Problem with Christian Zionism: It is Servile to Jewish MAN than to God and Jesus — It is Servile to ALL Jews than merely to Moral-Spiritual Jews

Whatever one thinks of Christian Zionism, it might not be so bad IF Christian Zionists lived by courage, consistency, and a real set of principles. But in fact, they are mostly craven cowards whose main premise is serving Jewish Supremacy based on Jewish Money and the Cult of Shoah(aka Holocaust). It’s like one can disagree with a certain ideology or set of values but still admire the courage, conviction, and commitment of those involved in the movement. At the very least, one can credit them as true believers, warriors, and crusaders. But this cannot be said of Christian Zionists whose positions and actions belie even their supposed core convictions. For all their invocation of God and sacred text of the Bible, they seem to be mainly motivated by a servile awe of wealth, power, privilege, and cultist-idolatry of (Jewish)Man above God. In other words, for the Christian Zionists, Jews and Israel are BIGGER than God and Jesus. And some of them cave to whatever Jews insist. So, if Jews push globo-homo, certain Christian Zionists will say ‘gay marriage’ is in tune with Christian doctrine.

If we take Christian Zionists at their word, they should at the very least condemn most Jews as ungodly, immoral, degenerate, and satanic. After all, most Jews are secular and non-religious. If they worship anything, it is themselves via the Cult of Shoah and Money. Indeed, Holocaust has become a kind of Holo-boast, as if what happened in World War II lends Jews moral & spiritual protection for whatever they do, no matter how foul, vicious, and inhuman. Now, if Christian Zionists were to say they have a special feeling for Jews because (1) Christianity grew out of Judaism & Jesus and the Apostles were all Jewish (2) Jews received the Covenant first (3) Christianity overly persecuted the Jews (4) Jews made great contributions to humanity in literature and science (5) Jews experienced a unique tragedy in the Shoah (6) God wants Jews to return to the Holy Land (7) God blesses those who bless Jews, THEN their admiration and sentiments would be understandable. But, that very premise presupposes that Jews are the people of God and essentially a Good people who were misunderstood and mistreated through the ages. Then, Christian Zionism would be an effort to reverse Christian Antisemitism that, for most of Christian History, defined the Church. It would face up to the fact that most Jews are the beloved of God, humble before God, and a blessing to all humanity. It would be a redemptive corrective to Christian Antisemitism that had mis-characterized Jews for too long. Christian Zionism, with its true and correct understanding of Judaism and the Jews, would work toward conciliation between Christian Gentiles and Jews the world over. One could agree or disagree with Christian Zionism, but one could at least respect them for their consistency if indeed their words and actions were in tune with their perceptions and convictions. In other words, if real-world Jews conformed to Christian-Zionist conception of Jews, there would be some validity to Christian Zionism.

However, if real-world Jews are, for the most part, nothing like the Christian Zionist vision of Jews, then the only sensible decision would be to reject Christian Zionism or, at they very least, seriously alter its terms and conditions. After all, what would be the point of Christian Zionists continuing to honor, admire, and support Jews if real-world Jews are nothing like their idealized image of the Tribe?
For example, if you conceive of and adore wolves as peaceful herbivores but they turn out to be aggressive and dangerous carnivores, you would have to abandon or alter the terms of your admiration for wolves. You would either have to loathe wolves as bloody carnivores or admire them on the basis of their prowess as ruthless hunters. It would make no sense for you to stick to the belief that wolves are peaceable herbivores even as you know full well that they’re vicious carnivores? And it would be even weirder if you admire their prowess as blood hunters but still pretend they’re peaceful herbivores. That would be either surreal, retarded, or a pathological case of self-deception.

While many Christian Zionists are low-IQ dummies woefully misinformed about world affairs and Jewish Power, there are many in the movement who DO know the truth about real-world Jews and their global impact. They know that Jews are the greedy oligarchs of Hollywood. They know that Jews are the main pornographers. They know that Jews are the key purveyors of globo-homo degeneracy. They know Jews are the main instigators of mass immigration-invasion by non-white non-Christians into the West. They also know Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah. They know that Jews control Hollywood & TV and are responsible for so many anti-white, anti-Western, and anti-Christian movies and programs. They know that Jews ally with Muslims in the EU and US against Christians. They know that most Jews regard Evangelicals with utmost hostility. They know that Jewish lawfare has removed God and Christianity from so many public spaces. They know Jews pushed ‘gay marriage’. They know Israel is the center of White Slavery around the world. They also know that even religious Jews who do worship God feel a great deal of animus toward goyim and especially Christians. They know that many Israelis revere rabbis who say goyim are hardly better than cattle and exist only to serve Jews. They know what Rick Wiles knows: KOSHER COVER-UP: U.S. RULING CLASS HIDES EPSTEIN CHILD SEX BLACKMAIL OPERATION.

In other words, many Christian Zionists and Evangelicals know that most Jews are hostile to Christianity, morality, and the West in general. Also, they know that even religious Jews are not only anti-Christian but virulently hate Christianity more than anything. True, there are dumb ignorant Christian Zionists who live in their bubble and only believe what they want to believe, i.e. Jews and Christians are the best of friends and allies under the eyes of God; their main perception of Jews comes from sermons of cuck-preachers who take Jewish Money and from their potemkin-village pilgrimages to the Holy Land where cynical Jews lead them around by the nose to create false impression that Jews are friendly toward Western Christians(when it’s all just a stunt to squeeze more support and money from gullible Christians).
Now, while a Christian may have special feelings for Jews for historical/spiritual reasons, he MUST NOT believe Jews are holier than Christians or deserving of treatment above and beyond what Christians get. After all, even if one believes that Jews were the original Chosen People, Christianity is premised on the notion that God offered a New Covenant to all the people of the Earth via Jesus and that Jews not only rejected the Son of God but played a key role in His death. Indeed, Christianity loses its very raison d'être if it says Judaism is just as valid as Christianity, let alone even holier. After all, if Judaism is just as good or even better, why was there a need for the Son of God in Jesus, the New Faith, and the New Covenant? Aviation went from propeller engines to jet-engines because the latter was deemed superior. It’d be silly to be for jet-engines but also insist that propeller engines are just as good(or even better). While Christians can and should respect Judaism as the root of Christianity, their deference would be rather perverse given that Christianity not only grew out of Judaism but in ‘radical’ rejection of its tenets. Via Christianity, God’s main concern went from Jews to those who would accept the New Faith. For true Christians, New Testament has authority over Old Testament, and therefore, the New Covenant must mean more than the Old Covenant. The perverse thing about Christian Zionists(and other Christians who cuck to Jews and/or Israel) is they claim to be devoutly Christian but go more by the Old Book than the New Book. It’s almost as if their main object of worship is actually Jew-Envy that they live out by sucking up to Jews as the True Chosen People, the real Master Race. And this awe of Jews seems less based on Biblical Text than on real-world Mammon-Factor, i.e. Jews are the richest and most powerful people who, through their control of media, propped themselves as the New Christs resurrected from the ashes of the Holocaust. Thus, Christian Zionism is really a worship of Man and Mammon. Jews are worshiped because they are (1) richest & most powerful and (2) perceived as the most sacro-tragic people, of course mainly because Jews control most of media and academia.

If Christian Zionists were true to their word, then they could have two viable responses to the truth about Jews. Upon realizing the truth about real-world Jews and the anti-Christian nature of Judaism — true Judaism can only regard Christianity as a heresy and theft of God by goyim — , Christian Zionists could admit their error and stop quasi-worshiping Jews. They would admit that, more often than not, Christian Anti-Semites were correct about Jews and Judaism(and its hostile relation to Christianity in particular and to goyim in general).
Or, Christian Zionists can be very selective in their attitude toward Jews. They could single out those devout God-fearing Jews who are willing to co-exist with Christians on the basis of mutual respect(if not agreement) and support them in the US and Israel. That said, Christian Zionists would feel it’s their moral and spiritual obligation to condemn and denounce most Jews as either secular/atheist, decadent/degenerate, anti-Christian/anti-white, imperialist/genocidal, and/or greedy/perverted. After all, even in the Old Testament, God often separates wheat from the chaff by sparing the good Jews while condemning the bad Jews to death and destruction. The Golden Calfers certainly got it in the neck. Likewise, Christianity emerged by ‘good’ Jews separating themselves from ‘bad’ Jews who rejected Jesus as the Son of God and the Salvation that He promised.
It makes no sense to praise and support ALL THE PEOPLE of a group. Such can only be idolatrous cult-worship of identity. After all, no people are entirely good, noble, or sacred. There are good whites, bad whites. Good blacks, bad blacks. Good yellows, bad yellows. Good Russians, bad Russians. Good Iranians, bad Iranians. Then, Christian Zionists ought to know that there are good Jews and bad Jews. Also, given what Christian Zionists claim to hold dear in morality and spirituality, they should admit that MOST Jews are viciously hostile to them and, at best, cynically exploit their support for Israel merely for tribal opportunism. The problem isn’t simply with secular Jews but many conservative religious Jews, such as Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is a religious Jew but regards Christians as mere cattle and cannon fodder for Jewish Supremacism. He’s not for peaceful existence with Christians(and Muslims) on the basis of mutual respect(if not admiration). Rather, he’s for using Christ-Cuck Soldiers to destroy Muslim and/or Arab enemies of Israel, and he’s for using Arab/Muslim immigrants in the West against whites/Christians. He demands that Christians respect, admire, and serve Jews, but he feels NOTHING for Christians and, as far as I can tell, longs for the total destruction of Christianity. Such Jews want to make
Christians and Muslims mutually destroy one another so that Jews will rule the world. As such, even though he opposes the ‘gay’ agenda, he sees its usefulness in undermining Christian Order and Gentile Morale of Morality.

Christian Zionism would be somewhat valid IF Christian Zionists argued that the Holy Land belongs to Good Devout Jews who’ve chosen mutual respect and peaceful co-existence with the Christian World. Also, being Christians, they would have as much sympathy for Christian Arabs as for Jews. At the very least, they would pressure Jews to be accepting of Christian Arabs even if not for Muslim Arabs. All said and done, a true Christian must favor fellow Christians over Jews. But, look at the likes of Ted Cruz. They claim to be Christian, but they favor ALL Jews over Christian Arabs whose communities have been utterly smashed by Wars for Israel. The fact that Christian Zionists admire, worship, and serve ALL JEWS — regardless of their lack of faith, hostility toward Christians/goyim, insatiable worldly greed, and spread of degeneracy/decadence — makes it plain as day that their true religion is Power Worship and the Cult of the Superior Man. In effect, they worship Jews as the New-Nihilo-Christ for the simple fact that Jews got the most money, power, privilege, and control of media with which to elevate themselves as the Holy Holocaust People who better be obeyed because otherwise thou shall be destroyed.

If Christian Zionists really put God and Jesus above all, they would have the courage and conviction to (1) call out on bad Jews and (2) acknowledge that most Jews are godless, greedy, hateful, hostile, subversive, corrupting, and pro-satanist. Their mindless praise of ALL JEWS despite the fact that most Jews hate their guts and do everything to destroy the Christian Order exposes the utter phoniness of Christian Zionism as it currently exists. If Christian Zionists said something along the line of, "We acknowledge Jews as a great people whose religion and culture laid down the foundation for Christianity. We acknowledge the special talent of Jews and their contributions to civilization. Perhaps, such talents are the gifts of God. We also acknowledge that Jews through the ages have often been collectively scapegoated and victimized. And we acknowledge that the Shoah, aka the Holocaust, was one of the great horrors in human history. That said, we also know that Jews not only rejected Jesus, the Son of God, but did their part in killing Him. We also know the problems between Jews and Gentiles often arose from contempt Jews felt for Gentiles who were deemed less intelligent and less(or not) blessed by God. There was Christian Antisemitism, but there was also Jewish Anti-Goyism. In the modern era, many Jews of secular bent either used communism to destroy millions of Slavic lives or capitalism & degeneracy to destroy millions of white lives. Also, even though we understand the profound attachment that Jews feel for the Holy Land, we sympathize with Palestinians who also have deep historical roots in the land and were driven out in the Nakba pogroms. In our time, Jews have gained dominance in the US as lone superpower, and most Jews are now in supremacist mode. They will do anything — sell bad drugs, spread pornification of culture, push mass immigration-invasion, wage Wars for Israel in which mostly goyim die, replace Christianity with globo-homo Queertianity, and etc. — to secure their supremacist position vis-a-vis the rest of humanity. As such, while we Christian Zionists pray for Jews and support the Right of Return for devout and decent Jews who respect us as we respect them, we condemn MOST JEWS who’ve lost their way and are leading humanity astray with more wars, decadence, culture of greed, and degeneracy." If Christian Zionists said something along those lines, we can at least recognize it is not without a head, heart, and spine.
But instead, what do we get from Christian Zionists? Mindless support of Israel despite the fact that Jews proudly say it is the ‘gayest country in the world’ and celebrate globo-homo-mania to the extent that much of Israel looks more like Sodom and Gomorrah than God’s Country. Mindless support of ALL Jews despite the fact that so many Jews either took part in communism and killed millions of Christian Slavs or used capitalism to spread vice industries, decadence, and degeneracy, leading to the deaths of so many whites(and blacks) from drugs, sexual diseases, and wanton self-indulgence.

Christian Zionists apparently see nothing wrong in the fact that the biggest donors to the so-called ‘conservative’ GOP are gambling moguls and hedge-fund parasites like Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer. Christian Zionist idea of a Good Society is Pottersville(in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE) controlled by Jews. And for all their Christian piety, these Christian Zionist even root for globo-homo secular Zionists over Christian Arabs who’ve been rendered homeless by endless Wars for Israel. Therefore, Christian Zionism as it currently exists has zero spiritual value and zero moral content. It is really just empty calories of nihilistic worship of Power & Wealth, a kind of Ayn-Randism draped in Christian cloth. Indeed, notice how fast ‘gay marriage’ and globo-homo in general are spreading among Evangelicals as well. So much for fundamentalist faith in God, Jesus, and the True Way. These christ-cucks, just like Mammonic Mormons, will eventually bend every rule to bend over to the Top Power of finance, media, vice industries, and the deep state. Of course, so many American churches, Mainline and Evangelical(and Catholic and Mormon) have been infiltrated by Deep State culture-assassins. Or, they’re run by weak-willed craven opportunists who, when push come to shove, will sacrifice God and Jesus for their slice of the pie in a world that is so much in the control of Jews as the new god.

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

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

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

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

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

Intoxication of Cyclops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem of Lack of Individuality in Russian National Character — Communal Sense without Individual Spark means Lack of Reform, Progress, and Growth

Anatoly Karlin wrote about the problems of Russia in The Russian Empire: Too Nice for Its Own Good

I’m thinking that the problem with Russians is the lack of individuality.

Now, some on the Right(esp Alt Right) are skeptical and even hostile to this thing called individualism. They see it as selfish, egotistical, vain, atomizing, and ahistoric. This may indeed be true in cases where individualism is the core of one’s worldview and ‘value’ system.

But individuality can serve something bigger than itself. And any agenda, vision, or order is best served by energized individuals with the will to be bold, headstrong, inspired, ingenious, and innovative. The problem with collectivism is it discourages and dampens individual initiative, and of course, initiative is always a function of individuality. So, even though the collective consciousness emphasizes the good of the whole, the actual good comes from those individuals who make the extra effort to assert their will and make dreams come true. Collective consciousness is necessary for a community of shared identity, values, and purpose. But the collective is about inertia than initiative. In order for things to get started, the individual must provide the initiative. Collective consciousness is like a pile of logs waiting to be lit. But they alone cannot make fire. It takes a spark. Individuality and Initiative are the sparks created by striking of flint stones. It’s like we can create any institution to serve the community in a specific capacity. It can be a center for art, drama, or music. And the members of the community can collectively agree on the purpose of the institution. But that collective knowledge will not create art, drama, or music. It takes individuals with initiative who are willing to pour their energies into creating something unique or special. Collective consciousness is about a general sense of what is necessary. Lots of people can agree that fine music would be a good thing. But it takes strong individuals like Mozart or Beethoven to actually make the music. And this is why the culture of individuality has been so important in the rise of the West in contrast to the Rest where collective conformity suppressed individual initiatives as rude, irreverent, presumptuous, destabilizing, or subversive.
Of course, a fanatical ideology that values radical individualism above all other considerations is bound to be fatal. The paradox of Ayn Rand’s success is that she reached mass readers with a vision that actually held most of them in contempt. Her obsession was only with the BEST, the 1% of the 1% in talent, beauty, and/or wealth. She saw most of humanity as just useless rabble whose only meaningful purpose was to serve as helot-cattle whose menial production and material consumption would sustain an economy that could fund and fulfill the mental vision of the genius. The fantastic element was in the idealized hero who possessed not only great talent but granite integrity and spellbinding beauty. (Reality is, of course, far messier and more complicated, less a myth of heroes than mystery of hustlers and hermits who, often by accident, stumbled on something remarkable.) She railed against middlebrow comprises(as characterized by Toohey), but hers was a middlebrow fantasy of heroic elitism sold to mediocrities. Still, upon arriving in the US, she was quick to notice what was missing in Russia due to Slavic tradition and Bolshevik tyranny. Both provided a general sense of the common good but repressed the independence and initiative of individuality. (On the other hand, Rand failed to understand that hyper-individualism destroys democratic individualism because the hyper-individual comes to believe that he is so great and awesome as a man of destiny that his individual will must trample over the individual wills of others. So, even as Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler came to be associated with anti-individualism, it was because they were hyper-individuals with radical will who felt that their individual vision must quell all obstacles. Not for nothing did Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to be associated with both individuality and tyranny. If every individuality was equal, nothing great can be done. The great individual must trample on the individuality of others and bend them to his individual will. Whether this is done through communism or capitalism, the dynamics is much the same. Still, a capitalist system allows for more than one powerful individual to call the shots, and that allows for more competition and achievement.)

There is collectivism where people conceive of the common good and try to work as a team. The downside of such mindset is passivity. After all, everyone would be waiting around to be told what to do for the common good. He’d lack the individual will to put forth his own ideas and plans. He’d know how to receive and take orders but not how to assert himself and propose/execute ideas to lead others.

There is individualism where the only consideration is self-interest or self-satisfaction. The most extreme type of this kind of individualism is found in gangsterism, vice industry, and globalism. Druglords don’t care what narcotics may do to society. They only care about raking in the bucks. Vice industry casino oligarchs don’t care about the negative impact of gambling on morals and values. They only care about profits. And globalist entrepreneurs don’t care about the peoples of their own nation and around the world. They just play the entire world to maximize wealth and prestige for themselves.

But there is the third option: Individualism for the shared national good. Peter Thiel is partly of this school. He believes in individual enterprise, boldness, risk-taking, and innovation… but he also believes there must be a sense of national purpose and good.

The problem with Russians is this lack of individuality for the national good. Many Russians do have a collective & shared sense of national good, but it isn’t enough to provide the spark for enterprise, innovation, and reforms. And some Russians do have a narrow sense of individualism that only cares about the self. Such egotistic opportunism will even do things that hurts the nation-as-a-whole as long as there is something in it for ‘me’.
Russian(often Russian-Jewish)individualism has taken the form of self-serving egomania. Its only obsession is to become rich by any means necessary and live like a king with yachts and mansions all over the world. (To be sure, Jewish-Russian oligarchs at least have a sense of "Is it good for the Jews?" They are willing to exploit and cause harm to Russia for self-gain, but they will serve the interests of Israel and EOJ or the Empire of Judea.) This kind of pathologically self-centered individualism is harmful to the nation. The powerful, the privileged, and the well-connected only care about themselves. And as fish rots from the head, such excessive vanity seeps down to the masses who, though remaining poor, ape the crass, trashy, and narcissistic. Of course, it’s a problem in the US too, with moronic masses imitating, at least in style and attitude, the decadent excesses of celebrities.

There has long been a sense of communal and shared good in Russian culture, and it goes back to the spread of Christianity… which may explain why so many Russians took to communism, which seemed familiar to Russian sensibility. Russians, lacking individuality and initiative, were used to being told what to do. They were used to others doing the talking for them. This kind of communalism discouraged individuality, spark, adventure, and can-do-spirit. It emphasized conformism to orthodoxy of the righteous and just, whether under Christianity, Tsarism, or communism. Or Putinism.

There is a positive side to communalism but also a negative side. Without sufficient individual spark and boldness, too many communal-minded people remain passive and sit around to be told what to do. In contrast, communalism of energetic individuals will be lit by sparks of initiative and will. In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, George Bailey is compelled by circumstances to strive for the good of the town, but he is bursting with boundless individuality. He knows how to take charge. He is idealistic, resourceful, adaptive, and keen. He knows how to engage with all kinds of people. He has both communal spirit and individuality. In contrast, the lack of individuality in Russia led to too many Russkies just waiting around to be told what to think or do. Or, the strong individual exerted his precious will to control than inspire others. Consider the Strelnikov character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He is strong-willed like George Bailey, but he instills fear than inspires freedom.



The difference between assertive communalism(of individuals) and passive(or tyrannical) communalism(of collective mindset) is this: Suppose the electricity goes out in a community. In the community of civic-minded individuals, many will try to contact the company to see what’s up. Each person will try to take the initiative. In contrast, in the latter community, everyone will just sit around trusting or hoping that someone ELSE will do something about the power outage. This makes all the difference.

America used to be both individual and communal. It had civic sense and national unity, and it was composed of individuals who rolled up their sleeves in can-do spirit and went about building and fixing things. In contrast, the Russian lack of individualism meant a communalism that tended toward inertia or lethargy as most people lacked initiative and just waited around for orders from above. And Putinism hasn’t fixed this national character flaw in the Russian mindset.

Indeed, what is striking about the ‘Russian Revolution’ was how non-Russian much of it was. How was it that a small rabble of Jews, Latvians, Poles, and even Georgians gained so much power over vast numbers of Russians who almost overnight became their servants? Those other cultures had a stronger assertive will(though not in the Anglo-libertarian mode). Russian masses had long been inculcated to follow orders and do like others do. (This was why the Whites were doomed in the Civil War with the Reds. The Reds, though anti-liberty, found a way to whip up mass frenzy. The Russian masses were made to feel they were playing a heroic role in history. In contrast, the elitist and reactionary Whites had little to offer but orders and commands that promised nothing but return to the old order.) Unlike Russians, the ethno-minority Bolsheviks came from cultures that produced individuals who were more bandit-like, merchant-like, intellectual-like, and etc. Consider how a tiny number of Jews came to dominate so much of the economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider how a tiny rabble of Chechen cutthroats were able to intimidate far bigger Russian gangs.

So, it's not surprising it took awhile for the USSR to become a genuine Russian Empire. Up to the 50s, it was largely an empire ruled by non-Russians with greater penchant for assertive will. Indeed, Russians gained power only because the non-Russian elites created a system wherein Russians could be educated and elevated up the Iron Ladder. Russians could use a system but weren’t adept at creating one themselves. Consider how Germans had played a pivotal role in the creation of modern pre-revolutionary Russia. Consider how it took many non-Russians to create the Bolshevik system. And after the fall of communism, Russia handed over privatization(that turned into ‘piratization’) to foreigners, mainly Jewish Americans. Russians felt they couldn't do it themselves.

Another problem with Russians is the persistent strain of barbarism that wastes energy on childish things. When Russians do indulge in crude forms of individuality, they are often silly stuff like swilling excessive amounts of vodka, having street fights, driving around like loons, wrestling bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis. Jews don’t waste their core energies on such silliness. If you have a gallon of gasoline, it should be poured into an engine. Russians douse gas all around and set things on fire just to celebrate and have a good time. Total waste of energy and creativity. True individuality is a smart use of energy with focus and sense of purpose.


As Russia looks to the future, the main conflict will be this:

Russian nationalists and patriots with sounder values & nobler spirit but lacking in individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference

VERSUS

Jewish, Homo, and Cuck Globalists with terrible values and subversive mindset but bursting with individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference.

It’s like what Israel Shamir wrote of the Lucy Stein gang. Awful people but full of spunk and spirit. A spirited badger can bring down a passive cow. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/lucy-stein-gang-rides-moscow/

Does Communism Have a Future? The Appeal of Marxism/Leninism in the 20th century and even in today’s post-post-post World of Desperation for Meaning

During much of the 20th century, so many people all over the world hung their hopes on communism. It was the new science, new philosophy, the new faith. And even after the enthusiasm faded into disillusion, it seemed as though the Soviet Empire would last many more decades because it was so big and formidable. But then, it all collapsed overnight, and even those on the Left consigned communism to the dustbin of history. But now, due to the crises of late capitalism, rise of globalism, and new inequalities(and amnesia about the extent of communist crime and horrors), there is renewed interest in radical socialism in certain quarters.

So, does communism have a future? But then, it was never generic communism(which predated Marx) per se but Marxism or Marxism-Leninism that made the difference. Ultimately, Maoism was too anti-intellectual to win over converts for long. It was more about hysteria and rabid passion, the sort of thing that burns out rather quickly. But then, one could argue PC owes more to a strain of Maoism because its purpose is to override intellect with intensity of righteous furor. Many of today’s radical young act more like China’s Red Guards than Marxist-Leninist-Trotskite intellectuals whose style was rather ‘bourgeois’.

If it wasn’t for Marxism/Leninism, would communism have gained so many disciples and converts? After all, the basic idea of communism predated Marxism. It was meant as a formula for a society where work and wealth would be shared equally. It wasn’t particularly intellectual or theoretical. It was a utopianism of need.
It was Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels’ theorization of communism that really changed the world. Similarly, psychology and psychiatry predated Sigmund Freud, but it was Freudianism that really created a Movement or Cult(as denigrated by some). It was this strain of Freudianism that had a major impact on culture, from high art to mass entertainment. And among libertarianism, it was Ayn Rand’s particular take on capitalism and individualism that created so many adherents. The basic ideas didn’t originate with Rand, but she pulled them altogether into a radical romanticist worldview with the mytho-heroic individual at the center.

In all these intellectual phenomena, we see several factors at play. We see the appeal of something grand, epic, and/or universal. World Revolution, Discovery of the Mind, and Heroic Freedom. Another appeal is the unification of seemingly disparate ideas. Marx explained how economic forces aren’t just an element of society but THE underlying factor in EVERYTHING. So, religion, arts, culture, history, and etc are all manifestations of economic struggles.
Freud explained that the mind isn’t a pristine rational faculty independent of body and base instincts but an organ shaped by sexual animal drives that, though repressed, can’t be extinguished, thereby leading to the development of complexes.
And Rand argued that every progress in human history owed to the radical heroism of individual liberty. Without unfettered individualism, human advancement shall be impossible. According to Rand, the best way to do good is not to be ‘good’ but to be free as an individual and fulfill one’s destiny(if one is possessed of rare talent). For example, if a man has the genius to invent fire, he should do that instead of taking care of the poor. Helping the poor might do some good, but it doesn't lead to the invention of fire that will change the very course of mankind. Would it have been better for Newton or Einstein to feed the poor than follow their passion in science? Should Tolstoy not have written WAR AND PEACE because it prevented him from aiding the poor? (Granted, most people aren’t great, and the problem of Randism is it conflates, at least in the minds of its acolytes, generic individualism with great individuality. Randism, like Dianetics, was marketed as self-help for the masses when its philosophy is relevant only to those with rare talent. Its success owed to the radical babbity fantasy of any individual pretending he could be a great tycoon or visionary artist.)

Another profound appeal of such movements was the cult of personality. It’s part of human nature to want a name or a human face to iconicly represent an idea, passion, or movement. Development of religion owed to humans personifying the world around them. So, maybe a manlike god makes thunder. Maybe a manlike god controls the seas. Greeks attached manlike deities to phenomena of nature and psyche.
And in war narratives, we like to focus on big godlike personalities. Even though victory in war relies mostly on soldiers and the entire chain of command — and industry providing armaments and logistics — , we’d rather fixate on personalities like Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, General Lee, General Grant, Napoleon, and etc. Big personalities add a mythic dimension to extremely complex phenomena that involve so many details and complications.

Same is true with the battle of ideas. Basic ideas of communism existed before Marx. But Marx became the human face of the movement. He came to be revered as its Moses, the law-giver and prophet.
Likewise, Freud became the sage figure of a great cult. Thus, the ideas of psychology and psychiatry went from abstract academism of dry ideas to the legendary stuff of genius of towering individuality.
And of course, fans of the Ayn Rand cult revere her as a visionary seer. She transformed the generic ideas of freedom and individuality into myths for heroes to live by.

So, people want to believe in a big idea, but big ideas tend to be generic and bland, or academic and abstract. But when it emanates from and revolves around a ‘genius’ or ‘prophet’ who stamps it with personality and vision, it takes on the characteristics of a story and crusade. And this is what made communism such a powerful movement. It had Marx and later Lenin as its prophets. It is why Freudianism, despite its flaws and even fraudulence, captivated so many. And it’s why Rand turned American individualism from a value to a vision.

There was also a bold and radical quality about such figures, making their ideas all the more intoxicating. Even though probity and caution are generally preferable, they don't entice and excite. We love the thrill of clash of the titans. If Marx had been a social-democrat, he might have been a more sensible and measured thinker. Caution may be more wiser, but it’s also limiting of the larger vision striving toward the prophetic. For one to gain renown and/or notoriety, one has to think bigger, see further, and make big claims about history.
After all, cultural controversies arise from bold pronouncements. Auteur Theory altered the course of film history because Francois Truffaut had the gall to declare a new grand theory of cinema. It wasn’t proposed as a possibility but proffered as a certainty.

Like Marx, Freud was also a Big Thinker as was Rand. Their Delusional Derangement Syndrome was part of the appeal. It’s like Hard Rockers usually get more respect than crooners or balladeers. When Led Zeppelin played hard, the music = power = truth. Thunders and storms, not breezes and drizzles, get all the coverage.

Whether Marxism was, good or bad, right or wrong, it was truly bold and epic in its prophetic reach. Imagine if Moses came down with a set of legal documents and explained to Hebrews that he came up with some useful ordinances for the Tribe. Hebrews would have been bored. Moses commanded respect because he spoke big and loud like Charlton Heston and claimed the laws were given to him from God Himself..

Christianity and Islam became great religions because of the fusion of universality and personality: A kind of ‘Universonality’. The ideas expounded by Jesus weren’t really new. There had been ideals of pacifism before. So, why did Christianity take off? Because the ideas and values were poeticized and ‘sacralized’ by the words, deeds, and feats of Jesus, a God with a human face. The combination of ideas, personality, and story did the trick. Likewise, the ideas of Islam cannot be appreciated apart from the personality cult of Muhammad as the great prophet-seer-warrior-servant-of-Allah.

There is also the cult of The Champion. In boxing, there are several leagues, which means there can be three or four heavyweight champions at the same time. This is dissatisfying. We want to the Real Champion. We want all the champs to fight it out to find out who the real champ is. This is why pagan mythology has hierarchy among the gods. There is Zeus as top god in the Greek pantheon, and Odin is the top god in Germanic mythology. But Jews went even further. They decided to unify all gods into just one. So, there is only one God and only one truth. All else are false gods.

And such was the appeal of Marxism, Freudianism, and Randism. They were attempts to offer an explanation for everything by tying all the threads of history into a unified prophecy. It had The Answer for all humanity and for each individual. There had been many ideas of communism before Marx, but it was Marxism that explained how communism isn’t merely a choice of political philosophy but an inevitability of history driven by class conflict. Competing ideas of communism were either subsumed into or rejected by Marxism as the unifying theory.
In a similar vein, Freud insisted that his theory of the mind-body-dynamics explained all of psychology and human nature. And Rand insisted that her theory would ensure the triumph of reason and truth above falsehood, sentimentality, and/or dogma. There was no need for any other theory. Each claimed championship, the unification title.

And yet, Marxism had a greater impact than Freudianism or Randism. As influential as Freud was, the direction of capitalism was bound to lead to consumerism and hedonism EVEN IF Freud had never existed. As for Rand, she was only the most fervent and fanatical proponent of capitalism. She put an accent on individualism but didn’t fundamentally change history. Ultimately, she was a cheerleader pretending to be the coach.

In contrast, even though Marx didn’t invent communism, his theory of communism came to found a great movement and a new order that would shake the world in the 20th century and directly impact the lives of billions who either came under communist rule or were exhorted to stand against it.

Despite psychology’s importance in the 20th century, it’s about the individual mind. Even though everyone has psychology, it isn't possible to unify all minds(unless a super-collective mind machine is created in the future) into a Power or Truth. To be sure, electronica has created something like proto-unification of the mind. TV-Radio-internet is like a Cloud-Mind. As our senses are hooked to TV screens, radios, computers, and smart-phones beaming the same images, sounds, and ideas to billions around the world, our minds are being molded into a singularity by a handful of Big Media corporations. If I controlled a machine that generates ideas & images and could beam them to a billion people around the world, I would effectively be uni-colonizing their minds. In this sense, TV is a mind-control tool that molds countless minds into one. Prior to electronica, people would have been reading different books, different newspapers, hearing different conversations, and etc. But with everyone having a TV, he sees the same images, and his mind is molded by the same stories, news, ideas, and advertising. Invasion by tropes is more insidious than invasion by troops. It’s chilling that Freud’s nephew Bernays was a pioneer in mass advertising, a force that, in some way, became more powerful than any ideology. Electronica favored idology to ideology and it is one of the driving force of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Also, the rise of advertising molded arts and culture to function in a similar way: Synergy of art and advertisement.

Still, as exciting as ‘idology’ is, it is not fulfilling to the heart and soul. It’s about thrills. It’s like fireworks are fun but can’t warm your body in winter. Warmth is provided by conviction and a belief system. Marxism was certainly that. It had an element of high intellect and converted many intelligent people who sought an ideology as replacement for religion.
But its themes were also about justice for poor folks and toiling workers. Thus, it had an ennobling moral and quasi-spiritual element, not unlike that found in creeds like Christianity and Islam. So, Marxism brought together the mind and heart. And because revolution required a fight, the fist completed the trinity.

Because Marxism envisioned a better future, a heaven on earth, it fulfilled a spiritual need for modern man who could no longer return to faith in God. It united the mind, the soul, and the body. And also the senses. As Marxism connected EVERYTHING to economics, a communist was expected to make and/or criticize arts and culture. Marxist had to master media and entertainment to win over the masses and serve the revolution. And a Marxist had to be a keen reader and critic of bourgeois art and capitalist entertainment to critique them and expose their true agendas. There was a place for artists and critics in Marxosphere, especially when Antonio Gramsci formulated his own brand of Marxism.

Also, Marxism came with a handful of canonical works such as THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, DAS KAPITAL, and works of Lenin and others. The Communist Manifesto had the appeal of the New Testament Gospels. It was easy to understand and digest. It was for everyman, like op-ed in newspaper. Das Kapital was a much more daunting work, like the Talmud, but that was precisely its appeal to those of philosophical or literary bent. Like Heidegger’s BEING AND TIME, its difficulty was appreciated for challenging the intellect. For a revolutionary to have read Das Kapital and understood it was akin to someone mastering the Torah(and Talmud). After all, even as universalist intellectuals wanted to feel a direct connection to the masses, they also wanted to feel superior as serious thinkers. So, Marxism’s appeal to both semi-literate masses and ultra-literate intellectuals was seen as the promise of unity of mind and body of humanity approaching the end of history. It’s like what Barton Fink explains to the working class guy. Fink wants to be ONE with the workers but also ABOVE them with his elaborate literary theories about arts and politics.


What is the appeal of the Bible? It’s the unity. Its themes and similar narratives can be found in lots of other books, but who wants to carry a 1000 books around? Bible’s appeal is that it combines theology, history, genealogy, poetry, philosophy, prophecy, chronology, legalism, ethics, and etc. Greeks and Romans produced many great works but there are here, there, everywhere. There is no single Greek book that brings it all together. Bible, in contrast, brought together the essence of all the Jewish themes, culture, and ideas. So, just by carrying that one book, there is a great sense of carrying truth, meaning, history, spirituality, and etc.

And this was the appeal of communism. Just by having a few collected works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and maybe Trotsky, the Truth was in one’s hands.

I was never a communist but had a collection of commie sacred texts in the 1980s. The capitalist world of US seemed colorful and lively but confusing, complicated, and contradictory. So, reading Marxist-Leninist-Maoist books was akin to perusing through the Bible. They promised certainty and direction in a world where one couldn’t tell how what was going where for whom. Even though I was skeptical of the theories and claims, there was something prophetic in the promise of redemption.

There is a very good piece by Tony Judt in NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS on the death of Marxism.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/09/21/goodbye-to-all-that/

It tries to understand why Marxism/Leninism had such a spell on so many people — from most distinguished intellectuals in the West to the crudest ragtag rebels in the Third World — in the 20th century. Its secret was in the promise of singularity with a simple but profound idea as conveyed in the canonical texts. It offered an intersection of history, philosophy, quasi-spirituality, theory of justice, prophecy, cult of science and reason(as Marx claimed to be totally rational and objective, just like Freud and Ayn Rand later), manual on manhood(as revolution would require warriors), love(as equal justice would mean happiness for all men and women in sex and love), and arts & culture(as revolutionaries must decode and expose bourgeois propaganda and create new culture for the new man). Via Marxism, various peoples working in different fields and departments of expertise could feel interconnected and complementary because, as fellow Marxists, they were all working toward the same end of Final Justice.
Christianity had once played such a role in the West. It spiritually and morally united everyone from king to the lowest peasant. But with the fading of religions and old hierachies, what could serve as the new ideological and quasi-theological underpinning for all men? Many looked to Marxism as the great hope, the new prophecy based on science than on superstition.
In post-war European cinema, why did so many bourgeois capitalist film-makers claim to be ‘Marxist’? They obviously didn’t want to go live in communist Russia. When they made money, they vacationed like rich bourgeoisie and drove around in sports cars. They ate at fancy restaurants. Still, they adopted ‘Marxism’ as the new-christianity. In a society that seemed increasingly uprooted, alienated, and fragmented, they held onto Marxism that served as a new 'spiritual' compass and connective thread for all mankind.

So, the key issue isn’t whether communism will make a comeback or not. The main question is why Marxism/Leninism still has a hold on people. It is because the human mind is essentially religious to the extent that we crave the unity of truth and authority. When the West practiced religion, the sense of totality and unity was provided by God and Jesus through the Sacred Texts and the Church. But real religion has long been dead.
The End of History is here and the Final Idea is this bland thing called ‘liberal democracy’ which can mean just about anything. Some have tried to find meaning through Homomania and Negromania. But for how long can humanity find meaning in worshiping butt-banging? And how long can we worship the Magic Negro, which is as mythical as the unicorn? Furthermore, whatever fun and thrills that people might get from pop culture saturation of Negro dongs and Black booties, is it ultimately meaningful? The idolatry of homos and Negroes have a powerful hold on globalist culture, but they lack depth and substance for those seeking meaning..

For a while, there was an attempt to turn Shoah into a new religion, and this still holds for many Jews. Europeans have been raised with Shoah-guilt as their neo-christianity with Anne Frank as Virgin Mary and with Jewish victims as the neo-christs who died for the ‘sins’ of gentiles. But how long can this hold as EU fills up with Muslims and Africans who feel nothing for Jews? And with people becoming more cynical about Jewish power and the mess in West Bank — and with negative news about the likes of Harvey Weinstein and Anthony Weiner — , the Shoah-as-new-religion is becoming ever harder to sustain. Too many Jews are too rich and too corrupt. As horrible as the Shoah was, Shoah-worship is as problematic as Magic-Negro-worship and Homo-angel-worship. It ultimately comes down to worship of man, and mankind is a sinful animal. So, even though we want to believe in blacks-ennobled-under-white-tyranny, they mostly act like louts. And even though Jews suffered the horrors of Shoah, they’ve gained great power since then and do awful things.
Unlike God who can be said to be eternally great, all peoples wildly vacillate on the scale from good to evil. Germans were once good, then terrible during Nazism, then good again, and now bad again. Jews can be good or bad at different times. Worshiping Shoah-as-religion won’t work because it posits that we must look at ALL Jews through ALL of history through the prism of Shoah for ALL eternity. So, even if Zionists were to decide to wipe out the Palestinians, we have to see Jews as ‘the eternal victim’. It’s ridiculous.

There is no longer any unity of truths and meanings. In some ways, this is a good thing as no single ideology or worldview can explain everything. And yet, there is a longing for unity,the culmination of historical, moral, spiritual, material, and rational truth. In the absence of such, some are returning to Marxism/Leninism, esp as capitalism has grown so corrupt and disgusting.
Some on the True Left must be wondering what the hell happened to the Idea of Progress. How did Leftism become the arm of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, taking huge sums from money-changers like Soros who promote whores and homos? Given what has become of progressivism, it is now de rigeur to support homos and all that. But in doing so, leftism has lost its true meaning, purpose, and connection to the people. Also, the embrace of Diversity has turned leftism into a ideological cesspool of incoherence. Is leftism for feminism or for Islam? Is it for women or for trannies? Is it for essentialism or fantasism of 50 genders? Is it for capitalist pop culture or against it? If leftism is about ‘more immigrants’, how can it ever address the problems of the natives when it’s too busy attacking natives as ‘xenophobes’ for not taking in MORE foreigners.

Given this mess, some may be hankering for Classic Marxism that was universal but also demanding and disciplined as theory and practice.

BUT, Marxism really is a spent force, and you can’t go home again. But then, Christianity is also a spent force. It had a great 1600 yr run, but it’s now comatose as faith and culture. Esp its failure to resist homomania exposed it as the Sick Man of Religion. As for Marxism, it failed too big and too tragically in the 20th century to make a real comeback. Also, Marxism is essentially too literary and intellectual for young generations raised on internet, texting, and selfies. Even the 60s youth radicals were more Coca-Cola than Marx.

But the current malaise opens up opportunities for new great ideas, movements, and even religions. A state-of-the-art religion may not even require faith but a vision, like in sci-fi stories. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was on to something even though what came of his movement turned into a cultish joke.

This is the time to create new visions and religions, new ideologies and movements. And that is why there is such fear of the Alt Right and other such voices. They sense that something is terribly wrong and out of balance in the world. Old Rules and Old ideas no longer speak to our times. And yet, something big and powerful must happen for the world to be saved and set straight again.

It is time to write the Book, a new book that will unify the disparate ideas yet waiting to be gathered into one. It’s like what Bob Dylan did with BLONDE ON BLONDE. He took everything from country, rock n roll, blues, folk, and poetry and brought it all back home and made something that was both everything but also unique and special. This is why Dylan’s stature as the prophet of Rock stuck.