall into the trap of Negrolatry. Thus, they too fall under the sway of the gods controlled by Jews.

Gregory Hood's article is ultimately pointless because it is Jaredy-Taylor-made to cuck-to-Jews, of which there are two kinds: The Loud-Cucking of Conservatism Inc. that gushes about Jews as the greatest, noblest, wisest, most tragic, & most awesome people that ever lived AND the Silent-Cucking that remains mute on Jewish Power as the main source of anti-white politics. All said and done, what's the point of complaining about PC and censorship if one doesn't name the source of the problem? It's like complaining of the foul air without looking for the dead animal that is causing the stink.
Whatever pluralism that may have existed does no longer in the American Argument. We are told the US is more diverse than ever, and that is true of the population and middle-management, but the upper echelons of power have become more homogeneous or monomaniacal than ever: Jewish Supremacist globalist Zionism. Long ago, Anglo-Christians were on top. Then, things loosened up after World War II and especially in the Sixties. As Anglo-Americans lost their grip, other groups took on bigger roles, what with Irish Kennedy becoming the first Catholic president. Back then, Jews were powerful and rising fast. Still, they didn't dominate like they do today. And Catholics carried considerable cultural weight. And as the nation was less homogenized by mass media of TV that in time became the centerpiece of American identity & culture in all fifty states and every small town, power was regionally more dispersed. With Wasps waning and with other groups/forces ascending, the second half of the 20th century was probably when the US was most pluralistic at the top with various vying for influence or at least their sphere of influence. But over time, Jews or BUGS(busy urban globalist semites) gained at the expense of all others. Why? Jews took over the key levers of power. Also, Jews understood in the 60s that the youth, the boomers, were the key to the future. So, while the power of other groups was based more conservatively on tradition and community — Irish or Italian patriarchy, traditional hierarchy rooted in the Old World, Catholic moralism, etc. — , Jewish power was based on winning the hearts and minds(or mindlessness) of the young whose eyes and ears were glued to TV, radio, movies, celebrity-idolatry, and etc. The end-result was Jews not only controlling the key institutions and industries(media, finance, law firms, big tech) but controlling the gods and idols that came to mean most to the boomer generation and ones that followed.

We now have a country that indeed is more diverse than ever in terms of mass-demography, middle-management, and celebrity/idolatry/iconography but is also more mono-tribal-and-thematic than ever at the very top. Just look at Joe Biden's administration; the so-called 'adults in the room' with the most important positions are almost all Jews or total cuck-puppets of Jews. And what was Obama? A street-organ-monkey for the Jews. Kamala is an even bigger whore of Zion, if such thing is possible(and yes it is).
There was a time when feminists had something like real power. Today, Jews have all the on/off switches and decide who's-hot-and-who's-not at the moment. So, Jews can favor globo-homo and push blacks to the back of the bus. But when Jews needed black support again, they engineered the George Floyd riots with their control of media and deep state. So, in 2020, homos had to take the backseat to Negros who were allowed to indulge in Black Sack in the name of BLM. When Jews needed women to be hissing at Trump and everything he stood for, supposedly 'male chauvinism', they greenlit the Pussy March and the #MeToo movement. So, feminists, who'd been sidelined by globo-homo and gender-bender nonsense for some years, were brought back in force.
Of course, all these had unforeseen or problematic consequences for Jews. #MeToo ended up bagging some prominent Jews, especially those in media. It also exposed the power of Jewish men who act badly and get away with it. And BLM riots ended up harming some parts of cities where Jews dwell or work. But Jews see it as worthwhile gambit. Lose some but gain more, and they were hellbent on losing some to gain the White House from Donald Trump who, despite his obsequiousness to Zionist Power, reminded Jews of 'antisemitic' demagogues of the past. BLM and blackness became especially important in the Trump Era because what Jews fear most is WGTOW or whites-going-their-own-way and stop doing as Jews tell them to. Jews thought, "What can we use to elevate 'white guilt' to unprecedented levels so as to morally, emotionally, and spiritually browbeat whites into remaining on the Jewish-Supremacist plantation?" Jews figured it'd be BLM. Homos are anti-conservative and have a corrosive effect on whites(or any community), but globo-homo doesn't quite promote 'white guilt'. True, white homos are among the biggest collaborators with Jewish Supremacism, but Jews needed something stronger. What about feminism? After all, it's been useful in setting white women against white men. But all said and done, white men and white women still marry and have children together. Also, what with so many powerful white men being Jewish, something like the #MeToo movement showed how anti-male politics can easily end up hurting Jews. What about the Immigrants. But no matter how much the Jewish Media tried to caricaturize Trump's border policies as akin to Nazis rounding up the Jews, the great majority didn't buy the nonsense. Also, even if it's true that many non-white immigrant groups did suffer terribly at the hands of whites(Anglos or Spanish), they simply lack the idol-factor that blacks have due to sports and rap. No one really cares about the Guatemalans at the US-Mexican border. And so, Jews figured they must play up BLM even harder to perpetuate 'white guilt' and paralyze white agency. But, in the end, it's all bait-and-switch. Whites are made to feel guilty about blacks but then made to serve Jews. It's come to whites bemoaning Jim Crow in the South & denouncing Apartheid in Old South Africa and making amends by... supporting 'Jim Crowitz' and 'Aparschweid' in West Bank. Indeed, it's downright surreal that the very people who most loudly denounce 'racism' of White America then go about recruiting whites to support Jewish tyranny, wars, and semi-genocides in the Middle East and North Africa.

When Jews favor a particular group, it thinks it's on the rise, gaining real power, but it's really a ruse, like the workings of Hollywood. A certain star may think he or she is the hottest stuff and unstoppable, but Jewish bosses can bring him or her down at any moment. Jews giveth, Jews taketh away. This is truer now than ever as Jewish Power is the only game in town in the academia, media, big tech, finance, laws & courts, and etc. Also, as Jews control the gods and define what sacred-vs-profane, even the many non-Jews in important institutions 'worship' according to Jewish commands. Most goyim simply lack the will and/or aptitude to think outside the box constructed by Jewish Big Minds. Jews have their fingers on the spigots. The spigots get to say who are the bigots. Spigotry is where the real power is, and the Jews are the biggest spigots around. When the spigots are turned on for your group or side, you think you are riding high... but when the spigots are turned off, your plan fades into a mirage in a desert. It's like how Jews toy with blacks. If some Negro badmouths whites, Jewish spigots give him water. But if he also badmouths Jews, the spigots are shut off... unless he repents and attacks only whites while sparing and praising Jews. When the spigots were on for #MeToo, the feminists thought they had history by the balls. They were unstoppable, but the Jewish spigots said, "Enough of that" and turned on the water for the Trannies who soon put the feminists back in the kitchen to bake more 'woke' cookies from the globo-homo recipe. The problem is less bigotry in America than Jewish spigotry that plays thumbs up or down on the Current Year Winners and Losers.

There's all this talk of US vs China, and once again, Jews are up to no good. Jews are turning on the spigots for the China-bashers in the spirit of 'Better You than Me', or 'Better Chu than Jew'. Jews figure that, just as 'Russia, Russia, Russia' has the so-called 'left' focused on the Russian Menace than on the real Jewish tyrants in the West, 'China, China, China' will keep the so-called 'rightists' busy with hysterics over Fu Man Chu & Ming the Merciless than with the real Jewish Power behind globalism. And as most 'conservatives' are craven cowards and cucks, they go where the water is. As Jews are turning on the water for the China-bashers, all these craven conzos who never stood up to black thuggery, Jewish tyranny, and globo-homo degeneracy are making big tough-guy noises about Bad China. (Of course, Asians in America are no better. A bunch of yellow dogs, they are always stuck in Model Minority mentality. The great irony is that their rejection of the Model Minority monicker is just another expression of MM-thinking. After all, what is a 'model minority'? It is the one that makes the least trouble for the Ruling Power and sucks up to the prevailing norms & dogma. As Jews got the most power and push anti-white victimology among nonwhites, yellows with their model-minority-mentality do their best to conform to those PC expectations. They do everything to appease the Jews as the top power, and as such, are stuck in MM mentality.)

In a way, China, especially 19th century China, is worthy of comparison with the US. Now, this may sound absurd because there are many more differences than similarities. China in the 19th century was the 'Sick Man of Asia', in some ways in worse straits than the fast-declining Ottoman Empire(which would have fared far better with German victory in World War I). In contrast, the US in the 21st century is the richest and most powerful nation on Earth and will continue to be so for the rest of the century(and the century beyond that). The US with its land, resources, population, and talent pool(drawn from all parts of the world) can't help but to be powerful REGARDLESS of which peoples rule it and populate it. If, say, all Americans today were replaced by Hindus, the US would still be a great superpower. Of course, if US were to become all-black, it will fast turn into a Third World nation with nukes, but that isn't going to happen.

What US in the 21st century and China in the 19th century do have in common is the politics of demoralization or dehumanization of the majority population. China then was ruled by the Manchu dynasty. In some ways, they were 'Chinese', in other ways, they were rulers over the Chinese. Jews occupy a similar position in the US and the West. They are 'white', but they are not white. The Historical Narrative makes Jews out to be victims of 'antisemitic' whites, and current reality has Jews as the rulers over whites. Jewish-American Power is said to be American Power, and it's deemed 'antisemitic' for anyone to suggest that Jewish interests aren't aligned with American interests, let alone hostile to American interests and, as such, constitute a virulent anti-Americanism. Jewish Power glorifies America as a dream and hope but only in accordance to its own grand design. When it comes to White America, Jews are usually insulting, derogatory, and hostile.
Indeed, Jews even suggest that White America wasn't the real America because it betrayed what it really should have been(according to Jewish wishes or Jewishes). Jews argue that America was founded on justice, freedom, and equality, but whites really practiced a form of 'white supremacism', and therefore, historical America isn't the Real America, which is only now truly coming into being under Jewish auspices. And yet, Jews are full of BS because they pressure all Americans, especially whites, into supporting Jewish Power Uber Alles — just ask the Palestinians — and have created a hierarchy of who's-hot-and-who's-not that isn't all that different in kind from the List by the KKK Guy on the Howard Stern Show.

Also, isn't it odd that Jews mostly leave out the American Indians from the Moral Narrative. Jews say that whites were 'racist' and 'evil' for not allowing More Immigration to All Peoples(especially Jews) from around the world but say almost nothing about what mass immigration did to the native population(and later to Palestinians). Also, on the occasion when Jews do fuss about the tragedy of indigenous folks, it's a game of Blame Whitey. Thus, whites are made guilty of two crimes: Invading the Indigenous Folks and Not Sufficiently Inviting the Jews & Non-White Folks. But if mass invasion from the Old World led to the erasure of the American Indians, wouldn't Jews and nonwhites(such as Chinese who built railroads and Japanese who worked on farms in California) also be complicit in the Great White Crime of destroying the Indigenous Folks? And didn't Jewish merchants sell guns and ammo to cowboys? But no, the Jewish Logic doesn't work that way. Rather, it says Whitey Is Evil, so whitey alone must bear the moral burden of both wiping out the indigenous tribes and holding back the immigrant hordes. So, even though Jews and nonwhites rode on the coattails of white conquest and settlement of North America, they get to huddle with indigenous American Indians as 'fellow victims' of whitey. As nutty as such moral logic is, it makes perfect strategic sense. Jewish supremacism depends on white submission, therefore anything that fuels 'white guilt' and paralyzes white pride is good in Jewish eyes.

What Jews have done to whites, the Manchu rulers once did to the Chinese. Just like Jews claim to be American-like-everyone-else and part of Western Civilization, Manchus played up their credentials as rightful rulers of China and upholders of tradition and cultural prestige. And yet, they always reminded the Chinese of the difference between Manchus and the rest. Manchus were conquerors, victors, & overlords, and the Chinese, as the subject folks, better not forget it. Thus, it was more a case of the Chinese upholding Manchu glory than Manchus serving China.
Likewise, Jews insist upon an America/West where whites support and serve Jewish Power than where Jews serve whites or partner with whites on equal basis. As the Chinese outnumbered the Manchus many times over, the Chinese had to be reminded who's the real boss... lest they summon the collective will to throw off the Manchu yoke. Indeed, the real progenitors of China as the 'Sick Man of Asia' were none other than the Manchus, a semi-barbarian people who, with the aid of Mongol archers, conquered a China in decay. China had history, tradition, culture, and people but was in disarray, ripe for an invading power to fill the void. In contrast, the Manchus had martial spirit and will-to-power, that is until they eased into complacent Chinese Imperial sensibility, leaving them vulnerable when the Europeans arrived with bigger boats and guns. Anyway, in order to keep the far more numerous Chinese in line, the Manchus had to humiliate them, and one of the ways was to force all Chinese men to grow and wear queues as sign of subordination to Manchu authority. The failure to do so was a death sentence. Any Chinese male who lost his pigtail risked losing his head as well. Over time, wearing queues became the New Normal among Chinese men. It was as if they were born to serve the more virile and martial Manchus who came to own the Mandate of Heaven. Perceived as such, the Manchus controlled the gods.

US today is about Jews and Queues. Of course, whites wear figurative 'queues' than literal ones. Jews have the power of Manchus or 'Manjews', and whites at a moment's notice must show total loyalty to Jewish Power. When white cuck politicians(as well as non-white ones) make pilgrimages to Israel, don yarmulkes on the goy-kop heads, and stand before the Wailing Wall(and slip in pieces of paper into the crevices with messages like "I suck Jewish cock" and "I love to take it up the ass from Jews"), it's hardly different from Chinese men wearing queues and bowing before the procession of Manchu warriors on horseback.
Jews and Manchus are similar in that they have an ambiguously dual relation in regard to the larger population, much like Macedonians over the Greek World. Jews are, at once, Americans-like-any-other and the Rulers of America whom the lesser goyim must obey. They are both 'white' and non-white(or victims of whites). They are admired as victors and pitied as victims.
Likewise, Manchus were 'Chinese' and the conquerors & tyrants over the Chinese. They were both defenders of Chinese prestige & glory and repressors of Chinese national will, not least when the Chinese were clamoring against Western encroachment. Faced with the Western Threat, the Manchu ruling dynasty walked a thin line of leading the Chinese resistance to the 'foreign devils' AND collaborating with foreign intruders to keep the Chinese people in their place, one of subservience and obedience. In a similar vein, the Jewish Rulers of America both inflame chest-beating American Rage at foreign powers, especially Russia, China, & Iran(though Venezuela also joined the list) AND work with other nations & globalist elements to undermine sovereignty & autonomy in America(and just about every European nation within the US sphere of influence). Jews constantly bang on the war drums. Russia! Russia! Putin as New Hitler is attacking US democracy! Jews made a big deal of War on Terror. The Muslims attacked the US on 9/11 and good patriotic Americans must fight these Wars for Israel, I mean 'War on Terror', against the baddies. It was Chuck Norris Time all over again.

But then, these Jews, who call on American 'patriotism' to invade and attack other nations, then embrace the peoples displaced by these very wars, bring them to the West, and urge them to join the Democratic Party to combat American 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. Jews hoodwink white patriots into fighting Wars for Israel(branded as War on Terror), and then put their arms around Muslim refugees as comrades in the war against 'white terrorism'. Jews have worked with the Chinese to further the globalist agenda, the main beneficiaries of which are urban professionals, financial wizards, and big tech oligarchs. The Western 1%, among whom Jews are prominent, has raked in most of the rewards of globalism. Yet, lest the goyim in the West wake up to what's really going on, the very Jews who worked so closely with China(and India) encourage anti-China-bashing so that the blame for the problems of globalism will fall on the Chinese.

One thing for sure, globalism has pushed many whites to the breaking point, not least because the Internet has allowed the dissemination of ideas previously checked or suppressed by Jewish monopolization of the media. Jews had less reason to fear Free Speech in the past because, minus something like the internet, it was very difficult for dissident or alternative ideas/views to gain traction in a world where all the academic institutions and media industries were in the hands of Jews and their puppets.
But as information flows freely across the internet, anti-globalist views spread far and wide, and Donald Trump ran on them in 2016. Initially, Jews welcomed the power of the internet. They saw it as a tool for weakening nationalism and goy borders as people around the world would form trans-national communities online, and to a large extent, this has been true. Consider how the internet has eroded the sense of national identity even in Japan. And the power of the internet has transformed Russia, Iran, and China as well. People there have gained accessed to news and views from the outside, and of course, most global information and idolatry are controlled by Jews.

And yet, the internet, in allowing everyone to participate, has also made people more aware and anxious of the rapid changes afoot. And, more people than ever, at least in a long time, have been awakened to the JQ. So, Jews value the internet as a spreader of globalism and seek to ensure that it will spread nothing but globalism. For Jews, the internet should be a free-flow-of-information-approved-by-Jews. It's like Jewish neo-definition of 'free speech'. You're FREE to agree with Jews and spout their favored narratives & dogma. But if you dare go against the Jewish Decree, you are not practicing 'free speech' but 'hate speech'. You are a 'hater' and must be silenced. You must be denied financial services. You might as well be labeled a 'terrorist'. So, 'free speech' means you are 'free' to suck up to Jews, and 'free-flow-of-information' means you can freely exchange ideas and views approved by Jews. If not, you end up like Donald Trump on Facebook and Twitter. If they can do it to the President of the US, it means your freedom is kaput in the Jewish Supremacist or 'Manjewrian' World.

The 'Manchurian Candidate' invokes the danger of prominent figures in America serving a malevolent foreign power, even unwittingly or unconsciously. The concept goes far beyond the notion of 'useful idiots', who are always a dime-a-dozen. It plays on the paranoia that figures in key positions could have been 'manufactured' or 'constructed' abroad at the psychological level. As such, they don't really know that they are tools because the manipulation has been at the subconscious level. In the famous movie, a patriotic war hero has been programmed to follow any instruction when placed under hypnosis triggered by a game of Solitaire. In that regard, he is anti-American only under the spell and only for specific operations, like carrying out assassinations. He and his comrades, who'd also been 'brainwashed', haven't been made to consciously work against America. In contrast, the manipulation is far subtler, thereby more profound, in INCEPTION. There, a certain young man has been subconsciously modified to believe his conscious decisions are entirely his own when, in fact, they are manifestations of the alteration. As for the guy who carries out the inception, he wants to go home to his children so badly that he's willing to do something that is ethically dubious, to say the least. But then, the British soldiers end up betraying their French comrades to scramble for home sweet home in DUNKIRK.

The current political reality is closer to INCEPTION than MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. After all, it's not as if most US politician and goy elites are patriotic good Americans MOST OF THE TIME and act against their own nation/people only under hypnosis. No, they are traitors 24/7. They betray their own race during waking hours and probably in their dreams as well, in which they probably cuck even harder to almighty Jews. But why? Because they've been shaped by the academia, media, entertainment, and idolatry-iconography controlled by Jews. Jewish control has penetrated so deeply into their psyches that they can't differentiate the manipulation from their own minds. They truly believe that what they think and do is good and the product of their own agency and will. It's like Justin Trudeau is a pathetic cucky-wuck dork-maggot of Jewish Globalists but truly believe that he's a good guy and that 'Canadian Values' are really about Diversity, Jew-worship, Negro-worship, and Globo-Homo.
Granted, much of Jewish manipulation is far from subtle, but when something is so pervasive, it becomes persuasive by volume alone. It's like even non-Christians get into the 'spirit of Christmas' in a society where most people are Christians who take Christmas seriously. Jews are, of course, of two minds about Christmas as well. For them, it is a big cash cow, too good to ignore or let go. But, it's also the one celebration shared by all Western and European folks. French, British, Germans, Russians, Americans, Canadians, and etc. have different dates for national holidays, but they are all united in observing Christmas. This angers Jews, but there's just too much money to be made. But then, Jews did everything to commercialize Christmas as much as possible, and it is now more about rioting at Walmart during the shopping season than observing Jesus' birth.

Current Jewish Power configuration is the most perverse thing in the world, maybe in all of history. Has there been anything like it? The most powerful power in the world controlling the US as the Lone Superpower but hidden from sight(or is it hidden in plain sight?), but few dare speak about it. Just like codewords such as 'teens' and 'youths' are used for blacks, people prefer to talk of 'leftists', 'globalists', 'communists', 'Soros' & gang, 'oligarchs', and etc. than speak of Jews. On occasion, some may critically call out on Zionists, but few dare to name the Jew.
Granted, Jews could pull this off in the West because they sufficiently blended with the European race to pass as 'white'. Whiteness is both a target of Jews and their protective shell. Take Jews and South Africa. Jews control the diamond mines, the banks, and much else, BUT they can always hide behind whiteness. Jews-as-whites means white goyim tend to see them as Fellow Whites or Special Whites and go easy on them; Jews-as-whites means that blacks will tend to attack them as 'whites' than as Jews. It's win-win for Jews. It's the same in the US, e.g. the #HollywoodSoWhite. Jewish Privilege wears a white mask. As such, many whites go easy on 'white' Jews as fellow whites, whereas nonwhites attack Jewish-run Hollywood as 'too white'. So, even as or especially because Jews bash whiteness, it has great value to them. It serves as scapegoat for all the bad things Jews do, all of which can be blamed on 'whiteness'. White conzos tend to eye Jews favorably as Fellow Whites whereas white libby-dibs & non-whites see 'white privilege' wherever Jewish Power dominates. Thus, Jews win with both sides with 'whiteness' that can be seen as a blessing or curse. Jews get to be 'zeligish' with whiteness.

One reason Jewish Power has gone unnoticed or pretend-unnoticed is due to its viral nature. If Manchu conquest of China was violent, Jewish infiltration of America was virulent. Manchus conquered the entire land and people; Jews penetrated and gained control of the goy elites who then colluded with Jews against their own kind on condition that they would keep their wealth & privilege(and win more prizes) if they play second-fiddle to the Fiddler in the Ivory Tower. When someone beats you up and takes control of you, you know you've been beaten or 'owned'. Whether man or beast, it's visible and obvious when he or it attacks and destroys you. But germs go unnoticed when they enter the body, and Jewish Power gained access to power that way.
Jewish attempt to gain supremacy over goyim didn't begin in America, but the themes of American Pride and Holocaust Guilt did wonders for Jews. In the past, when Jewish bankers tried to take power by financial machinations, the goy elites might eventually tire of them, call them out as 'blood-suckers', and toss them to the goy mobs who reviled them as 'Christ-Killers'. But the Holocaust Guilt made 'antisemitism' an unforgivable 'sin' and ultimately even a crime. Thus, it became ever more difficult to call out on bad Jewish behavior as ANY negative aspersion about Jews, however justified, came to be denounced as 'antisemitic'. And Jews especially gained from America's self-perception as the land of the free, land of equal opportunity, the land of meritocracy. American Ethos set itself against the Old World deemed oppressive, discriminatory, and tyrannical. In contrast, ANYONE could make it in America with hard work and respect for the law. Jews flattered the Anglo-American elites for having created such a wondrous system, and Wasps fell for the flattery... even though Jews had designs on Wasp power itself. Jewish praise of White-America-as-paradise was a set-up to deconstruct it as White-Betrayal-of-American-Principles, thereby delegitimizing White America's authority.

Of course, just like white cells notice the germs entering the system unbeknownst to the human eye, the white goy elites couldn't help but notice that Jews were making headway into elite institutions. Jews were gaining at such rapid pace that quotas were implemented in the most prestigious universities and Wall Street firms. The white elites could see up close what was happening as they held the power and privilege. But, in the end, they didn't band with the white masses or volks against Jewish power but formed a partnership with the ascendant Jews as Fellow White Elites in the hope that Jews would reciprocate in kind as they gained in power. But Jews insisted over time that white elites become the Bitch of Jewish Power. Just like a white inmate takes it up the ass from the stronger Negro in prison, white elites have to bend over to Jewish Power. In that sense, the Jewish promotion of globo-homo is apt. Jewish elite power buggers the white elites who f*** White America in the ass. Just look at the cucky-wuck faces of the likes of Mitt Romney, and it's so disgraceful. He always looks like he's been sucking Zionist penis when no one's watching.

Anyway, that's how US in the 21st century is like China of the 19th century. But there finally came a time when the Chinese finally began to stand up and cut off the queues. It's about time White America cut off their mental queues and demand liberation from the Jews. Under the current system, all white goy males must grow and wear mental pigtails of 'white shame' and 'white guilt'. Sadly, many whites carry this shame with 'pride'. Being on the mental plantation of Jewish Power, they've been conditioned to believe that whites are especially guilty and must atone for their 'historical sins', especially in relation to Jews and blacks. So, they use every opportunity to virtue-signal about how 'woke' they are. It is akin to the dog pride in serving the master. But then, a similar social phenomenon happened in China under Manchu rule. Though initially made to wear queues as sign of obedience to Manchus, many Chinese got so accustomed to the style that they couldn't conceive of life without one. So, even when the time came for the Chinese to rise up and cut off the pigtails, they clung to theirs as dear to life. It is then no wonder that so many whites cling to their mental pigtails of 'cuck' and/or 'woke'.

A CRISIS OF FREE SPEECH by Pat Condell

What Israel and Palestine reveal about Jewish Power Relation with the Goy World — Why Goyim must support 'Israel' while opposing Israel — Why Goyim must reject 'Palestine' while supporting Palestine — Why White Conservatives who Ideologically Oppose the Jewish Agenda feel obligated to Idolatrously Obsess over Jewishness & Israel

What can we learn from the subject of Israel-Palestine? Jews believe they are a special and unique people with a real identity. They believe a part of the world is deeply meaningful to them. The soil in the Holy Land isn't just any dirt or sand but sacred for the Jews on historical and spiritual grounds. So, Jewish identity matters. Jewish spirituality matters. Jewish territoriality matters. Those considerations are the founding principles of Israel. Call it Zionism, Jewish Nationalism, Jewish Identity Politics, Judeo-Fascism, or whatever. Jews believe they are for real in terms of who and where they are.
But this consideration certainly does NOT extend to Palestinians. Golda Meir said Palestinian identity is fake. Palestinians are just people or goyim who think they have an identity but don't. (Some blacks take cues from Jews and speak of 'people who think they are white'.) As such, Palestinians are underserving of nationhood as their identity is said to be fake, or even if real, infinitely inferior to the Jewish one. Much better for Palestinians to serve Jews or be replaced by Jews. Since Palestinians don't deserve nationhood, why should they deserve any land, especially one that is sacred and holy to Jews. (In truth, Palestinians have been on that land as long as the Jews have and thus have equal historical claim, but then, the Jewish Narrative dominates and has the backing of the powerful West. In the end, the Narrative and Power decide. Just ask the American Indians. Whatever claim they have to America doesn't matter. Manifest Destiny was one hell of an effective Narrative, and whites had the power to take and keep it.)

This means there can be no equality between Jews and Palestinians. Indeed, behind closed doors Jews are surely laughing their asses silly at the notion of equality between their awesome selves and those third-rate towel-headed 'raggers'. Of course, many Jews and US politicians say they support the 'two-state solution', but it is only to feign fairness, dodge the bigger issue, and dismiss the matter(with the impression that they are working toward achieving the said goal). The talk of Two-State Solution is a cover, not a conviction. It's like perfume to hide the stink. In reality, Jews have almost totally erased Palestinians as a people, culture, cause, and issue. And the US has been totally complicit in this great crime. Indeed, it's worth asking, do white elites have any agency left? Whether Republican or Democratic, white elites are mostly hapless and craven cucks who look over their shoulders to see WHAT THE JEWS WANT. So, Palestinians might as well be invisible subhumans in American eyes. But because epic hypocrisy is what America is about, there's the disgusting spectacle of Jews and white cucks claiming to support the 'two-state solution' to deflect from the fact that Zionists are totally erasing Palestine with the full support of White America.

Most Americans don't want to bother about the Palestinians, not least because the Pallies are a small population of 'losers' with little money and no power. Why should Americans care about such people? In a way, this is understandable. After all, the world is full of peoples and 'nations' like the Palestinians. They can be found in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and even in the West — I mean, who cares about 'white trash'? People like the Palestinians can be found anywhere. The world is full of them: A people of mostly modest and mediocre ability.
And yet, Palestinians should matter a great deal because the Jewish treatment of them reveal so much about the Jewish mindset and their grand plan. It matters to the whole world, especially the West, because Jews are the most powerful people and the basis of this power is their control of the West. How Jews regard and treat the Palestinians tells us so much about how they regard all goyim. Therefore, any bunch of goyim who ignore the plight of Palestinians as having no bearing on their own kind are foolish. Those who see the Israel-Palestinian Conflict as purely a Jewish-and-Arab thing with no relevance to themselves are seriously deluded. Not only have Jews quelled the Palestinians with the support of the West(thereby making the West culpable in the tragedy) but Jews rule over the peoples of the West whom they regard as little more than White Palestinians. If Jews didn't have control of the West, the Israel-Palestinian issue could be regarded as 'THEIR problem, not ours'. Perhaps tragic and unfortunate but unrelated to concerns of Western Folks. But the very people who have power of the Palestinians also have power over the West. If Jews regard Palestinians as subhuman goyim, what are the chances they think any more highly of other goyim such as whites? (And even if Jews do regard whites higher in value than the Palestinians, it will only mean greater hostility toward white identity and interests. After all, a man will work harder to own and gain control over a strong white horse than a weak brown one. Whereas Palestinians merely need to be quelled and silenced, whites are to be trained to obey and serve Jews at every turn.)
Also, recent events in the Middle East and North Africa have shown that Jews are in imperialist than nationalist mode. If Jews were in nationalist mode, Zionism would have been a limited imperialism, i.e. Jews taking land from Palestinians, forging a Jewish nation, and being content with a place to call homeland. But just like Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Imperialists weren't satisfied with Germany and had dreams of 'lebensraum' in the East, Jews have dreams of Greater Israel. They intend to cause more havoc all across the Middle East and don't care how many goyim die as long as the violence leads to more Jewish power and control across MENA. If Jews see the Arab World that way, what are the chances they see the White World any differently? And yet, so many craven Arabs(especially the vile Saudis and stupid Egyptians) actually cooperate with Jews, and of course, at this point, the white race might as well be called the Cuckasian race. Whites are now to Jews what Filipinos have been to Americans. A bunch of dogs.

At any rate, every people must make a choice. Do they want to be 'Israel' or 'Palestine'? Do they see their own nation as 'Israel' or 'Palestine'? Here, 'Israel' isn't Israel the nation but the national idea that one's own people are unique, special, rich in culture & history, and deserve to protect & preserve their homeland or motherland. That's how Jews see Israel. It's a sacred nation for a special/unique people. In contrast, Jews see Palestine as expendable, even downright disposable. From the Jewish perspective, Palestine exists for Jews to conquer and control. It has no other purpose. It's like ranchers don't consider the grazing ground as the land belonging to cattle. No, both the ground and cattle belong to the ranchers. Likewise, the notion of autonomy and agency among Palestinians is totally anathema to the Jewish Mind. Palestine existed only to be taken by Jews and to be made into Israel. It has meaning as Israel but no meaning as Palestine. Also, Palestinians exist to serve Jews or make way for Jews. They must either work for Jews or must be eliminated for Jewish settlement. Jews haven't yet decided on outright genocide, but Jewish indifference to the countless dead in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya suggests Jews are capable of being a bunch of Himmlers in their own right. There are Jews in Israeli government who've made eliminationist noises in regard to Palestinians, but even the 'liberal' side of the Zionist argument has always been dubious. After all, Israel was founded on the erasure of Palestine when dominant Zionists were on the 'left'. But Zionism was only as leftist as German National Socialism. As an ideology of the Jewish Volk, it emphasized the needs of Jewish workers as well as the Jewish wealthy. But, from the very outset, it eschewed universalism in favor of particularism.

For awhile, it seemed the Jews, having been burned by Nazi horrors in WWII, would have learned the lesson and maintained Zionism as a nationalism(built on limited imperialism) than convert it into a grand imperial plan, but time has shown that Zionists are a bunch of Nazionists. But then, the core conviction of both National Socialism and Zionism was tragically premised on the belief in racial supremacism. Germans thought 'Aryans' were the best and the rightful rulers of the world, and Jews feel that Judeo-Semites are the superior tribe and must rule over all the others. Jewish bitch about 'antisemitism', but the bigger danger in the world is supremacist Semitism, or Ultra-Semitism. When nationalism is based on supremacism, it can easily metastasize into imperialism.
Jews morally benefitted as victims of 'Aryan' supremacism, but the dirty secret is one bunch of supremacists were victimized by another. Currently, Jews are in total supremacist mode and moving the pieces on the chessboard to destroy the goy world. And this is why Palestine matters. From the Jewish perspective, 'Israel' means a people, culture, history, and territory worth defending. In contrast, 'Palestine' means a people, culture, history, and territory that have no intrinsic value and exist mainly as globalist commodity for Jews to manipulate, take over, and control.
So, one of the most important question among goy folks is HOW DO I SEE MY OWN PEOPLE OR NATION? Do I see it as 'Israel' or as 'Palestine'? If you see your own people as 'Israel', you believe in the uniqueness, specialness, and preciousness of your kind; you believe they have an inheritance worth protecting and preserving, something that is irreplaceable and priceless, something that collectively belongs to all within the group, something one cannot put a price tag on. You see your nation as Jews see Israel. In contrast, if you see your people as 'Palestine', you believe your people aren't special and unique; they are just people like any other and replaceable. Everything about your people is a 'social construct' and can be(and should be) deconstructed by globo-homo agents, and everything is for sale. In other words, you regard your own people as Jews regard Palestine.
Jews love Israel and despise Palestine, but Jews are most offended when goy folks around the world see their nation as 'Israel' than 'Palestine'. Jews want all goy nations to be 'Palestines', people and land that exist only to be subjugated and controlled by Jews via the gods and cash they control.

Take Poland. Any Pole who loves Poland and holds it dear and sacred(much like how Jews feel about Israel) is denigrated by Jews as a 'racist', 'far right extremist', 'xenophobe', 'white supremacist', and etc. So, Poland must not be 'Israel' to the Poles. It must be 'Palestine' for Jews to penetrate, subvert, take over, and control. (As so many Poles are craven cucks who cave and cater to the Top Power, there is no shortage of collaborators among them. They will gladly sell their nation down the river just like certain Palestinians did when Zionists initially arrived with lots of cash to throw around. For these weasel Poles, their country isn't Poland but 'Polastine'. Jews favor these Poles whose First Emotion is about status and privilege in the New World Order than defense of their motherland. These status-hungry Poles swoon at the feet of rich Jews while sneering at their own masses as 'white trash'. Their self-worth derives more from winning approval from Jews who despise 'dumb polacks' than maintaining solidarity with fellow Poles. If anything, they feel especially virtuous when disparaging their fellow countrymen as being insufficiently aligned with the Jewish 'Western' agenda.)

The great irony is that Jews hate Palestinians because most Palestinians see Palestine as 'Israel' than 'Palestine'. Palestinians see Palestine as their sacred homeland, their true nation, their inheritance and their right. They don't see Palestine in terms of nickels and dimes, thirty pieces of silver. They don't celebrate the Great Replacement or 'muh diversity' caused by massive Jewish immigration. Ideally, they want their nation back, just like the Viets wanted Vietnam back from the French and like the Hindus wanted India back from the British. Jews want Palestinians to see Palestine as 'Palestine' than as 'Israel'. But Palestinians insist on seeing Palestine as sacred and meaningful as Jews see Israel. For Palestinians, Palestine is 'Our Israel'. But in the monomaniacal Jewish Mind, there is only one true nation, just like there is only one true God. Jews long ago came into nationhood while claiming their God is the only true God and all other gods are false. Jews likewise feel that their identity, history, and territory are the only true tribe & nationhood and all else are false. No wonder Jews push globohomo tranny-business designed to confuse the minds of goyim. If dumb goyim can be made to believe man is 'woman' and woman is 'man', it means their minds can be goy-toyed by Jews.

This is why goyim must support 'Israel' than Israel. 'Israel' is to believe that your own people, nation, history, and territory are special, unique, precious, and sacred. They must be defended. They are not commodities that are for sale to the highest bidder or trickiest shyster. 'Israel' means universal nationalism, i.e. every nation is unique in its own way and worth defending on those grounds.
In contrast, Israel is the neo-imperialist center of Jewish Power, and its globalist agenda is to turn all the goy world into one big 'Palestine', something to be conquered/controlled by Jews in myriad ways, be they military, monetary, political, and/or cultural. The current power of Israel is against 'Israel', the idea that every people have a sacred homeland and deep history of their own. Israel insists that all goy peoples and nations become 'Palestine', which is what Jewish supremacist power has done to Palestine: Goy Land turned into property and plaything for the Jews to do with as they please.

Why does Israel have Replenishment Immigration(that is restricted to fellow Jews)while Jews push Replacement Immigration on others? Why does Israel have a healthy birthrate while goy birthrates are cratering in the First World, West and East? Israel is surely divided among European Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, North African Jews, and even some black Jews, but they are united by a proud tribal identity with the full backing of the state. Such boosts the morale of the Israelis, but Jews discourage and even disparage it among goy nations on the basis that it's 'far right' and 'extremist' and 'hateful'. Also, Jews have healthy birthrates because the mere fact of Jewishness has value in Israel. It doesn't matter if you're rich, middle, or poor. You mean something simply because you're Jewish in the Jewish homeland. But in goy nations affected by modernity's war on tribalism and nationalism, there is no such pride. The only pride allowed is individual success and materialism. So, if you are one of the haves, you got the pride of privilege, but if you're one of the have-nots or have-lesses, you're just a 'loser', 'deplorable', or worse. In the US, white elites look down on poor whites as 'white trash' who are replaceable with brown peons or should be eliminated via opioids peddled by Jews. How the world has turned with Jewish peddlers becoming Jewish meddlers.

If white goyim regarded their own worlds as 'Israel', they would see, feel, and act differently than they are currently doing under the spell of Jewish Power. They would try to keep their nations white. They would feel a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood with all whites, rich or poor. It'd be the positive side of National Socialism and its emphasis on the volk. As all white lives would have value, white parents wouldn't mind having kids who don't make it to the top. Even if the kid grows up to be a truck driver or plumber, his real value would be in his racial identity and cultural inheritance than his money or property. Jews know the advantage of such mindset, and so, they use their control of media and academia to persuade goyim that it's wrong for them to think, feel, and act like that. (The Mindset is for Jews alone.) No, goyim must just be atomized individuals with no sense of tribe, history, and territory.

But, here's the real zinger that points to Jewish perfidy. Jews then say the goyim, atomized and deracinated, must totally support Jewish identity, Jewish history, and Jewish territory. Talk about a bait-and-switch. It's totally vile and dirty, but Jews don't see it that way. From the Jewish POV, it's morally justified in the way that 'Aryan' supremacy made total moral sense to Adolf Hitler. In Hitler's mind, if indeed the Aryans are the superior folks, it's only right that they should dominate the world. After all, humans rule over animals. Likewise, Jews feel it's only right that inferior goyim must serve the Jews. Of course, the difference is whereas Hitler and the Nazis were blatant about their racial chauvinism, Jews conceal theirs under the cover of 'leftism' and PC. Jews concocted a way of pushing Zionist supremacism behind the screen of 'equity'. You have Jew-pets like Kamala Harris yapping about 'equity' while doing little else but sucking up to Zionist supremacism, which has 'passover' privilege in the West.

So many white 'conservatives' support Israel, but they should really be supporting 'Israel'. Again, Israel is the actual Jewish Nation that believes Jews and only Jews are deserving of identity, history, and territory while all goy folks, like the Palestinians, must be subjugated, manipulated, and controlled. In contrast, 'Israel' is the ideal of universal nationalism that says every people/nation is precious, valuable, and meaningful. Hungary as 'Israel' is the sacred homeland for the Hungarians. Hungary as 'Palestine' is just globo-homo property for Jews to penetrate, subvert, purchase, and mess up. In the 1990s, Russia became one big 'Palestine' for Jews to conquer and control, and the Tribe ran off with gazillions in assets while so many Russians ended up in dire straits, much like what Palestinians are facing. Though Vladimir Putin has been far from ideal, there was something about his moderate nationalism that said Russia is the 'Israel' for Russian folks. As such, it is not a plaything or mere property for Jews to control and manipulate. Also, Russian people have an identity and history that are deep and inseparably wedded to Russian territory as motherland. Jews seethed with hatred at the idea of Russia as 'Israel' for the Russians. They insisted it be 'Palestine' for Jews to conquer and control. Jews don't see Russia as a sacred motherland for the Russians but as a shikse whore for Jewish lust and greed. No wonder Jews want Red Square to turn into Pink Square where the proxies of Jews, the homos and trannies, are to desecrate and take over as the new face of Russia.

When white 'conservatives' support Israel, they are in effect saying Jews are the only people with a true identity, history, and territory whereas all the rest should just surrender what makes them unique & special and turn their nations into mere marketplaces in the globo-homo world controlled by Jews. (That is exactly the message of Charlie Kirk, the worthless cuck-boy messenger of Neocons.) The Jewish dream is to turn all of the West into one big West Bank. And Jews now have control over Japan and many other goy nations as most elites around the world take their cues from Jewish-controlled academia and media. Japan too will become 'Palestine'. In the past, Japanese regarded their nation as an 'Israel'. But then, the First Emotion among East Asians is servile loyalty to the top authority and status-neuroticism than an embracing sense of tribe and volk. Indeed, Japanese are among those who don't need the Jews to spread prostitution and pornography as the Japanese are glad to turn their national daughters and sisters into whores and skanks.

White Conservatives must be careful about which ISRAEL they are supporting. Is it Israel or 'Israel'? Israel is the globo-homo Jewish supremacist metropole that says only Jews are special and that goyim are expendable. 'Israel' is the universal-nationalist idea that all nations/peoples are special and that they have a right & duty to safeguard and ensure the survival of their own nations, narratives, and natures. 'Israel' allows nationalism for Jews and goyim alike. In contrast, Israel means nationalism is only for Jews, and because it's a supremacist notion, Jewish nationalism turns invariably into imperialism of domination over goyim as 'more palestinians'. The idea of 'Israel' applies to all the world. In contrast, the agenda of Israel says all the world belongs to Jews as one big 'Palestine' for Jews to conquer and control.

Especially stupid and immoral are white people who support Israel and ignore/mock the plight of Palestinians. Both white 'liberals' and white 'conservatives' are total idiots in this regard. For white 'liberals', it is a betrayal of their oft-touted commitment to equality and fairness. If indeed they care so much about equal justice for all groups and especially favor the underdog, why do they stand behind Jews, the most powerful people on Earth? Why do they only feign a modicum of sympathy for the Palestinians while offering nothing substantial to solve the Middle East crisis? Why do they 'take the knee' in honor of imaginary murders of blacks at the hands of 'racist' cops while colluding with Jewish Power to destroy entire regions of the Middle East and North Africa, leading to death and destruction for countless Arabs? White 'liberal' support of Israel has led to complete corruption of Liberalism. Under the Jewish lead, to be liberal doesn't mean equal justice for all. While Jewish 'liberals' berate whites for 'white privilege', it isn't to make whites equal with others but to browbeat them into submission to Jewish Supremacism. It's total bait-and-switch, and to the extent that white 'liberals' go along with this, they are fakers and frauds. They are status-conscious careerists who suck up to Jews, the richest and holiest(by idolatry controlled by Jews) people on Earth. Jews give them money, or they must suck up to Jews to make money and get ahead.

Arguably, white 'conservatives' who support Israel are even worse. As for white 'dissident rightists' who are partial to Jewish Power(and pray for the conversion of the Jews to HBD), they are a hopeless bunch. First, it's not a case of Jews choosing between alliance with 'white racists' AND commitment to 'equity' & diversity even though Jews frame it that way. It's really about Jews choosing between equality with whites(or gentlemanly partnership with them) AND supremacy for Jews(and total white submission to Jewish Power). Jews are now so obsessed with their power that they cannot conceive of power-sharing with whites or any other goyim. All this nonsense about 'equity' and 'diversity' is just a ploy used by Jews to beat on whites. After all, if Jews are truly committed to 'diversity', they would call for Replacement Immigration in Israel and, furthermore, call upon Americans to be equally fair toward Jews and Palestinians.

Why do white 'conservatives' suck up to Jews when it's obvious that most Jews are 'liberal', anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-conservative(except when it comes to conserving Jewish identity & power), anti-Constitution, anti-guns, anti-just-about-everything-white-conservatives-support? Ideologically, white 'conservatives' are often at the polar opposite of what most Jews promote, but their Idolatry of Jewishness is even more outlandish and extravagant than among white 'liberals'. Paradoxically, 'conservative' ideological animus to the Jewish Agenda has made 'conservatives' even more idolatrous of Jewish Identity. It'd be as if, precisely because Bob disagreed on most matters with Bill, he praised and celebrated Bill and Bill-ness even more. Because Bob is ideologically opposed to Bob, he is idolatrously obeisant to him. Would it make any sense? No, that is unless Bill has special status in the social order that Bob and Bill inhabit. If that social order says Bob is only to be judged by what he thinks, says, and does WHEREAS Bill is special simply for what he IS, then Bob is obliged to have special affection and admiration for Bill REGARDLESS. But, Bob's disagreement with Bill creates tensions and crisis. It leads to neurosis in Bob because he finds himself ideologically at odds with Bill who is regarded by society as very special, even holy. If Bill didn't have this aura about him, Bob could freely disagree with him and even disparage him as a fool, crook, or vermin. But if Bill has princely shine about him, Bob would be filled with self-doubt and anxiety as he finds himself in disagreement with a man of superior status and special adulation. If Bob sticks to his ideological guns, he will remain at odds with Bill, but that implies there's something wrong with him because he's earned the opprobrium of Bill, who is special, even holy. So, how can Bob compensate for this divergence between Bill's sanctity and his own views that offend Bill? If Bill is so good and special, how come Bob ideologically disagrees with him?

Of course, the sane thing would be to knock Bill off the pedestal, but suppose that would be difficult, indeed near impossible, because Bill's people control most of media, academia, entertainment, and the state, all of which extol the specialness of Bill. Then, the only way for Bob to 'redeem' himself for the ideological fallout with Bill is to go overboard in his idolatrous hallelujahs to Bill's glory. Then, it's no wonder we have the weird spectacle of Jews being the main force behind gun-banning, censorship of conservatives & whites, mockery of Christianity, the Great Replacement, and etc. while nonstop adulation of Jews & Israel emanates from the white 'conservative' side.
Indeed, Jews are now so holy that even dissident rightist types go out of their way to mention that a CERTAIN JEW may be in partial agreement with their views. In other words, a single Jew partly agreeing with your position is more a cause for celebration than a thousand or even a million of your own kind agreeing with you. It's like having a celebrity eat in your restaurant is a greater honor than having a million regular joes come and go. Benediction from one Jew counts for more than consensus among many others of your kind... even though MOST Jews are totally against your views and cause.
It's so pathetic. We saw this with Donald Trump. Jews slapped him, pulled his hair, punched him, pulled his pants down, kicked his guts, paddled his buns, grabbed his nuts, beat his dick with a stick, put clown make-up on his face, shoved a gerbil up his ass, and etc... and all we got from him was 'MUH ISRAEL, MUH ISRAEL, MUH ISRAEL.' And even though Jewish Power rigged the election in Joe Biden's favor and blocked all paths to honest inquiry(and even though Biden is a mere tool of the Jews), all we get from 'conservatives' and GOP is "Biden threw Israel under the bus and is chummy with Iran." What a pathetic bunch. This is what happens when white 'conservatives' support Israel than 'Israel'. If you support Israel, your people and nation become 'Palestine'. In contrast, if you support Palestine, your people and nation can be 'Israel' on the basis of Universal Nationalism.

PROTOCOLS OF ZION, ANTI-SEMITISM DEFINITION PUSHED AT UN, & MOSSAD CONSERVATIVE MEDIA | KMN LIVE

Notes on Max Parry's "America's National Humiliation by Eurasia" — On China, Soviet Union, Russia, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Nikita Khrushchev, Cold War, Ideology vs Civilization, and True Fascism vs Ridiculous Fascism & Ludicrous Fascism

https://www.unz.com/article/americas-national-humiliation-by-eurasia/

Max Parry's article is marred by willful naivete. He assumes that Mao, Stalin, and the like were ever motivated by something other than cynicism, egotism, and national interest. This isn't to deny that Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong were sincere communists, but when dealing with the outside world, ideology and principles mattered far less than the realpolitik of gangsterism, also true of so-called 'democracies'.

As American economic power continues to decline, a division has emerged within the U.S. political establishment as to which of its designated adversaries is to blame for the country’s woes — Russia, or China.

I'm not sure this has to do with 'decline'. After all, whether US power was on the incline or decline, it has always sought out enemies, the new Big Bad Wolf against whom to justify American hegemonism. During the Cold War, there was endless talk of how the Soviets were gaining at America's expense. No wonder that even as the Cold War had all but ended(with the US triumphant), some on the Right were insisting it was still on and as dangerous as ever.

After the total demise of the Soviet Union, the US was as aggressive as ever, in some ways even more so. It's boring to be the lone superpower even as the US insists on remaining just that. Not only lonesome but it poses to three problems for the superpower. Some people grow complacent in their country's dominance. Others, no longer fearful of foreign enemies, obsess about domestic failings; if the Greatest Generation was focused on evil Germany & Japan, the better-off Boomers often obsessed over America's own failings. Another problem is the lone superpower seems rather like a bully than a heroic underdog. This is why Mike Tyson's opponents had to be hyped up as worthy of tangling with Iron Mike. With Tyson steamrolling the opposition, it got to seeming cruel and vicious. So, even in the absence of The Great Enemy, the US needs to prop up New Hitlers and New Germanies.

The dispute came to a head during each of the last two presidential elections, with the Democratic Party first blaming Moscow for Hillary Clinton’s shocking defeat in 2016 over unproven “election meddling” by the Kremlin. After Joe Biden’s equally controversial victory over Donald Trump this past November, the GOP has retaliated by portraying the 46th president as “soft on China” just as their counterparts drew critical attention to Trump’s alleged ties to Russia — even though both men have taken tough stances toward each respective country.

Actually, it's misleading to say the 2020 election was 'equally controversial'. 2016 election wasn't controversial at all. Donald Trump ran not only against Hillary and the Democratic Party but much of the GOP establishment. All the media and the deep state were against him. The only 'controversy' was he won. He didn't win dirty as his side simply didn't have the ammo to do so. But he still won, and that was very upsetting to the Power. The whole Russia Thing was a fake controversy, made up out of whole cloth with total complicity of the big media and deep state. In contrast, the Power did everything to bury the REAL CONTROVERSY about the 2020 election. 2016 election was not controversial but made to seem so by the Power. 2020 was the most controversial election in US history and most certainly rigged, but the Power said there was NOTHING TO SEE, just go home, and forget about it. All speculations about election fraud were dismissed as 'baseless'. And the Jewish-run Media pulled a U-North(the villainous company in MICHAEL CLAYTON) about election fraud.

From MICHAEL CLAYTON - Tilda Swinton's character of Karen: "It has been and it remains the U/North position... that this lawsuit is baseless and without merit."

The Jewish media oligarchs didi it for tribal-supremacist power. The media minions, the hirelings and little people, collaborated with the Big Lie out of the vain conceit that they, the cosmo-globalists, are the 'adults in the room' and the on the right side of History, therefore any means are justified to take out Trump and the Deplorables. Their conceit allows for moral-nihilism.

As a result of this neo-McCarthyist political atmosphere, détente has been criminalized.

Isn't it time to bury this McCarthy nonsense? McCarthy was a tool. He was used by the Power but soon discarded when he probed into the US military. Also, even though anti-communism did sometimes get hysterical, the Soviet threat was not a fantasy(especially in Europe following WWII), and there were many spies and communist-sympathizers in key institutions. Also, so-called McCarthyism lasted a few years, and its crimes were nothing compared to wholesale 'internment' of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

It'd be more accurate to call the current climate Foxmanism after the sleazebag who ran ADL for a long spell. Foxman and other Jews have been at the forefront of censchwarzhip and deplatforming all across the US and the West in general. And unlike McCarthyism that faded away sooner than later and was almost universally denounced, Foxmanism seems to go on and on and on. And if most in the media and many in government did what they could to bring McCarthy down, the key institutions now all comply with Jewish demands with no end.

In order to understand what is driving this interwar between factions of the Anglo-American elite amid the rise of China and Russia on the world stage, a revisiting of the history of relations between the three nations is necessary.

Not really. History matters far less than 'Thistory'. As most people are ignorant of history, they don't know and don't care about all that happened in the past. And this goes for the elites as well. Most of history is inert and irrelevant. It's just stuff in books. What really matters is 'thistory', or this-history, which is how certain elements and aspects of history are selectively chosen, exaggerated, manipulated, and even fabricated into material to be used in the power game. Consider Afghanistan. For the longest time, most Americans had no idea where it was. But when the Soviet Union 'invaded', it was suddenly a noble tragic nation under Soviet tyranny. Afghans were lauded as a proud people who's resisted invasion for their entire existence. And the Mujahideen were heralded as heroic freedom-fighters whose values were comparable to those of the American Founders. But after the Soviets were gone and the Taliban took over, Afghanistan was soon forgotten. The former freedom-fighters were regarded as cave-dwelling barbarians with no use for modernity and vice versa.
When US and Japan were on good terms in the early 20th century, the latter was viewed rather positively as a progressive Asian nation of 'honorary whites', whereas China was seen as hopelessly backward and inept. But when US-Japanese relations became increasingly strained, the Chinese were the noble salt-of-the-earth(with the possibility of being converted to Christianity) whereas the Japanese because slanty-eyed nasty pagan buggers. But after WWII, Japan became the nice kindly nation of chrysanthemum-and-the-sword whereas China became the evil communist slave-state of the 'blue ants'. But when China was useful against the Soviet Union in the early 70s, there were many glowing reports of Mao's achievements. So, never mind History. What matters is Thistory.
Same goes for the American Past. American History, though relatively short, is deeply complex and complicated. But the current Thistory frames everything in terms of White Guilt and Black Nobility. Jewish History is also complicated, and there were as many cases of Jewish evil as well as Jewish goodness. But, Jews push their own Thistory that selects and arranges History to make themselves the innocent victims while all the blame goes to white goyim or Arab goyim.

From the first millennia until the 19th century, China was one of the world’s foremost economic powers.

But here's a key difference. However big China's economy may have been through much of history, China was never a world power because it never aspired to be one. Even at its peak, it was a self-contained power. With its population, it could have grabbed much of Siberia. But China didn't even try to take over Korea or Japan. If anything, it eventually got conquered by the semi-barbarian Manchus. It's been said China and Vietnam were at war for a thousand yrs, but Vietnam remained independent. The Asians who did aspire to be a world power were the Mongols, and they conquered China first. But rule by brutality lasts only so long.

In contrast to Chinese power, which was self-contained, European power truly became a world power, especially with the mastery of the seas, the conquest of the Americas, and power of science/technology. As such, it posed a challenge and threat to other peoples and civilizations. It also conceived of a new way of progress unknown to non-Western folks.

Unfortunately, the Western attitude toward China remains stuck in the ‘century of humiliation’ where from the mid-19th century until the Chinese Revolution in 1949, it was successively raped and plundered by the Western, Japanese, and Russian imperial powers.

This may be partly true in the sense that the West, so used to seeing China as a poor and backward nation, is unprepared and unwilling to deal with it on an equal basis. China seems especially unsettling because it has a combination of key advantages. It's a big country. Unlike any European nation, it can be seen as an empire unto itself. Even without overseas empires, China is a major power. Also, China has lots of people, indeed more than all of Europe and US combined. Also, China has lots of high-IQ folks. Furthermore, it's relatively homogeneous, thus united. Finally, its government, unlike that of Japan or Taiwan, is totally independent of the West. In contrast, Russia is larger than China and has more natural resources but has a much smaller population. Russians also lack the work ethic of East Asians. European nations are prosperous, but each on its own cannot constitute a world power. Even UK and France lost world power status following the loss of empires. There is the EU, but its authority is unclear and confused. As such, it functions as a satellite of the US that is, in turn, a colony of the Empire of Judea, currently the premier power in the world.

Anyway, it could be that the old perception of China as the 'Sick Man of Asia' prevents the West from respecting China's role on the world stage. In other words, the West is willing to accept China as a virtuous nation of simple peasant folks, like in THE GOOD EARTH, but not as citizens of a great power. It's like Americans were okay with Japanese growing rich by selling radios and motorbikes but unnerved by Tokyo's aspirations to take center stage as the economic capital of the world. (To be sure, Chinese would be smart to play up aspects of Pearl-Buckism. After all, overt display of power can be off-putting. This is why Jews, despite their great power, emphasize the narrative of poor helpless Jews hiding from the Nazis. And blacks play up their 'we was slaves' card as moral cover for their arrogance and megalomania. Thus, even as Jews exert tremendous power around the world, they are seen as a bunch of Anne Franks. And even as blacks burn down cities and commit all kinds of mayhem, they are regarded as 'victims of racism'. Strong Horse of power isn't enough. It needs to be combined with the Sacred Cow of victimhood.)

One reason for Western resistance to rising Chinese power could owe to the lack of visceral advantage among the Chinese, or yellows in general. Indeed, consider the distaste among white Americans in regards to Asian success even as they are totally approving of Jewish wealth & success and black fame & fortune. To whites, there can never be Too Many Jews in any industry or institution. And there can never be Too Many Blacks. If elite NY schools were dominated by Jews and blacks, no one would complain. But Too Many Asians in schools is a problem... though the problem is always said to be 'white privilege'.
Why are whites and Westerners in general open to total Jewish and black domination but disdainful of Asian success? It's due to 'viscerality', which operates on the individual-idolatrous level. Black individuals have made their mark as sports athletes, entertainers, dancers, studs, and orators. Thus, whites have come to idolize blacks as a special, even superior, race on the idolatrous level even as they ideologically mutter platitudes about 'equality'. Being so worshipful of blacks, whites consider it an honor to kneel at their feet and carry their jock-straps. So, companies scramble to get a black CEO. White women look to Michelle Obama as some demigoddess. Even the lowly punk George Floyd was eulogized to high heaven by Donald Trump.
Jews, though no good at sports, have also made their mark as individuals. They are funny, pushy, loud, brash, witty, feisty, and etc. While Mr. T. could whup Don Rickles' ass, the latter could outtalk anyone, and Jews have been the masters of gab. So, white folks, so often outwitted and 'owned' by Jews, feel it's their honorable duty to suck up to them. This is why even Dissident Rightist fools cling to the hope that Jews will ultimately be converted to siding with the White Race. People are wowed by 'leadership' qualities, and blacks dominate sports & entertainment, and Jews are visibly brilliant as lawyers, officials, academics, and pundits. So, whites have grown accustomed to serving under those two groups as the natural-leader races.
In contrast, Asian success and power are cumulative than individual. Asian power is lean on champion-like figures and operates more like a herd or hive. People prefer the individual champion qualities. It's like a lion gets more respect than a pack of hyenas. Or a bear gets more respect than a pack of dogs. When whites lost to blacks, it was a black individual like Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali beating up white palookas. It was like a bunch of white chimps lost to a big black gorilla. But when the US 'lost' in Vietnam, it was like whites finally gave up on dealing with so many Asian ants and mosquitos. A lone gorilla has a face and towers like King Kong on the phallic tower. But no matter how formidable ants or mosquitos can be, they are regarded as pests. Black power and Jewish Power have faces. But Asian Power is a faceless bloc of unity and cooperation. White people may kneel before the black gorilla or Jewish wolverine, but they don't want to kneel before the Chinese locusts. When the audience watched King Kong, they saw it as tragedy. But who cares about the bees in THE SWARM? Indeed, as if cognizant of these impressions, some Japanese guy made a anime movie TWILIGHT OF THE COCKROACHES where the Japanese are presented as bugs tolerated by US power(represented by humans).

By the way, Pearl Buck was very sympathetic toward China, and if anything, THE GOOD EARTH on balance did wonders for the Chinese in Western eyes. It humanized them, much like THE GRAPES OF WRATH did for the Okies and other poor white folks during the Great Depression.
The prevailing view of China among the 'conservatives' owe less to Pearl Buck than Pearl Harbor. Though Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Asia has long been seen as the Other by many in the West. So, 'Pearl Harbor' is like a metaphor. It could be Japan, it could be China. Or, it could be North Korea, what with ridiculous fantasies about the Norks nuking L.A., or the remake of RED DAWN that would have the audience believe that North Korea, with an economy 1/40th of South Korea, could invade whole swaths of American territory. Current view of China also owes more to FLASH GORDON. It's Ming-the-Merciless fantasy, with some Fu Manchu thrown in.

Another reason is actually due to cowardice. White America's 'courageous' stance toward China is actually the byproduct of its cravenness before Jews, blacks, and even homos. It's like what Ramzpaul says in this video:

CHINA IS NOT THE PROBLEM by Ramzpaul

Whites have been so instilled with 'white guilt' over 'antisemitism' and 'slavery'(and white fever for black badassness and Jewish genius) that they dare not mouth anything critical of the two groups that are doing the most harm to the white race. Blacks run amok, rape, riot, and loot, but White America bleats about 'systemic racism' and gushes about Magic Negroes. Jews push agendas to destroy the white race and the West, but every Western Nation grovels at the feet of Jews. Even after the BLM lunacy, the American 'conservative' idea of courage is to attack Democrats as the 'real racists', and even after Jews have done so much to harm the white race, the GOP's position is 'we stand for Israel more than Democrats do'.
In such a climate of chickenshit cowardice, whites can show their 'courage' only by attacking anything other than Jews, blacks, and homos(favored allies of Jews). And China is the perfect target because it is (1) big and growing more powerful (2) autocratic and repressive (3) relatively homogeneous (4) without power to affect discourse in the US (5) without protection of Jewish Power. Whereas Jewish Power will descend with fury on those who dare criticize Jewish Power, condemn black behavior, or denigrate homosexual activity, it tolerates most of the animus directed at China. Indeed, the Jewish-run media conglomerate signals approval for China-bashing. It's a clever way of making goyim do most of the bashing while keeping Jewish hands relatively clean so as to work with China.
Now, why would Jews who work with China, often against the interests of white America, allow white America to bash China? It's a way of killing two birds with one stone. By working with China, Jews further weaken white power in the West. But by allowing whites to vent their rage at China, the criticism is deflected from Jews. Now, the US has a sizable Chinese minority, so why don't they do something about this? Because yellows are lackluster as individuals and lack verbal fireworks. Also, with a sheepish and servile racial personality, they always look to serve the prevailing power. So, even as blacks attack yellows in Chinatowns in NY and SF, the yellows go with the approved narrative and blame 'white nationalism'. In a way, yellows and whites are becoming rather alike. Blacks beat yellows, and yellows blame whites. Jews and blacks beat on whites, and whites blame yellows. It's all kinda embarrassing.

Even at the peak of the Roman Empire, the Han dynasty where the ancient Silk Road began was vastly larger in territory and population.

But size isn't everything. In terms of quality, would anyone rate traditional China even at its peak higher than classic Athens or Northern Italy of the Renaissance? True, through a vast bureaucracy and complex organizations, China was able to carry out giant projects, but in doing so, it snuffed out much individual spark. Neither Athens nor Florence at its peak could match the sheer size of China but it created sparks that eventually allowed the West to burn brighter.
Soviet Union proved that vast state-run projects could produce awesome results. The steel factories, the giant dams, the missiles, and etc. But because Stalinism extinguished individual spark, the system gradually imploded under its own weight. Also, in an excessively unfree system, no one feels responsible to anything but higher authority. No one feels responsible on account of conscience or principle. This explains the hopeless rot of China in the 19th century and Soviet Union from the 60s onward. People had done things out of fear of authority, but once the authority grew corrupt, lax, and inefficient, people just became parasites looking out for themselves. Fear works when it's absolute. If you don't do as told, you will be punished harshly, even killed. So, you do it. Another way you might do something is out of freedom and reward. As you have no fear, you take chances to succeed in life. But Soviet Union from the 60s onward was a semi-fear state. There was just enough fear for people to keep their heads low and not take chances with freedom, but there wasn't enough fear to make people do what they were told. Imagine a slave state without the whip. The slaves are still punished if they try to run or rebel, BUT they're no longer whipped for acting lazy and hardly picking cotton. Most slaves will just pretend to work and do little as possible. So, if you want things to get done, there has to be real freedom or true fear.

The former Chinese Empire underwent its ‘hundred years of humiliation’ after suffering a series of military defeats in the Opium Wars which funded Western industrialization...

Chinese could have avoided all this with a humbler attitude. When the West initially arrived on friendly terms bearing gifts of superior technology, the Chinese could have shown curiosity and reacted with humility and admiration. Surely, a people who could build such ships, travel the seas, and make such gadgets must be doing something right. But the Chinese were arrogant and lazy in their chauvinism and missed their chance. Before the Opium Wars happened, China had racked up huge trade surpluses with the West. West bought lots of tea and silk whereas Chinese bought little. With that surplus, Chinese could have invested in technology. But they built stupid palaces for the lazy rich. Also, as China had fallen under the imperialist power of the Manchus(who eventually melded into China), it had already been under foreign rule for a few centuries before the British and others arrived. Indeed, it was Manchu domination that suppressed the emergence of genuine Chinese nationalism that could have more effectively dealt with the threat from the West.

Like Russia which lagged behind Europe after the Industrial Revolution until the Soviet centralized plans of the 1930s, China was able to transform its primarily agricultural economy into an industrial giant after its communist revolution in 1949.

But Russia made great strides in industrialization prior to the communist-takeover. It lagged behind Germany and UK but was fast catching up. If anything, the first decade of Bolshevism was a total economic disaster for Russia. And when Stalin finally got the ball rolling in the mid-30s, it was at huge human cost.
As for China, it's simply not true that industrialization came with Mao's revolution. Japan already proved that an Asian nation could industrialize without anything resembling communism. Japan followed the 19th century German model, and it served as the model for other Asian nations. If anything, communist China far lagged behind Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in industrialization. Even into the late 80s, most Chinese got around on foot or on bicycles called the 'flying pigeon'. Mao's Great Leap Forward was a massive leap backward. If Stalin's mass killings at least led to industrial development, Mao's disaster not only took tens of millions lives but set back China's industry. And then, there wasn't much economic advancement during the hellish years of the Cultural Revolution when agrarian reforms under Liu-Deng were turned back and when Chinese colleges were turned into centers of struggle sessions. Many educated Chinese at this time spent time on farms 'learning from the peasants'.

True industrial transformation for China came with Deng's reforms, and China looked to capitalist East Asian nations that were close to the US. Also, let's keep in mind that, unlike European imperialist powers that suppressed industrialization in their colonies, the US as new hegemon allowed industrialization in their satellite nations, most notably in East Asia. Of course, the Soviet Union also encouraged industrialization in Warsaw Pact nations and supplied them with raw materials while purchasing their products. Neo-Imperialism by US and USSR was more generous than the Old Imperialism of Europe. But then, whereas US and USSR were bountifully blessed with raw materials, much smaller Western European nations weren't.

The real turning point in Sino-Soviet relations came when... Khrushchev... began to discourage movements in the developing world living under Western-backed dictatorships from taking up arms in revolutionary struggle.
...China... accused the Soviet Union of “revisionism” for prioritizing world peace and preventing a nuclear war over support for national liberation movements, becoming the de facto leader of ‘Third Worldism’ against Western imperialism. Moscow reciprocated by freezing aid to China which greatly damaged its economy and relations soured between the world’s two biggest socialist countries, transforming the the Cold War into a tri-polar conflict already multifaceted with the Non-Aligned Movement led by Yugoslavia after Josep Broz Tito’s falling out with Stalin.

Not really. The way Max Parry explains it, it would seem governments are motivated more by ideology, principles, and dogma than by realpolitik. Especially when it comes to foreign affairs, regimes act like gangsters. Communist regimes practiced Machiavelli more than Marx on the world stage. Who can forget the Nazi-Soviet Pact?
Khrushchev's thaw with the US had little to do with Third World movements. It was almost entirely about Europe. Though the US(and UK) intended to neutralize German and Japanese military power indefinitely, the USSR feared that the West would rearm Germany against the USSR. Even as a puppet of the US, a militarized Germany could pose a threat to Russia, no small matter considering the horrors that befell the USSR in WWII. Also, even though US and USSR emerged as the two great victors of WWII, there really was no comparison. US was unscathed whereas USSR had to recover from utter devastation. Among young working adults, the Soviet population was 2/3 women because so many men had died. USSR was a republic of orphans. Also, despite obtaining the Bomb and all its bluffs, the USSR was woefully behind the US in missile gap. In an all-out nuclear war in the 1950s, the US would have won hands down. USSR could barely feed itself after the war, and besides, it had to take care of its satellite states in Eastern Europe. Its one advantage over the US was its proximity to Western Europe. In an all-out land invasion, the Soviet Union could conceivably overpower all of Europe, but then, it would lead to World World III that could very well involve nuclear weapons. So, the Soviet Union wanted to calm things down with the US. It needed to rebuild itself from the rubble of war. It needed to consolidate its grip over Eastern Europe that looked upon Soviet Union as oppressor than liberator. To the outside world, the Soviet Union presented itself as far more formidable than it actually was after WWII. Inside the USSR, people knew there were massive problems. Khrushchev knew of the disadvantages and vulnerabilities. He knew the uncensored truth from the inside. So, the proposed thaw with the West wasn't about ideological betrayal but bidding for time. Also, having served under Stalin, Khrushchev was well-aware of the human toll of communism and hoped there might be a more humane form of socialism that could co-exist with the capitalist world.

But Mao saw things differently, and it had less to do with principles or dogma than suspicion bordering on paranoia. After all, Mao's road to power had been grueling, strewn with so many double-crosses. And prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was one of the predatory powers over China. And even after the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin had tried numerous times to replace Mao with a Moscow-trained figure. USSR also swallowed up Mongolia as a satellite state and, prior to Mao's victory, willfully occupied territories in China much like the US does today in Syria. Of course, back then, it was to Mao's benefit that Russia violated China's territorial integrity and provided a haven for the Chinese communists from the clutches of the KMT. Still, Mao was well-aware of Sino-Russian History. Not good. And despite his fealty to Stalin, there was also a lot of bad blood.

So, even though Khrushchev didn't mean to betray China, Mao was super-suspicious because of both political and personal histories. Also, smarting from the Korean War where China won lots of prestige but at great cost, he was in no mood to deal with the US, not least because of the Taiwan issue. Furthermore, Mao greatly overestimated the power of the USSR. Being an outsider, he took a good deal of Soviet propaganda at face value. Why should a superpower like the USSR not be bolder with the US?
Khrushchev knew the reality from the inside and was well-aware of the weaknesses. US controlled all the seas. US had many more nukes. It was unscathed in WWII and had by far the biggest industry in the world and was the leader in science and technology. It had plenty of food and stuff. US also had the richest and most powerful European nations on its side. While the Soviet Union looked dominant on the map, most of Siberia was uninhabited. Eastern European nations were backward relative to the West. And huge areas of the USSR were still being rebuilt from war and deprivations caused under Stalin.

Khrushchev was trying to walk a fine line between superpower bluff and cautious pragmatism. He knew Soviet prestige depended on show of power and pride. Communist propaganda tirelessly featured images of marching soldiers, tanks & airplanes, and endless fields of wheat. In reality, the Soviet system was just barely providing basic necessities to its citizens. Khrushchev himself embodied these contradictions. He could be awfully proud and tempestuous. A volatile figure, he could harangue the West along with the best of them. But he was also a survivor and, in trying to buy time to create a more humane form of socialism, he tried to negotiate with the US, especially over Germany. But it wasn't easy because he couldn't resist sticking it to the US when the opportunity arose, like with the U2 incident that was deeply humiliating to Eisenhower's administration.

By the mid-50s, Khrushchev had already experienced nearly 40 yrs of communist rule in the Soviet Union. He knew what the revolution had done to the elites and the people. He'd witnessed the casualties as well as the gains of the revolution. He'd seen so many of his comrades crushed by Stalin, and he'd also taken part in this bloodbath out of zeal or to survive. Also, prior to Stalin's death, he'd always played the role of flunky. So, he understood the danger of absolute power. He lived under it, was humiliated by it, and survived it.
In contrast, Mao had been the top figure in Chinese communism once it took hold in the countryside. Mao was used to ordering others around, not being ordered around. Also, Chinese communists came to power in 1949, 32 years after the Russian Revolution. In 1955, he'd been the supreme leader of China for only 6 yrs. So, his enthusiasm level was much greater. He was flush with dreams of great things. Thus, he had a bolder approach to the West, though his talk about atom bomb being a 'paper tiger' was mostly bluff.
At any rate, Mao could talk this way, that is recklessly, because if it came to World War III, the Soviet Union would have to do most of the fighting and bear the brunt of US's main nuclear attack. It's easier to talk tough from behind. In contrast, Khrushchev was face to face with the US(and things later got really dangerous with the Cuban Missile Crisis). Maybe for Mao, it was revenge for what the USSR put him through during the Korean War when China was ill-equipped to face off against the biggest industrial power in the world.

But all said and done, Mao feared that Russia as a white power was inching closer to the US as a white power to stab yellow China in the back. It was unfounded fear on Mao's part, but given the history of white imperialism in Asia, surely understandable. So, Mao threw whatever monkey wrench he could find at the notion of 'peaceful co-existence' with the West. Likewise, hawks and hardline anti-communist elements in the US made did all they could to undermine any peace deal with Russia and Red China. Mao worded his concerns in terms of ideology and world revolution, but he was really concerned with China and his rule over it. Besides, most anti-imperialist movements weren't communist, and some were staunchly anti-communist. It wasn't a cut-and-dry affair of leftist Third World vs rightist capitalist West. If anything, by promoting communist insurgencies around the world, the USSR faced the danger of alienating Third World nations that resisted Western Imperialism but weren't partial to communism. So, the Soviet Union had to be flexible, even delicate, in forming alliances, especially in the Muslim World that wasn't so keen on secular radicalism.

As to why Soviet ended aid to China, it had to do with Mao's increasing megalomania and recklessness both at home and before the world community. Notwithstanding the partial re-militarization of Japan, tensions over Taiwan, and the aftershocks of the Korean War, China was not the main target in America's crosshairs. It was the Soviet Union, which wasn't prepared for an all-out war. Even if Soviets could take most of Europe, it'd be more trouble than its worth as Soviets would have to rule over and take care of entire nations that would seethe with resentment and hatred. Indeed, the great paradox of communism was that the biggest true believers were found in non-communist nations. There, the useful idiots could fantasize about Workers' Paradise when, in fact, conditions under communism weren't so great for the daily worker. Consider the French movie EAST-WEST where a bunch of naive Western Intellectuals emigrate to the Soviet Union to live in utopia only to be met with brutal repression. Indeed, the Soviets were loathe to take in defectors who'd finally get a glimpse of the REAL LIFE under communism and discover it made the capitalist West, for all its faults, seem like paradise.

The propaganda war was a far more daunting challenge for the Soviet Union. China merely needed to play the Third World card whereas Soviets had to play both First World and Third World cards. It was well-understood around the world that China was a poor country. If anything, its poverty was a point of solidarity with the Third World. In contrast, the Soviet Union had to present itself as a First World competitor with the US. In other words, it wasn't only the land of the proles and champion of the oppressed around the world BUT a system that could compete with the West in providing modernity and prosperity. This is why Richard Nixon made much of America's dominance in TV's, refrigerators, and automobiles. USSR spoke a lot about the Worker, but was the average wage-earner better off under communism or capitalism? As Red China was just getting started, it wasn't in competition with the West in the living-standards and consumer goods department. In contrast, when Khrushchev said, "We will bury you", he meant not only in great power terms but in mass production of goods and services. In truth, however, the Soviet Union had a bigger refrigerator gap than the missile gap with the West. And Khrushchev, having worked in the communist economy, knew of its problems and limitations.

This is why the Soviets urged Mao to go slow and be pragmatic so as not to repeat the mistakes of the USSR. You can't turn earth into heaven into one fell swoop. Soviets provided aid and experts to facilitate development in China, but Mao the peasant-dreamer just wouldn't listen. He threw caution to the winds and embarked on the disastrous Great Leap Forward with boasts of how China would leap over not only UK but the US in so many years.
Also, Mao made adventurist claims about Soviet achievements that irritated Russians to no end. While the Soviets were awfully proud of their head start in the space race, they knew the US had more ammo in the long haul. For the Soviets, the competition was a matter of inches. But when Soviets sent up a satellite, Mao proclaimed the East is prevailing over the West. It was beyond bluff. It was guff.

But worst of all, it was a matter of personalities. Though Khrushchev was erratic, he was not without human qualities and something like a conscience. Also, he began as a prole and made his mark through hard work. As such, he didn't despise the common man and, if anything, was saddened by the great loss of life under Stalinism... though he too had plenty of blood on his hands. In contrast, Mao grew up despising the peasantry. He fancied himself a thinker, poet, philosopher. He regarded himself as made for great things. Like Hitler, he saw himself as a man of destiny. As such, people were mere tools and pawns. He was like a communist Harry Lime(of THE THIRD MAN). He found communism useful as an insta-hammer of history. Capitalism, good or bad, took time to develop — it's like it took capitalist Jews longer to take power in the US than it took for communist Jews in Russia, but then, capitalism proved to be far more useful to Jews, just like capitalism is finally pushing China ever higher, perhaps to the top. In contrast, Leninism meant ruthless organization, revolutionary will, and power with guns & force. For Mao, communism was a tool of using the masses, not serving them. They were expendable. As 'Mao' says to 'Nixon' in Oliver Stone's film, "The evil is within us; history is a symptom of our disease."
The person in the CCP who was most like Khrushchev was Peng Dehuai who, alone among prominent figures during the Great Leap Forward, blamed Mao for the disaster. Granted, Khrushchev had no such courage during Stalin's reign, but the Secret Speech, for all its faults and omissions, was a means to come to terms with the great crimes committed under Stalin. This is where Mao and Khrushchev could never see eye to eye. Mao was a monstrous god-man whereas Khrushchev, for all his bluster and arrogance, wasn't without human qualities and something resembling conscience.
Indeed, the seeds of the eventual fallout between Mao and Khrushchev were planted right after Stalin died because Khrushchev tried to be the good guy. Customarily, Mao should paid Khrushchev a visit after Stalin's death because USSR was the premier power. But Khrushchev decided to go see Mao. Also, he understood that Stalin had abused his position with Mao and wanted to right those wrongs. He adjusted policy so that China would feel more on equal terms with the USSR. Now, if Mao had some human qualities, he would have appreciated the gestures and reciprocated, but just like Hitler, he regarded decency in others as weakness to exploit and trample on. He began to put on airs, show disdain toward Khrushchev, bait the USSR over trifles, ramp up unnecessary tensions with the West, and ignore all advice on economic matters. Anyone with half-a-sense would have known the Great Leap would be a total disaster. Also, Mao began to act like he's the new Stalin, the new god of communism. At some point, Khrushchev had just about enough. While not blameless, 80-90% of the Soviet rift must be blamed on Mao's impetuosity and megalomania, which would soon bring about the Cultural Revolution as if China didn't suffer enough already. Mao was a wrecker alright.

By the way, the fact that the Chinese economy dramatically improved right after the Great Leap was abandoned and limited market reforms were implemented goes to show that the massive suffering from 1958 to 1961 owed mostly to Mao's craziness than Soviet withdrawal of aid. China was soon able to feed itself again once the Great Leap ended even though Soviet aid and experts didn't return.

As the PRC continued to break from... USSR’s deviation from Marxism-Leninism, China... took the anti-Soviet policies a step further by condemning the USSR as “social imperialist”... This led to several huge missteps in foreign policy and a complete betrayal of internationalism, as China aligned with the U.S. in support of UNITA against the MPLA in the Angolan civil war, the CIA-backed Khmer Rouge genocidaires in Cambodia against Vietnam, and the fascist Augusto Pinochet regime in Chile... Richard Nixon and his war criminal Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were received as guests in 1972. Despite the initial reasons for the Sino-Soviet split, it was ironically the Soviet Union which ended up carrying the mantle of national liberation as the USSR backed numerous socialist revolutions in the global south while China sided with imperialism.

This is a cartoon view of history. It's not as if the world was made up of evil US, good USSR, and noble Third World struggling for justice. Soviet Union constituted an imperialism in its own right. Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs certainly thought so. Baltic states felt imprisoned in the Soviet Union. And communist exports led to repression and even mass killings on an unprecedented scale. It was certainly true in Mao's China. It's true enough the US did horrible things and supported regimes that carried out mass killings. But so did the USSR. And despite the puppet-status of nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, they offered more freedom and opportunity for their own peoples than communist nations like China, North Korea, and Mongolia.

Also, opportunism was part of Chinese foreign policy from day one. Though ideologically favoring communists the world over, China was friendly with non- and even anti-communist nations as long as they shared common interests. But in the end, the main reason why USSR took the lead in 'world revolution' was it had a bigger economy and had more to offer. China under Mao was poor and backward. All it could offer was some rice, cabbage, and AK-47s. Even Third World nations that identified more with China were better off siding with the more advanced Soviet Union. Cuban economy did pretty well with Soviet aid, but what could China offer? Little more than rhetoric and the Little Red Book.
Also, Mao nursed territorial grievances with the Soviet Union. Imperial Russia had taken whole chunks of China and they weren't returned under communism. Also, the vast borderlands between the two nations made both deeply nervous, and hostilities broke out. As the Soviets had overwhelming technological advantage, China usually got the worst of the exchange, and this made Mao angrier. So, it all became very personal. It's not so much that China 'betrayed' the world revolution as the Sino-Soviet rift rippled across the world stage. As China regarded Russia as the imperialist threat, it was resolved to undermine Soviet influence anywhere in the world. China also worried that Vietnam would grow closer to Russia. Even though China provided the most aid to Vietnam in the war against the US, it feared that Vietnam would lean toward the Soviets that could offer more in terms of technological knowhow, and these fears were soon realized upon the unification of Vietnam. As for the Khmer Rouge working with the CIA, that happened AFTER the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Initially, the Khmer Rouge came to power against the CIA-backed Lon Nol regime. Mao gave them his blessing as true revolutionaries. But the Khmer Rouge were not only insane ultra-communists but ultra-zealous nationalists who wanted to take back territories lost to Vietnam centuries ago. This led to border conflicts with Vietnam and then eventual invasion by Vietnam. It was only then that the Khmer Rouge began to work with the CIA on the basis of 'enemy of your enemy is your friend', but that's always been the case. As for Pinochet, he was no fascist but a mere reactionary puppet of the propertied class. He lacked the vision of Mussolini and Hitler. Not that Mussolini and Hitler were good fascists. Mussolini was about Ridiculous Fascism, and Hitler was about Ludicrous Fascism. Neither was about True Fascism based on National Humanism, and so they failed. At any rate, Pinochet was just one of the many run-of-the-mill third-rate dictators around the world. Were they all 'fascists'? Or, is someone a 'fascist' if he comes to power by taking out a leftist or Marxist? At any rate, how many did Pinochet kill? A few thousand? And to his credit, he paved the way for successful economic recovery and return to democracy. He was less repressive and murderous than most tyrants, and the only reason he came to be so loathed was because Allende was a darling of the Western Left when the hated Nixon was president.

While it's true that Nixon and Kissinger have blood on their hands, how else do you fight a war? Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries also had blood on their hands. Che Guevara welcomed the cleansing fire of WWIII and wanted the Cuban Missile Crisis to escalate into a nuclear war.
The fact is Nixon and Kissinger, like Johnson and McNamara, inherited a conflict in Vietnam because Dwight Eisenhower meddled there when the French were on the ropes. Though Vietnamese were justified in in struggling to reunify their country, the US couldn't simply walk away from an ally during the height of the Cold War. Likewise, once the Soviets went all in on Afghanistan, it was difficult to pull out and risk looking weak, defeated by a bunch of cave-dwelling nomads.

As for Soviet involvement in Africa, what a disaster. As Che Guevara soon discovered during his African tour, blacks can't be taken seriously. All that Soviet aid in Mozambique, Angola, and Ethiopia did no good. They were all wasted. Also, whereas US foreign aid was based on surplus and over-abundance — every year, even during the Great Depression, the problem was in the US was over-production — , the Soviet Union with empty shelves could ill-afford foreign aid, especially with basketcase parts of the world. Of course, the US supported cutthroat bandits to attack and undermine those regimes, but the regimes themselves were utterly rotten.
Indeed, communism would have done better with a healthy dose of rational race-ism. Then, Russians would have realized that not all peoples are alike or interchangeable. Blacks have their own way of doing things. All the aid poured into Africa was lost. But then, the West discovered the same thing, though it keeps making the same mistakes. Tons of aid and the same misery.

Ultimately, mistakes were made by both sides that are recognized by the two countries today, as can be seen in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation’s negative historical view of Khrushchev and the denunciation of the Cultural Revolution and Gang of Four by the CPC (not “CCP”).

Blaming Khrushchev for the demise of the USSR is foolish. His reign was short-lived, and the long decline happened under those who ousted him. At the very least, Khrushchev tried to do something different. It caused problems but also created possibilities. But that spark was lost under the long mummified tenure of Brezhnev and co.
As for the Gang of Four, they were mere tools of Mao. They never had much power, just like Antifa is little more than street enforcers of the Jews. The so-called Gang of Four was only as powerful as Mao needed it to be. When no longer useful, they were tossed aside. It was Mao all along. Blaming the Gang of Four is like blaming the Rosato Brothers than Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER PART 2. Mao ruined relations with the Soviet Union. Mao had Zhou En-Lai call in Nixon. But because Mao has such a godly presence in CCP lore, it's convenient to scapegoat the Gang of Four. The Gang was loathsome but wielded power only with Mao's approval.

China has since even apologized to Angola for its support of Jonas Savimbi.

Again, pure realpolitik. It has nothing to do with principles. It's just mouthing the necessary platitudes to do business. Had Savimbi prevailed in Angola, Chinese would be making nice with him or his successors. Reading anything other than opportunism into 99% of foreign policy is a fool's game.

...the break in political relations with Moscow also set the process in motion for China to develop its own interpretation of Marxism-Leninism that diverged from the Soviet model and eventually allowed a level of private enterprise which never occurred under the USSR...

It had nothing to do with ideology. Chinese turn to capitalism didn't flow from an alternative interpretation of Marxism but from pure exhaustion, desperation, and pragmatism. After the two whammies of the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, many Chinese were burnt out on ideology. They just about had enough, not least the Red Guards themselves as many of them had been sent off to work on farms. And historians now think Deng followed than led, i.e. as systems of control deteriorated during the Cultural Revolution and the economy got so bad, peasants took the initiative and began to work their own plots of land and sell their surplus. It had nothing to do with ideology but Chinese small-business enterprise spirit. CCP could have clamped down on this but decided to run with it as a last ditch effort to revive the economy. Also, China came to eye Singapore with special interest: An autocratic system that balanced socialism and capitalism and grew rich. And of course, China couldn't help but notice the economic gains of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and etc. Of course, CCP rationalized the new policy in Marxist-sounding terms, but it had nothing to do with Marxism one way or another. It's likely that when Lee Kuan Yew met with Deng and others, he had private conversations to set them straight along the lines of, "We Chinese smart people. We good at math and work hard. Communism no make good use of big talent in China. Smart people better to make computer than shovel dung." The cat need not be red. Any colored cat is useful if it catches mice. Of course, CCP talks the talk about 'social justice', but it probably got some pointers about race realism from the likes of Lee.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, the tentative US–China alliance effectively ended and Sino-Russian rapprochement began. But what prevented the PRC from going the same route as the Eastern Bloc? Why did Deng succeed and Gorbachev fail?

Several factors explain this. Precisely because China was far poorer than the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Chinese had far lower expectations and did anything to survive and earn whatever they could. The scrounged, scratched, and struggled. They took nothing for granted and appreciated every tiny opportunity and every last morsel. Thus, Chinese made the most of their newfound freedoms, limited as they were.
In contrast, even though life in the Soviet Union was impoverished by Western standards, its citizens had a reasonably comfortable existence. They took jobs, wages, housing, and other amenities for granted. So, they were less desperate and had less fight/struggle in them. When Gorbachev came along and experimented with reforms, many thought communism/socialism would be replaced with instant prosperity of market economies in the West. Or, communism would make way for functional social-democracy. What they saw of the West was freedom and consumerism. Russians thought freedom = good life. But in fact, the West was richer not simply due to more freedom but lots of hard work. (If it took Soviet painters two weeks to paint a house, it took two days for those in the West.) The real formula was freedom + work ethic. Mere freedom leads to anarchy or lethargy. Freedom has to be contained and used properly. It's like Northern Italians make better use of freedom than Southern Italians. When Minnesota was almost all white and largely Scandinavian, it made good use of freedom. But when lots of blacks ended up there, freedom was used for criminality or parasitism. Russians thought freedom would lead to riches falling from the sky. They failed to understand that freedom meant they would have to take individual responsibility and work harder.
Under the Soviet System, things got built under Stalin because he used the whip. He ruled by fear, and those who failed to deliver could end up in the Gulag or worse. But once the Soviet Union loosened up, there was less tyranny to force people to work but not enough incentives to make people work harder. The result was a kind of stalemate, often described as "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Everyone did the bare minimum while expecting all the benefits due to the Proletariat as promised under communism. Why work harder when no one else did and when it was forbidden to become rich? The Soviet Union became like one big corrupt labor union. Imagine an entire society not only led by Jimmy Hoffa but managed by his team. It became difficult to fire anyone, and mediocrities were promoted for loyalty than ability. Still, there was just enough to maintain a decent comfortable life for most people as long as their expectations were modest. Also, the steadiness of the Soviet Union after Stalin's death led to a culture where everyone expected everything to remain the same. So, when the reforms came, people were more concerned with what they might lose than what they might gain. They didn't have much but still had enough in terms of wages and benefits to live a modern life.

In contrast, the Chinese were willing to take risks because they had nothing to lose. After Mao's rule, most Chinese had pretty much NOTHING. Even the iron rice bowl became a myth during the Great Leap. And in the 1970s, Mao came up with another hare-brained scheme of making everyone grow nothing but wheat or rice. So, people were deprived of fruits and veggies.
If you have something, you might fret to lose it even if it's not much. It's still something, which is better than nothing. That was the Soviet situation. But if you got nothing, what do you care about taking risks as you can only gain as you got nothing to lose. So, paradoxically, China was better positioned to take advantage of freedoms in the 1980s because it was like a nation of beggars. It's like a starving dog let loose will hunt for food whereas a half-fed dog, though not full, will stick with its regular doggy-bowl than hunt for food.

But there was also a cultural factor. Chinese have work ethic, Russians don't. It's like Germans have work ethic, the Spanish not so much. This made a huge difference. Culture matters. Chinese are like rodents always collecting and hoarding stuff. Russians are like bears that lumber around; when a bear is fed, it goes to sleep. Generally throughout history, Russians worked hard when forced under tyranny or by circumstances. When times are good or tolerable, Russians don't apply themselves. People with real work ethic work hard even when they don't have to. They feel guilty about not using their time constructively.
Also, Asians are more conformist and servile, and therefore they make better workers on the assembly line. There's less cuss and fuss about them. As China has had many poor people willing to work diligently for low wages for long hours, it was very useful to the Western elites who could then bypass national labor with its unions, demands, and legal protections.
Indeed, the economic success of free-wheeling Hong Kong proves that statism was not the main reason for China's economic rise. Taiwan and Hong Kong had already made great gains minus the statism.

Where statism is useful is in safeguarding and enforcing the noble fascist mythos of a nation. But this is so ONLY IF the regime has a proper fascist understanding of history and power. If the order is anti-fascist and anti-nationalist, the statist forces will push for racial demise and cultural decay. We see this in the West. The state has grown ever larger in both the US and EU, but why are they different from Russia and China? Because Western statism is managed by cuck-maggots who take their marching orders from Jewish Supremacist hegemonists. So, instead of proper national-humanist true fascism, there is gangster-fascism of arrogant elites and their comprador quislings. Statism is like the gun described by the hero in SHANE. Just like the gun is only as good as the person using it, the state or statism is only as good as the people controlling it. The problem with libertarians is they see the state itself as the enemy. Others see statism itself as the solution. In truth, it all depends on who controls the statism. It's like the gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is totally different from a gun in the hands of a crazed criminal. When Mao ruled the state, the CCP was like the most terrifying thing. But when the Chinese state came under control by men of pragmatism, China did much better.

At any rate, there needs to be a strong nationalist regime with proper fascist credentials. Without strong political power independent of the business class, the government(democratic or otherwise) simply turns into a tool of soulless plutocrats. In search of a 'soul', the plutocrats form a pact with faddish 'radicals' who provide the 'meaning' with their bogus theory of justice. The synthesis of big money and big mouth is what we have today, the kind of 'woke radicalism' that is rich-friendly, decadent, and obsessed over meaningless trivialities and idolatry. It's where Mayday turns into Gayday because homos are favored as standard-bearers of 'progress' because they are so catering to the rich and privileged. Or, it's the idolatry of the Negro because blacks dominate sports and pop music. As Jews are the richest people, most of 'progressive' politics in the West comes down to "Is it good for Jews?" It's about Jeff Bezos working with ADL, BLM, and tutti-fruity to gain 'wokemon' points for himself and his super-rich class.

Though the militarist regime in Japan committed serious crimes and the South Korean military dictatorship in the 70s could be brutal, they were still nationalist forces that kept the business class in line. But in the absence of nationalist-statist checks, the business class has taken over everything and bought up all politicians in Japan and South Korea. As the rich class are soulless and seek validation by status-conscious conformity to whatever is fashionable and faddish, moral values have gone down the toilet in both nations. In contrast, despite the problems of the CCP, it does have the power to rein in the excesses of the business class that is willing to sell anything to gain more in wealth and status.

One area where Russia may have an advantage over China is it has come to an honest terms with its history. The Russian case, though painful, proved that Russia is bigger than any single ideology or political party. Russia is the totality of Russian culture and history. Russian communism had its triumphs but also its tragedies. Russia was right to reject the gangster-capitalism of the 1990s but also right to honestly face the crimes of communism. Thus, Putin's Russia is on firm moral grounds. Its main foundation is nationalism, culture, and history, not ideology. And indeed, any great order must be built on something deeper and stronger than ideology. So, while the fall of the Soviet Union was very painful for Russia, the long-term effects are that Russians are truly free in their relation with history. They admire the achievements of the Soviet era but also have come to terms with its criminality and evils. In contrast, even though the CCP has remained and achieved amazing things, current Chinese system is founded on a lie and has yet to face its past honestly. Because Russia is free of ideology, it can honestly work with both capitalism and socialism. In contrast, China seems dishonest because it practices capitalism while still pretending to stand for communism. (In the long run, for any nation to survive, it must come to a reckoning with the fascist laws of history. After all, the best and the most noble things about current Russia and China are fascist: Reverence for the past, revolutionary in spirit, nationalist, open to socialism and capitalism, keen understanding of real power, and etc. There is no reason to believe that fascism must always be associated with Hitler and Nazism. That was only one kind of fascism, one that failed. Rejecting all of fascism because of Nazism is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Take the idea of 'empowerment'. Suppose someone empowers himself and does bad things with power. Does that mean we should reject the whole concept of empowerment and power? No, we need only to reject the misuse of power. Also, what political system hasn't misused its power? So-called 'liberal democracy' of the US committed 'genocide' against the natives and used slavery. Does that invalidate everything about democracy? So, instead of denouncing fascism, Russia and China would do better to formulate a better kind of fascism, the only truly honest theory of power. Then, the foundations of their power would truly be honest.)

Max Parry is correct that a people's reckoning with their dark past must NOT be outsourced to others who feign sympathy. The globalist Jews who took part in the creation of New Russia after communism had only one thing in mind: Loot Russia for Jewish Power. They were bad faith actors. Still, that doesn't mean it was wrong for Russians to honestly face up to the dark facts about the Soviet period. The thing is one must do it on one's own terms. It's like it was good of Germans to face up to their Nazi past but very foolish to outsource so much of it to Jews who will never forgive and are hellbent on destroying Germany for all eternity.

One day, if China is to be a genuinely decent nation, it must honestly face up to Mao's great crimes. True greatness isn't only about money and power but truth and honesty. But China should never allow outsiders to define and dictate the good and the bad of Chinese history. It must find its own voice. And the Chinese should especially not allow Jews to control the narrative. While there have been decent Jewish scholars and historians on China with good will, most Jews in the Western media and deep state are just snakes and weasels looking for vulnerabilities in order to take over.
Take White America for instance. US history is full of greatness and darkness. So much was achieved but at great costs. So, it was right of White America to come to terms with its dark chapters of history. But it foolishly outsourced this endeavor to Jews who merely exploited it to fill whites with 'white guilt' so as to control them as emotional sheeple of Jewish supremacism.

Khrushchev cannot be faulted on this account because he didn't outsource Soviet self-criticism to the outside world. He was for Soviets learning to criticize themselves, at least for awhile. Mikhail Gorbachev, a decent man, was more trusting of the West, and perhaps things would have turned out better if the reforms in Russia continued in cooperation with the West ruled by the likes of Nixon and Reagan. For all their faults, I don't see Reagan and Nixon as the kind of people who'd kick a bear when it's down. When Russia tried to move away from communism, there were good-faith actors willing to help. But by the 1990s, the boomer-Jewish takeover of the West was complete, and the kind of Western experts sent into New Russia were some of the most venal Jews that ever lived. They did to Russia what World Jewry did to Germany during the Weimar Period. They stripped it of everything and raped it raw. It's like how Neocons came over to the GOP to exploit it and squeeze it to its last drop of service to Israel and its wars. It's the difference between the Christian mentality and Jewish mentality. The tragedy of post-communist Russia was it underwent transformation to capitalism when Jews came to dominate foreign policy.

At any rate, ideology is never enough for a rich and complex civilization like Russia or China. This is why fascism is ideal. It appreciates tradition and heritage as well as the need for change and modernity. It has uses for capitalism and socialism. It also understands that man isn't simply a rational and materialist creature but a spiritual, mythic, and creative one. True Fascism can work if it rejects the Ridiculous Fascism of Mussolini and Ludicrous Fascism of Hitler.
Because Russia rid itself of communist ideology, it can truly be based on a civilizational foundation. Russia can freely draw from its deep history while also crediting achievements under the Soviet era. It is free to choose from its vast pool of history.
In contrast, as long as China remains chained to CCP ideology, it cannot properly appreciate all aspects of Chinese history. Mao must always be the great helmsman, and terrible lies must be perpetuated to further the myth. Also, much of Chinese history must be ignored or vilified because it doesn't sit well with the current ideology. It'd be much better if China moves away from CCP ideology and embraces a national humanist fascism.

In Russia, people can admire both the Whites who fought for Tsar & tradition and the Reds who fought for what they believed at the time to be justice and progress. People are free to see the good and bad of all sides. People can note the grave failures of Tsar Nicholas while also acknowledging he wasn't an evil man and meant well for his country. Russians can come to terms with Stalin's crimes while also praising him as the strong leader who led Russia to victory in the greatest of wars. It's a civilizational view. The US used to have it too. After the Civil War, when the dust settled, the victorious North gave the South its due. Southerners also fought for what they believed to be right, and they fought with courage and honor. Robert E. Lee was much respected. How richer the US was when it was free of ideology.
But now, with Jewish Power and its idolatry of the Noble Negro and its demonization of Evil Whitey, US history cannot be approached as a rich and complex web of triumphs and tragedies. It's all about good vs evil. Ideology is the idolatry of certain ideas over reality, and it impoverishes the mind.

China during the Cultural Revolution demonstrated the dangers of ideology. Just about any aspect of Chinese culture, history, heritage, and customs came under attacked and was destroyed because it didn't jibe with the prevailing ideology. So much art and culture was lost.

In the end, China is bigger than the CCP, and so, if the CCP is to really secure the future, it must move away from ideology and formulate a larger sense of what it means to be Chinese. That way, even Chiang Kai-Shek and KMT can be given their due as patriots in their own right than as permanent ideological villains. That way, Chinese no longer need to think in terms of 'left' vs 'right', a mindset that is downright toxic in the West.

Despite the fact that the report by the Soviet leader contained demonstrable falsehoods such as the absurd claim that Stalin, one of Russia’s most formidable bank robbers as a revolutionary, was a coward deathly afraid of the Nazi invasion as it neared Moscow during WWII, the self-serving speech split the international communist movement and laid the internal groundwork for the USSR’s eventual downfall.

Robbery isn't an act of courage. A duel takes courage as it's about an armed man vs an armed man. Robbery is an act of ambush on the unarmed. Stalin was a lowlife bandit when he robbed those ill-guarded banks. Also, it's been well-established that Stalin was in a state of utter gloom and despair when Germany invaded. He wasn't even sure his henchmen would stick by his side. I'd say his reaction was all-too-human and understandable. And what Russian in Moscow was not deathly afraid of the advancing Nazis?

Also, if some speech led to the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union, maybe the whole edifice was flimsy to begin with. What kind of a system is shaken to its core by a stinking speech? One would think the USSR was just a house of cards crumbling from a sneeze. Speech or no speech, Soviet Union was bound to suffer from arterial sclerosis because its state was at once too repressive for enterprise and too lax for coercion.