Communism's Appeal to the Third World & Russia prior to post-WWII New Capitalism that Allowed Greater Participation of the Non-West

https://www.unz.com/ldinh/plastic-recycling-and-jousting-jews/

Craig Nelson's Comments are highlighted in Yellow:

Communism had its dark and evil side but also its uses as a weapon of resistance. It led to unification of Vietnam and independence of Cuba from American imperialism.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Back then, it seemed sensible for non-white thinkers, patriots, and leaders to consider communism as a viable option. For example, immediately upon victory, Bolsheviks in Russia were the first to denounce Western Imperialism and call for national liberation around the world. It’s no wonder even non-communist Sun Yat-Sen of China leaned toward the Soviets who seemed to treat Chinese as fellow brethren than as semi-colonial subjects as was the case with European Imperialists(and to lesser extent by the Americans). Also, keep in mind that one of the reasons for capitalism's failure in Russia was due to the role of the British Empire, the dominant player in world trade in the 19th century. Though Russia was allied with France and UK against Germany in World War I, the power that had done most to undermine Russian modernization and development had been the British Empire. Naturally, with the failure of capitalism and disaster of war, many Russians turned toward Bolsheviks who offered communism as the new hope. Just as Jewish-controlled West tries to undermine capitalism in today's Russia, the top capitalist power in the 19th century did all it could to sabotage Russia's move toward modernization. Capitalists don't necessarily help other capitalists if the latter threaten their hegemony.

It was only after WWII with US as the new capitalist superpower that non-white nations were allowed to take part in capitalist development on a near-equal level. Prior to that, capitalism was almost synonymous with imperialism of Western Liberal Democracies. The game was rigged so that Western Nations hogged the industry whereas the non-West was used as supplier of raw materials. For example, French Imperialists suppressed national capitalist development among the Vietnamese who were assigned the role of supplying rubber to France.

So, naturally, many non-whites back then valued communism as the most potent weapon/instrument against capitalist-imperialism. Indeed, in the first half of the 20th century, many non-white leaders spent their formative years in a period when the power of World Capital clearly meant the West over the Rest. Capitalism was nearly interchangeable with imperialism.

But after World War II, with the US as the new ascendant hegemon, the rules changed so that even non-white nations could play a sizable role in world trade and develop their own economies(and even heavy industries and high-tech sectors in direct competition with First World economies). Partly, it owed to the US being somewhat more idealistic as it’d come into existence against European Empires. But the bigger reasons were political, opportunistic, and pragmatic. In seeking to dethrone Britain and France from world affairs, the US presented itself as a friend to anti-imperialist voices everywhere. Furthermore, with the Soviets championing World Liberation(from capitalist-imperialism), the US had no choice but to present itself as a generous and progressive world power committing to spreading freedom and opportunities to ALL peoples around the world. If the Soviets stuck to the Old Narrative of Capitalism = Imperialism, the US posited the New Narrative of Capitalism = Freedom.

Still, due to the realities of the first half of the 20th century, many Third World leaders were convinced that capitalism = imperialism. In the case of Cuba, US imperialism had its fingerprints all over the island. As for the Vietnamese nationalists, they couldn’t help but regard American power as inheritor of French colonialism, esp. as the US had supported the French against the Viet Minh and then divided the nation to keep the south as a satellite.

That said, the new template of allowing non-white nations to profit from capitalism gradually eroded the prior Third World view that capitalism = imperialism. Chinese realized this by the late 1970s as they figured China had much to gain by doing business with the West. After all, capitalist US had allowed the industrialization and enrichment of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and S. Korea(even at the expense of US industry). US and the revamped Europe operated differently from Old Imperialists who’d arrived on Chinese shores in the 19th century with gunboats.

Though history has judged communism to be ultimately unworkable, it was useful for a time when capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Back then, non-white nations could not get a fair shake from the capitalist so-called liberal democratic West. After all, UK and France were said to be democratic but were the biggest imperialist powers, and they rigged matters so that their non-white colonial subject-territories could barely industrialize. Since world capitalism was gamed and controlled by the West, many non-Western intellectuals and rising leaders turned to communism or socialism(in the case of India under Nehru).
Also, communism was cheap and available to all. It could be adopted for peanuts by any group. It was like an instant hammer as a means of organization, unity, and fighting spirit. In contrast, while capitalism eventually creates a bigger economy, it takes time to develop. Capitalism is like growing a tree from a seed to produce lots of lumber. It's rewarding but takes time. Communism is like an instant club to do battle with. Capitalism can never be an instant form of power and unity. Furthermore, world capitalism was controlled by the imperialist West(that lost its empires only in the decades following WWII), and that fact made capitalism unappealing as a means of national liberation for non-white folks whether they were under direct imperialist control or not.
As for fascism, it requires a middle class and some degree of development, something Italy and Germany had. But as non-white nations were so backward and poor, they lacked the basis for fascist support(that happens to be lower-middle class). In contrast, communism made instant sense to many poor folks: Attack the Greedy Rich and Drive out Imperialists. So, while communism ultimately failed, it was useful and effective for a time for certain peoples and places.

Furthermore, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have communism as a moral basis for a capitalist economy. A society that is all capitalist only knows individualism and greed. But a capitalist society that has a communist foundation has some kind of thematic balance: Capitalism drives individuals toward wealth, but communist themes remind people of the nobility of work, unity, camaraderie, and etc. This is why current China and Vietnam, in some ways, have a sounder foundation than Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do. China and Vietnam are now capitalist and allow free enterprise, BUT the foundational communist themes do serve as a reminder that there is more to life than money and greed. It’s like the role played by Christianity in the West. It provided balance to the secular and materialist aspirations that stressed individual interests above all else. In the US, the Protestant Work Ethic and Reform Moralism offered balance to individualism, greed, and ambition. Now that such ethos have eroded away, all that is left is globo-homo degeneracy and a piggish culture of excess. Capitalism is effective in providing incentives and boosting productivity but has to be balanced by moral and spiritual themes. Without such, a materialist-consumer society gives in to decadence and degeneracy whereupon the new morality becomes worship of the holy homo bung and negro rapper dong.

In WWII, the totalist organizational methods of Stalinism allowed triumph over Nazi Germany.

So “totalist organizational methods” are unique to the communist? Further could not Russia have defeated Germany except under a whip?

Yes, the only truly totalitarian societies were communist. Benito Mussolini first used the term ‘totalitarian’, but he didn’t mean anything like Stalinist USSR or Hannah Arendt came to mean by 'totalitarianism'. He meant a society where all sectors would be linked and coordinated into an organic national whole. It wasn’t about total control of everything by the state but about the state as mediator of the totality of societal needs and interests. As for Nazi Germany, it was more authoritarian than Fascist Italy but still not totalitarian in the strict sense. Much of the economy was in private hands. Adolf Hitler had a hands-off policy on many issues. He let the Churches do their own thing. While National Socialist themes were at the forefront of politics and ideology, it was possible for most Germans to pursue personal interests without undue interference of the State.

It was in the USSR under Stalin that a real kind of totalitarianism sprung into existence. Nearly all of the economy was in statist control. The state controlled all of education, took over all of culture, shut down churches, and gained control over just about anything it could get its hands on.
Now, totalitarianism is most unfortunate, and Stalin was a mass killer. But against a threat like Nazi Germany, totalitarianism served USSR well in uniting the whole nation to tighten into one fist and fight back.

And yes, Russians needed a whip to be shaped into a unite fighting force. Russians are naturally lazy, messy, and confused. Without a strong leader to drive them toward action and sacrifice, most Russians will just dance on tables, wrestle bears, and swill vodka. Look how Russia continues to be the top underachiever in the world despite all the land and resources.

Communism also shielded Eastern Europe from vagaries of the capitalist West.

I suppose, kinda in the same way the incarcerated are generally shielded from tax hikes.

If the sickness of the West has been just about excessive tax hikes(as some libertarians would have us believe), Craig Nelson's point would be valid. But the West, esp following the May 68 lunacy, has been about total racial and cultural extinction. It’s been about blind worship of Jewish supremacists and their Holocaustianity as the New Faith for the white race. It’s been about Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW. It’s been about Homomania and other forms of degeneracy. Better to be incarcerated and healthy than be ‘free’ to get syphilis and hand over one’s house and spouse to African invaders and Muslims, or Jungle and Jihad. Better to be incarcerated and remain sober than be ‘free’ to turn alcoholic and blow one’s homeland in the Multi-Culti roulette in which the white man cannot win.

Would you rather keep your daughter in prison and force her to learn core knowledge and morals OR allow her to be ‘free’ to get tattoos, piercings, celebrate globo-homo, and use her womb to produce black kids with a string of rapper trash? Look at London today. It is globo-homo central where Afro-Colonization of White Wombs or ACOWW is the highest value. Or look at Stalin's granddaughter. If that is freedom, who needs it? Freedom is good only for free-thinkers. Most people are natural slaves, the herd-hordes, and their use of 'freedom' just means caving to the latest fads and fashions pushed by the monopoly institutions and industries. How else could something as trashy and crazy as Homomania have spread so fast? As herd-hordes, most people can be whipped into being either sane and decent or insane and degenerate. In either case, it's not really their choice. Most people do not freely choose the good or the bad because they are not free-thinkers but monkey-see-monkey-doers. Liberal Capitalism failed because most people cannot break out of the state of natural slavery. Even with freedom, they need to be told what to believe, what to think, how to feel. And as capitalism is controlled by monopolies, the deep state and corporate forces mold the minds of the masses.

Worse, the West has now even lost its freedom. At least during the Cold War, the West could say, “We got freedom even if we use it stupidly or trashily.” Now, the West doesn’t even have the freedom. Under PC controls, even a twitter comment can lead to fines and jail time. Speaking truths about Jewish Power or the problems of Africans can land you in jail in France. So, what did End of History’s ‘liberal capitalist democracy’ amount to? It led to the 'freedom' to be degenerate(as promoted by the Power) but also led to No Freedom to oppose degeneracy and destruction of the West. Free to be degenerate and a slave of Jews, homos, and Negroes BUT unfree to say NO to all of that and call for regeneration against the degeneration. How can a society that allows freedom for degenerates but no freedom for regenerates survive for long? It's like allowing someone to use bad drugs but denying him the freedom to say NO and eat well and exercise to regain his health.

And in the Cold War, communism offered some kind of counterbalance against US hegemonism.

The depravity and bloodlust of the Bolshevik revolution, and all that followed, only served to strengthen American hegemony by offering such a repellent alternative.

The most contemptible human is the full-throated communist sympathizer. Especially now, when there really is no excuse.

Soviet Union after Stalin was repressive but no longer murderous on a massive scale. Also, the killings and repressions weren’t on the same level in all communist nations. Cambodia saw the worst kind of psycho-communism, but most Eastern European nations had death tolls in the 1,000s. They weren’t any worse than UK, France, Germany, or Sweden today where you are denounced as an extremist if you oppose mass-invasion and Great Replacement. Likewise, not all fascist regimes were equal in their degrees of repression. Nazi Germany went furthest in mayhem(at least with the onset of the wars), but Fascist Italy was rather mild. Spain's Franco, after ruthlessly punishing the Left after the Civil War, was a rather benign leader(though some will argue he wasn’t really fascist). Juan Peron was hardly a bloody despot. Just like fascist leaders varied from murderous to mild, so did communist regimes(though, on average, communism was more repressive than fascism).
Also, mass killings happened under all imperialist powers; neither communists nor communists hardly monopolized violence and repression in modern history. French and British did their share of killings around the world to maintain the empire. The US could be utterly ruthless in wars, some of which were near-genocidal. US also backed bloody regimes in Latin America that became notorious for their 'death squads'. And under Jewish-control, the US has destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and killed 100,000s by invasion and starvation and man-made famine. US human-rights record in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War is far worst than Soviet's from death of Stalin to the fall of Gorbachev.

Bolshevism now has to be remembered as a crime against humanity, but we have to see things in context. When the Bolsheviks came to power, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism, and most of the world was ruled by empires that resorted to ruthless violence to maintain hegemony. Back then, it's understandable why communism appealed to many peoples around the world for whom the main force denying them the right of national independence and sovereignty was the capitalist-imperialist West.

Stalin's Granddaughter. The product of Capitalist 'Freedom'.

The Paradox of Equality’s Origin in Oppression — George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM as HBD Tale — Jewish Supremacism and Jewish Resentment of Aesthetic Injustice

We are accustomed to thinking in terms of oppression versus equality. We resist oppression to be free, and freedom allows for equality. Thus, oppression is the enemy of equality. People throughout history have rebelled against oppression for equality. Overthrow of oppression means freedom, and freedom must mean equality, right? There is much truth in this in that an oppressive order is obviously unequal. Those with the Power use the means at their disposal to perpetuate a system whereby some are on the top and keep the rest on the bottom. So, naturally, an oppressive order is unequal. What could be gained by opposing and challenging oppression? Is it the hope that the oppressed will be equal with the oppressors? But this is impossible because resistance and overthrow means that the oppressors will be destroyed or expelled. What if the goal of the rebellion was for ALL people to become equal with the oppressors? But how could this be possible? If peasants rise up against the noblemen, could both sides arrive at a compromise where EVERYONE will be equal as a nobleman? But how can a society be made up entirely of noblemen? Who will do the hard work out in the fields? Who will do the heavy-lifting and the drudgery necessary to keep society going? If everyone cannot become like the privileged oppressors, should the goal be to get rid of the oppressive element altogether? Without oppressors, will all the people, in their newfound freedom, become equal with one another? But without oppressors to hold down the people, won’t some use their freedom and smarts to rise above others? And in time, won’t they become the New Oppressors?

Paradoxically, it appears that the concept of equality couldn’t have been possible without oppression. Even though an oppressive order throughout history has been inherently unequal, it forced a kind of collective equality for most people. For most of history, only a few people were part of the royalty, nobility, and elite clergy. Just about everyone else was more or less equal as slaves, serfs, servants, toilers, peons, peasants, soldiers(whose lives were all-too-expendable), or worse. Even though various classes or castes existed that perpetuated a complex hierarchy, it wasn’t much of an exaggeration to say most societies were divided between the 1% and the 99%. For most of history for most human communities, there was hardly anything that could be called a ‘middle class’. Rather, it was the elite oppressors and the unwashed rabble. And because the elite oppressors had most of the power & wealth and threatened & terrorized the rest of the population into compliance and obedience, there was a coercive kind of mass equality. It wasn’t an equality of freedom but of tyranny. But the perverse truth has been that NOTHING is more effective in enforcing equality than tyranny. While the tyrants are far more powerful and privileged than the rabble, they use their power to force the masses to hunker down, bow their heads, and just accept life as it is. One of the most egalitarian orders is the prison, and why? It is essentially tyrannical. The prisoners, regardless of their ability or background, are given the same clothes, fed the same meals, and must deal with the same conditions. It is one place where a lawyer with high IQ convicted of murder must share the same cell with a derelict with low IQ convicted of murder. It is in prison that people who’d known privilege and power all their lives come face-to-face with brute equality. And they realize that equality is essentially the product of repression and coercion.

Imagine an order made up of high-IQ Jewish geeks, low-IQ black thugs, capable Germans, mediocre Mexicans, unimaginative & earnest Chinese, thieving Gypsies, stilted American Indians, haggly Arabs, boorish Russians, and etc. Suppose they are all placed on a giant tanker in the middle of the ocean. The ship is closely guarded by a ultra-repressive force that metes out ruthless violence to anyone who messes around. All people on the ship, regardless of identity or background, are made to eat the same food, do the same kind of work, and own the same minimum property. They are all prisoners, and they must all comply with the rules. There is no opportunity to rise higher or do much of anything. They must all toil and perform similar basic tasks regardless of their innate ability. So, it doesn’t matter if someone has the brains of Albert Einstein or the physical might of Mike Tyson. They must all mop floors and do their share of daily drudgery. While this order is clearly oppressive and even though there is great inequality between the oppressors on ship and the oppressed prisoners, the fact is most people on the ship, being prisoners, find themselves to be equal with the others. Shared oppression and the suppression of their innate abilities are the great equalizers in terms of status and condition. Now, would such sense of equality and shared experience have been possible IF NOT for the oppression? Suppose all these various groups had encountered one another without coming under the equalizing force of the oppressors. Would the concept of equality ever have passed through their minds? Did humanity discover the meaning of equality only under shared oppression? Was equality the product of oppression? Then, how ironic that mankind came up with the idea of overthrowing oppression in the name of equality. After all, if oppressors are overthrown, there will no longer be a power that forces people to be equal. Some will rise higher and come to rule over others. This is why communism could only exist as Theory of Tyrannical Justice. If the oppressors are overthrown and if the people are allowed to do as they please, their freedom will lead to the rise of all kinds of hierarchies where some will be on the top, some in the middle, some on the bottom. Equality must be maintained by force by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The difference between the Old Order and New Order would be that while the masses were forced to be equal as exploited peons under the Old Order, they would be equal as protected workers in the New Order. If people in the Old Order were equal in having been used as human cattle, the people of the New Order would be equal in being forced NOT to exploit one's fellow man. But if the New Order has anything in common with the Old Order, it'd be that the people would be forced to be equal as members of the Working Class.

Take George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM. Under human oppression, all animals are more-or-less equal. Even though some animals are much smarter and far more capable than others, they are all equal in the sense that their main value to the farmer is as livestock and cattle. Humans are not interested in their intelligence or ability. Pigs may be much smarter than ducks, chicken, and sheep, but as far as humans are concerned, pigs exist to be slaughtered to make bacon, ham, and other stuff. So, if animals come to value equality as any kind of virtue, it’s only because human oppression forced all animals to be more-or-less equal. Even the magnificent horse is raised mainly to serve human needs, and when the time comes, it too will be slaughtered for profit. Humans think of animals in terms of profit-or-pleasure value. So, what does it matter if pigs are far more intelligent than sheep. If people want bacon, they will kill the pigs just like they kill the sheep... or chicken or ducks or whatever. There is a huge difference in intelligence and ability between the smart pig and the dumb hens, but they’ve all been equalized by human oppression. Pigs have been forced to be equal with all the other animals that are far dumber and far less capable. And even though the horse is a more impressive creature than other animals, its worth is assessed in the same manner: "What value does it have for humans?" So, the horse has no intrinsic, individual, or independent value as far as humans are concerned. Its only value is to be assessed in terms of its usefulness or profitability to humans. It's like Jews believe that goyim have no value other than to serve Jews. (This means that Jews would have innate value even if not a single goy existed in the world. But if Jews were to vanish from the world, goyim would have no reason to exist because the only value for their existence is to serve Jews. Without Jews to serve, they might as well just die.)
All animals are equal as peripheral planets that must revolve around human need and ‘greed’. If the animals come to value equality, it is only because they share the equality of oppression under humans. It’s like the scene in THE FUGITIVE. Harrison Ford plays this rich doctor with a nice house and beautiful wife. But when he is falsely convicted of murdering his own wife, he is made equal with all the losers, derelicts, and lunatics on death row. And if Gandhi truly tasted equality for the first time in his life, it was when the whites called him a ‘coolie’ and forced him off the train in South Africa. It was oppression that made Gandhi look around and feel equal with the rest of the downtrodden colored folks. When Gandhi had experienced freedom and privilege as a law student, he wasn’t looking to be equal with anyone. He wanted to rise high and be with the privileged folks, white or colored. It was only through oppression that he tasted equality with the masses he never really thought about until then.


In ANIMAL FARM, what happens to equality when the humans are overthrown? Initially, the idea is that equality will go from a condition to an ideal. As properties of humans, most of the animals were more-or-less equal under condition of human oppression. Equality had been imposed on them. In their shared misery under human ‘greed’, they came to value equality as a kind of camaraderie. It went from a condition to an ideal. And the dream was that once the humans were overthrown, animal equality would be sustained and strengthened through mutual respect. But without the flattening effect of human oppression, pigs realize that they are much smarter than other animals. Being so smart, they figure they should lead and take charge. Initially, they say they deserve the power because they will use their smarts for the good of all animal-kind. But as time passes, pigs begin to feel contempt for the lesser and dumber animals. They find it insulting to pig-hood that they must remain equal with animals such as chicken, ducks, horse, and the like. Even as they invoke equality as an ideal, they feel that equality was something that had been forced on them by humans who, in their narrow-minded greed, regarded pigs as no more valuable than the dumber animals. As far as humans were concerned, chickens existed to provide eggs and pigs existed to provide bacon and ham. Deep down inside, pigs resented having been forced to be equal with the rest of the dumb animals. They were actually special. Because they couldn’t prevail over humans all on their own, they forged an alliance with the other animals. The full force of the beast rebellion ousted the human oppressor, the farmer. Because pigs gained power with the help of other animals, they had to keep the grand bargain. Despite their higher intelligence, they pledged to devote their ability toward serving the common good of all animals. But due to their gluttonous porcine instincts and the natural contempt of intelligence for dumbness, pigs weave an elaborate web of lies whereby they become more and more powerful and less equal but in the Name of Equality.

Though George Orwell was a socialist and ANIMAL FARM is a satire on Stalinism, it can now be read more as a tale of HBD(human bio-diversity) than ideology. It’s essentially about how biology reasserts itself in a state of freedom and creates a natural hierarchy that favors the clever and devious over the earnest, naive, and dumb. Once humans are gone from the farm, ideology bends to biology. Despite the collective ideal of equality, the fact is biology comes to determine who gains the power. Smart win over the dumb. The ruthless and devious win out over the naive and childlike. Higher intelligence and personality-of-cunning win out.
While 1984 is the greater work, indeed Orwell’s masterpiece, it is more particular to a certain time and place. Though many observations of 1984 are still applicable today, it is very much a satirical indictment of Stalinism. Though ANIMAL FARM was intended as an allegory of what happened to the Soviet Revolution, its larger implications are more relevant than ever. Indeed, it now says more about what happened to Russia AFTER the fall of communism than under Stalinism. For starters, even though it could be said that the Bolsheviks, especially Stalin and his henchmen, betrayed the ideals of Marx(and perhaps Lenin), they were genuine ideologues. Stalin was a serious communist, as were those around him. And even though they gained great power and privilege, they were still committed to the Revolution and weren’t mainly focused on material wealth. Even though they lived better than most people in the USSR, they were not obsessed with riches and good times. They were committed to creating a new kind of society. If Stalin really wanted to live lavishly like Gaddafi, Kim Il Sung, Shah of Iran, and etc., he certainly could have. But in fact, he didn’t wallow in luxury and essentially led the life of a bureaucrat. Also, even though smart and cunning people took power under Bolshevism, Stalinism was not about the triumph of HBD. Indeed, unlike most of the smart Bolsheviks, Stalin was not Jewish. He was a Georgian, and he surrounded himself with mostly non-Jews at the highest levels of power. In ANIMAL FARM, Napoleon(Stalin) the pig wins out over Snowball(Trotsky) the pig. Napoleon wins mainly by raising puppies to grow up to be his attack force. He doesn’t have to go through the trouble of outwitting the other pigs or win arguments because the dogs around him have been raised to be loyal to him and to obey him. He has power beyond mind and wit. He has the power of blind loyalty. The dogs will maul anyone who disagrees with him, and Terror and Fear Factor become the ultimate arbiters of policy. Napoleon wields the dogs like Jews in the US use Antifa to attack and silence any opposition. Orwell was right to illustrate how Stalin prevailed over Trotsky by the use of Blind Loyalty and Terror, but I wonder if it was accurate to portray Stalin and his henchmen also as pigs. Though Stalin was pretty bright and recruited some men of considerable intelligence like cretinous Beria, triumph of Stalinism was ultimately not the victory of intelligence and ability but of mediocrity based on loyalty, fear, and discipline. Perhaps Stalin in ANIMAL FARM should have been portrayed as a wolf pretending to be farm animal that surrounds itself with loyal dogs.

If any period in Russian history truly resembled what happens in ANIMAL FARM, it was the post-communist heyday of the 1990s when Jews gained control of Russia and could do pretty much as they pleased. That truly was a Time of the Pigs. Whatever may be said of Stalin faction vs Trotsky faction, both sides were genuinely committed to the Revolution and Communism. Trotsky could be cunning and headstrong, and Stalin could be ruthless and manipulative, but there was no doubt that they were committed to the Revolution. So, what happens at the end of ANIMAL FARM doesn’t really apply to Stalinism. Stalin’s USSR was a brutal place of terror and fright, but it remained, from top to bottom, a system committed to Marxism-Leninism. It was after the death of Stalin that the elites of the USSR grew more cynical and apathetic. But these elites were more like mules than pigs. Men like Brezhnev took the helm for their utter lack of imagination. The system regarded them as 'safe'. And despite rising corruption and expanding privileges of those in the inner circle, there were limits to how much one could enrich oneself as long as the communist system remained in place. It was with the fall of communism that piggishness really ran wild in the USSR. If there was communist ideology to restrain individual greed and material self-interest in the 1920s and 1930s, the 1990s were an era of hog-wild for the New Russia. Granted, there was the new ideology of the End of History that said Russia was ripe for ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘free markets’ that would supposedly lift all boats in an era of privatization and profiteering for all the Russian folks, but that didn’t happen. Most of the wealth went to a handful of Jewish oligarchs who were supported by Global Jewry mostly centered in the US. So, what happened in the 1990s of New Russia more closely resembles what happens in the final part of ANIMAL FARM. It was all about the smartest people in Russia, the Jewish pigs, slurping up all they could find and then some. It didn’t matter that some of these Jews had been communists or had communist ancestors. They invoked ‘liberal democracy’ and ‘privatization’ as cover to rake in as much as they could for themselves. And like the utterly cynical pigs at the end of ANIMAL FARM, the Jews of the 1990s had only one thing in mind: "We Jews grab and loot everything." Say what you will about Stalin the mass killer and tyrant. The fact remains that he and those around him were mostly True-Believers in communism. That’s one thing you can’t take away from Stalin. He died a communist. He may have violated all sorts of Marxist principles, but he didn’t take power just to pig out for personal gain. But that is precisely what happened in the Russia of the 1990s. And if Stalin favored loyalty and mediocrity, Russia of the 1990s favored the most ruthless and nihilistic kind of Jewish smarts & greed to run wild. Of course, Jews did much the same in the US with the Dot.com bubble and Housing bubble, but thankfully the US economy and system were sturdy enough to withstand Jewish greed gone hog-wild. Unfortunately, Russia was too weak, dazed, and disoriented after the fall of communism to weather the piggish Jewish onslaught that ravaged Russia 100,000x worse than any band of Cossacks who, at most, ransacked one village at a time. Jewish Globalists were like Mentally Advanced Cossacks or Mongols who’d devised global strategies to descend upon any vulnerable nation like a swarm of locusts to devour as much as they could until they set their sights on a new target. These Jews are like George Soros the vulture-hawk who is perched high above and looking for the next kill. When Jews spot the next prey, they all coordinate their actions and move in for the kill and take all they can. Jewish globalists are glocusts.


But then, Jews pose a problem to all societies because they are most pig-like in their intelligence(higher) and appetite(voracious and insatiable). Indeed, Karl Marx said as much about Jews, and if anything, argued that one of the reason why capitalism must be destroyed is because it enables Jews, the kings of capital, to go crazy with greed and mess up all the world. Letting Jews practice capitalism is like letting pigs loose on the farm; they will dig up and eat everything. It’s like taking fat black women into an all-you-can-eat fried chicken joint. It’s like homos entering a bathhouse. Jews just can’t help it. They see that money, and they go crazy. They got to have more and more and more... like in THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.

Jewish personality and Jewish intelligence are a marriage made in hell. Jewish personality is arrogant, sneering, pushy, contemptuous, rabid, and virulent. Jews often say ‘anti-Semites’ are ‘rabid and virulent’, but so-called antisemitism is a strong counter-reaction to Jewish foulness. Jewish intelligence is restless, tireless, and obsessive. Jewish personality and Jewish intelligence conspire to act like pigs with locust-wings. Jews are like a swarm of flying locusts. Just like pigs dig up and devour the roots of all plants, Jewish pigs gnaw at the roots of all cultures and sever a people from their identity, territory, and roots. Jewish pigs have been digging up and destroying the roots of European folks. Jews are now even going so far as to change European mythological and historical figures into blacks. So, Lancelot and Achilles are made black. So is Julius Caesar. And white cucks go along as they worship the Holy Negro, and blacks love it because they believe that their innate ‘badassness’ makes them the superior race, and that means everything great and noble must be associated with blacks even if blacks had nothing to do with it. The logic goes as follows: PC says blacks are great, so if there was a great European figure, his greatness should be conflated with blacks because blacks are great. Blacks = Great, just like Homos = Pride.

Flying Jewish Pig with voracious appetite about to devour a city

Flying Jewish Pig with restless intelligence figuring out how to take over the world

Even though the pigs don’t spell it out in ANIMAL FARM, they seem to be especially angry at humans for having forced them to be equal with the lower animals. How dare the humans to have treated pigs the same as all the other creatures that aren’t possessed of high intelligence, cleverness, and the power of will? So, even as pigs lead the dumb animals, they feel contempt for them. They feel the insult that the humans had regarded them, the smart pigs, as hardly better or higher than ducks, chickens, and sheep. Pigs, with their ambition and ability, want to be like humans. But because of the history of human oppression of animals, including pigs, they also want to destroy humans. Pigs wage war on humans but to become the New Humans. They claim to represent the animals, but they find it insulting for their kind, the superior pigs, to be associated with dumb animals. In a way, pigs are not the villains of ANIMAL FARM. In the end, they are following their own nature. It’s not so much that they choose to be evil. It’s that the power of biology and nature inevitably drives the pigs farther away from the rest of the animals that simply aren’t all that cunning and capable of brain power. Granted, pigs become evil in the sense that they betray their stated ideology, but the principles were an accidental product of certain conditions. Because humans oppressed all animals more-or-less equally, pigs found themselves in the same straits as the rest of animal-kind. And since they needed collective effort to overthrow the humans, pigs embraced egalitarianism. But once the humans were no longer around to impose and enforce the equality-of-oppression on the animals, nature took its course and favored the smarter and more cunning pigs to rise higher than the rest of the animals. Sure, the pigs lie and cheat a lot, but then, being smart is about finding ways to run circles around the less intelligent. Take gambling. Why is it such a big industry? Because smart people dupe so many pathetic dummies into giving up their money. If a Jew told some guy, "How about you give me $1,000", the guy would give the Jew the middle-finger. But if the Jew shows the guy a machine with lots of flashing lights that offers the promise of a jackpot, the guy may happily blow his $1,000 that ends up with the Jew. The clever Jew took his $1,000, but the guy thinks he had a swell time because of the fun machine with flashing lights. (How pathetic that the GOP relies so heavily on Las Vegas for funds. So much for the Family Values party.)

Anyway, we can learn much about Jewish psychology by considering the pigs of ANIMAL FARM. Why were Eastern European Jews so bitter? While some Jews became fabulously rich, especially in Western Europe, many Eastern European Jews faced limited opportunities and hard times. Though smarter than the goyim, many had to toil as working-class folks and small-time peddlers. Many couldn’t rise much higher than the poor goy sods who toiled the fields or factories. And this drove many Eastern European Jews toward various forms of radicalism ranging from anarchism to communism. But subconsciously, just like the pigs of ANIMAL FARM, they must have felt resentment that they, the smart and special Jews, had to rub shoulders with the dimwit goyim. The People of the Book had to make common cause with people-who-couldn’t-read-books. Being tireless, restless, and intelligent, many Jews made able revolutionaries, and they were instrumental in exploiting the crisis of WWI to take power. Because of their experience of oppression and deprivation, many Jewish Bolsheviks were sincere in their commitment to communism, at least consciously. But Yuri Slezkine’s THE JEWISH CENTURY indicates that, early on, the victorious Jewish communists began to realize that the upper echelons of the New Order was filled with Jews. Even though they dare not say it openly, there was a sense that they, as smarter and more capable commissars, should take control of the USSR. And as they began to gain dominance in the elite institutions, they grew ever more distant from the rabble, the masses. All that had been denied to Jews under the Tsarist system was suddenly open to them. There was no institution, however high, that shut its doors to Jews. Jews could enter the innermost sanctum of power under the New System. And they took full advantage. The more they did this, the more they realized, at least subconsciously, that they are not part of the rabble, the dimwit toiling masses. They were meant for higher and better things. They were becoming the new elites, the new aristocrats. And yet, because they came to power in the name of the Revolution devoted to equality, they tried to square elitism with egalitarianism. Just like the pigs in the early stages of the revolution in ANIMAL FARM, Jewish elites sincerely wanted to believe that they deserve special privileges because people-of-the-mind must think and strategize without the distractions of the daily grind. And yet, what happens when one’s elite position becomes entrenched? And when one marries someone of similar intelligence & ability and raises one’s own kids to also be part of the system?

In the US, Jews are the most powerful and the richest people. They are the least equal and most privileged. And despite Jewish feminist bitching, Jewish women make more money than goy men. Jews got almost all the media, much of Wall Street, almost all of Hollywood & Gambling, the biggest prizes in Silicon Valley, and etc. Most politicians are bought-and-sold whores of Zion. Jews control elite academia and mold the minds of young goyim who will manage the West according to the wishes of Jewish oligarchs and neo-prophets. And yet, because of Jewish perception of history wherein they were oppressed along with the rest of humanity, especially by Europeans/whites, Jews still act like they’re in rebel-egalitarian mode. Of course, Jewish historical perception is seriously warped. While it’s true that there were periodic outbursts of violence against Jews in Europe, Jews also did things that understandably pissed off many Europeans. Jews collaborated with Moors who occupied Spain. Jews later aided the Turkish takeover of Constantinople. Jews were heavily involved in slavery and the selling of millions of Slavs to North Africa and Middle East. Also, Jewish financial power funded much of Western imperialism, and it was Jewish David Sassoon who was the main seller of opium to the Chinese. And in the American West, Jews sold guns to white people to kill Indians with. So, Jewish historical perception is perversely selective and bogus. Because Europeans sometimes bashed Jews, Jews would have us believe that they were of kindred spirit with black slaves and non-white subjects of Western Imperialism. More often than not, Jews were funding the black slave trade. They were working with Western Imperialists in the colonization of non-white lands and profiting most handsomely. Yes, there was Shoah, but Nazi madness was a historical reaction to horrible Jewish behavior in the Soviet Union(where millions died under Bolshevism) and in Weimar Germany where Jews acted like Russian & American Jews in the 1990s. Shoah, horrible as it was, didn’t just happen out of blue for no reason at all. Rather, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was an extreme reaction to extreme actions. Just like Japanese bad behavior led to events that spiraled out of control and led to the mass-bombing of Japan(and the deaths of many innocents as well), Jewish bad behavior led to massive reaction that went mad and committed a horrific genocide. Nothing justifies the Shoah, but Jews got burned by playing dangerously with fire. If you piss off enough people, don’t be surprised if things get out of control and you get burned twice as bad as you deserve. Angry people lose all sense of limits. Jews have a way of pissing people off, and Jewish behavior today in finance, media, culture, and politics really makes us wonder if ‘antisemitism’ was irrational or unjustified. I can’t imagine how any sane person could not be anti-Jewish in today’s mad climate of Jews gone rabidly and virulently hog-wild.

Just like the pigs, Jews seem to harbor a two-front hostility. On the one hand, they continue to see the White Race as the Eternal Goy Enemy, the people who, as Christians, persecuted Jews for over 1,000 yrs and carried out the Holocaust. Jews want to get back at whites as much as possible. Jews want white nations to be inundated with non-whites. Jews want white wombs to be colonized by blacks and want white men to become castrated cucky-wucks. Jews still see themselves as champions of progress against the forces of White Reaction and ‘Racism’. As the leaders of the movement, Jews see themselves as allied with the wonderful and noble People-of-Color, especially the blacks. But on the other hand, Jews seem to be resentful that past white denial of equal opportunity to Jews forced Jews to identify with the inferior and lower orders of society such as ‘white trash’ working class, blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. The smarter and superior Jews were put in a situation where they had to make common cause with the dummy rabble of the world. But just like pigs needed the other animals to overthrow the humans, Jews have needed allies as they simply don’t have the numbers. In the USSR, they eventually lost out because their quality of power was so overwhelmed by the quantity of power of non-Jews. And in the US, the Jewish-favored Democratic Party kept losing elections from the Nixon Era to the Bush I era. Thus, Jews relied on Mass Invasion-Immigration whereby the contract between Jews and non-white immigrants would be (1) Jews would keep pushing for more non-white mass entry into US and (2) non-whites would vote for the Democratic Party to keep Jewish elites at the helm. But how do Jews really feel about jive-ass blacks, mediocre Mexicans, lame-personalitied Asians, swarthy Muslims, and grubby ‘dotkins’? Deep down inside, Jews wanted to be with the white race. But the white race’s response ranged from "You can’t join our country club" or "You can’t marry my daughter" to the Holocaust. Or, that’s how Jews remember things.
Of course, whites have now changed their tune and want Jews as allies against the darkies. The White Conservative proposition to Jews is, "We will embrace you Jews as fellow whites, indeed as superior and best kind of whites, on condition that you work with us and for us against all those darkies." But why should Jews take the bargain when they got even more power, privilege, and prestige than the whites? Whatever appeal such an offer may have had many decades ago, it’s hopeless when Jews already got just about everything that counts in the US. Jews have gained Jewish supremacist power in the US, and their main obsession is to keep whites in Submissivist mode to serve Jewish supremacism. Jews no longer see white elites as superior people to aspire to or model themselves after. Jews respect only one thing, and it’s smarts. Once Jews figured that they are smarter than whites, their attitude has been, "You dumb whites serve us Jews or shut up." It’s like blacks measure everything by physical toughness, and once they realized that they could beat up whitey, their respect for the white man went down the toilet. Blacks had more respect for whites in the distant past when they feared the white man as a frightful character. But upon watching all those white boys knocked out by black boxers, blacks came to see white boys as ‘slow faggoty-ass mofos’. Blacks see white males in the way that white males see Hindu, Mexican, or Asian males. Not seriously.
At any rate, Jewish hatred for whites isn’t just about memory of past injustice or contempt for dimwit white goyim. (Imagine how William Kristol must have been laughing to himself when he used to tell the world that Dan Quayle was the most credible candidate for the 1996 election.) It’s about Jewish self-image. Rightly or wrongly, Jews feel incredibly ugly. They feel God gave them a raw deal in offering the Covenant but denying them beauty. While there are plenty of attractive Jews, the general idea is that Jews, by and large, are gross and ugly. Jews really feel this way even if they may not admit it. Some Jews react to this self-image with humor and mockery: Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Howard Stern, Marx Brothers, Don Rickles, Albert Brooks, etc. Some turn to sexual extremism, like Philip Roth in some of his novels, and the likes of Harvey Weinstein with their perversions(that largely set off the #MeToo mania). In some ways, this is what angers Jews the most, why they hate whites the most. It is bigger than history or any theory of justice. It is bigger than intelligence. It’s like the character of PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT is many times smarter than the shikses he bangs, but he feels powerless before them. And in CASINO, the super-smart Jew, who calculates every move, gambles everything on the blonde shikse whore. Also, Nazism was essentially an aesthetic movement to preserve Aryan Beauty from the clutches of Jewish ugliness. What troubles Jews is that even as they rail against the Beauty Cult of the Nazis, they can’t help acting according to Nazi stereotypes. PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT and other such Jewish tales in books and movies do indicate that Jews believe in racial hierarchy in beauty. Jewish men want to stick their dongs into ‘Aryan’ shikses and generally dislike the looks of Jewish women. (Lately, Jewish women have formed their own cunt-covenant or clit-covenant or clitonant with history, and they’ve decided to let their pussy-craving dictate their behavior, and this has led to massive Jungle Fever among the Jewish American Princesses.) The fact is even if all whites denounce Nazism forever and profess their sympathy for Jews, Jews will continue to resent the white race for superior beauty that makes Jews look ugly and gross in comparison. Now, we can’t blame whites for being more attractive as such would be irrational. After all, white beauty is not the creation of ‘anti-Semites’. Still, like the envious three sisters in CINDERELLA, ugliness resents beauty. Even beauty resents beauty, as in SNOW WHITE where the Queen is offended that there is a woman who is prettier than she. Just like ancient Jews called for the smashing of all false idols, modern Jews want to desecrate white beauty that keeps reminding Jews of their inferior looks and ugliness. Jews have pride of higher intelligence and stronger personality. But one must make an effort with intelligence and personality to achieve things. In contrast, beauty is effortless in attracting attention and affection. And Jews hate this about whites even though it’s not whites’ fault that they are prettier. So, how do Jews handle this? Some Jews just marry whites. But other Jews seek to desecrate and destroy white beauty through promotion of miscegenation, especially with blacks. This is why Jews promote Jungle Fever among white girls. Especially Jewish women who feel great envy for blonde ‘Aryan’ women want white wombs to produce children with flat noses, fat lips, and kinky hair. They want white wombs to produce kids that look like baby monkeys.

Jews promote ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs so that white women will give birth to kids that look like this. Jews, who are so envious and resentful of white beauty, seek to destroy it by having it mixed with other races, especially blacks. Jewish girls will celebrate with joy when the beautiful white girl whom they've envied all their lives go with blacks and produce some kid who looks half-simian. Jewish feminists used to bitch about sexualization of women into objects, but they no longer do so because so much of sexuality in pop culture now promotes Jungle Fever that will encourage more white women to destroy the posterity of their beauty by going with 'groids' and producing from their wombs kids who identify as 'black' and work against the white race. Of course, Jew-run media give special attention to such race-traitor whores.

Though Jews tend to moralize their gripes against whites, the fact remains that the MAIN reason for Jewish hostility toward whites is aesthetic. Indeed, suppose your average Jew looked like Clint Eastwood or Paul Newman(a very handsome half-Jew) whereas most whites looked like Ralph Kramden or Rosie O’Donnell. Jews would be happier, more at peace with themselves, and less hateful of whites.
Jewish God is a jealous God, and this jealousy was a projection of Jewish personality, the most jealous personality in the world. Jews feel they must have everything. Jews are jealous of Russians for having all that land. Jews want it for themselves. Jews want to own and control the US, the lone superpower. Jews want control of all of media. But one area in which Jews lose out is in looks, and this makes them furious. Consider the very semitic-looking actress in MULHOLLAND DR.(at 42 sec of the video below). Even though she’s an insignificant character in the movie, people who look like her are all over Hollywood. Imagine what is going through their minds whenever they see some pretty shikse. I don’t know if the actress Kate Forster is Jewish, but David Lynch clearly made her out to look Semitic with frizzy hair. Also, it’s strange that she is introduced as ‘lovely Martha Johnson’ when she is clearly made out to look unfeminine and ‘alien’, hardly waspy like ‘Johnson’. Jewish self-image fuels much of the neurosis that drives Jews to act crazier, more reckless, and more pathological in world affairs. It wouldn’t matter if Jews weren’t powerful, but they are very powerful, and just like Hitler projected his pathology onto the world, Jews are doing much the same, and this bodes ill for mankind. Some Jews have maintained that Wasps are all looks but no soul whereas Jews are no looks but all soul, but what if Jews are no looks and no soul? Not many seem to have entertained that possibility. In BROADCAST NEWS, the Jewish guy lacks looks and grace but speaks much truth and stands for principles whereas the wasp guy is nice-looking and likable but so shallow and without scruples. But the fact remains that Jews have maintained total control of much of the media, and with each passing year, they’ve exhibited less and less principles and integrity. Things got worse with the rise of Boomer Jews. At least older Jews grew up with some culture of restraint and dignity. Boomer Jews who grew up with permissive individualism and insatiable egotism have no inner brakes in using media or whatever instrument at their disposal as their personal sex toys.




Anyway, what can we say about the future when Jews, the least equal people on Earth, insist on carrying on as the champions of equality and fairness? What can we say about Jews who bitch about ‘white supremacism’ but then demand that all whites go into submissivist mode and support Jewish Supremacism all around the world, even the IDF death squad’s shooting down of hundreds of Palestinian protesters commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Nakba pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map, surely an act far more grievous than Japan’s invasion of Manchuria or Germany’s takeover of Czechoslovakia. When Jews sound the alarm about ‘white supremacism’, they are not denouncing supremacism per se but rather demanding that whites must suppress any sense of white identity and interests if they are to serve as agents and puppets of Jewish Supremacism. After all, why would a people who primarily care about their own race and culture prioritize the serving of ANOTHER people? If slaves began to put their own interests first, why would they serve the master? Jews are triggered by something far less than real white supremacism. I can understand Jews being freaked out by genuine neo-Nazis(though Jews don’t seem to mind forming an alliance with such ilk in Ukraine), but Jews fear run-of-the-mill white identity even more. While neo-Nazism can easily be discredited, white identity and interests that call for limited white nationalism in white nations is NOT supremacist and, if anything, anti-imperialist. Such white people are saying white/Western nations should NOT meddle in the affairs of non-white nations, and in turn, non-whites have no right to demographically inundate and invade white nations. It sounds reasonable, and that is why Jews are trying to smear such views as ‘far right’ and ‘nazi’. Because if white people gain sensible nationalism and mind their own business, they will be far less likely to sign up to serving Jewish globo-homo supremacist imperialism.

In the Animal Farm of the future, what we need is separate nationalism for each species of animals. Let horses have their corral, let ducks have their pond, let chickens have their coop, let cows have their pasture, and etc. Let all animals get along but also respect each other’s spaces. And all animals must tell the pigs to keep to their own pigsty. Let pigs do their own thing. Sure, pigs, being smarter, can do much for other animals, but due to their piggish nature, pigs will just manipulate and abuse others for their own aggrandizement; it's just part of their nature; they lack nobility of heart despite their superiority of mind. So, it’s best for other animals to be wary of the pigs. And lest pigs use dogs to frighten and pressure other animals, the Animal Farm of the Future needs to re-train dogs to regain their autonomy as free dogs and not serve as lackeys and Janissary of the pigs.

Of course, on some level, Jews know that equality is no longer tenable given their great power and privilege. Why would Jews want equality? In a truly equal world, Jews as 2% of the population should make up only 2% of media, academia, law, Hollywood, high-tech, and etc. What Jew would want such equality? Jews love and cherish their immense power. This is why Jews came to favor Diversity over Equality or try to trick people into believing that Diversity is the New Equality when, in fact, Diversity leads to even more inequality as it brings together different peoples with wide-ranging variances in ability and talent. Not for nothing is California the most diverse and the most unequal state. But Diversity among goyim means they will be too busy squabbling among themselves to be able to unite against the Jews who will just 'eat like effendi'.