Adolf Hitler, not the Frankfurt School, Was the Real Cause of Downfall of the White Right.

There is a prevailing view among the antisemitic and some of the counter-Jewite Right that the decline and dissipation of the white race and Western culture are the invariable result of the influence of the Frankfurt School. Some even argue that the Frankfurt variation of Marxism ultimately did more damage than hardline Marxism ever did. If the main school of Marxism called for violent revolution and overthrow of the capitalist/conservative order–and thus could be countered and fought against as a dangerous enemy–, members of the Frankfurt School appeared on the scene as respectable, balanced, and judicious scholars. They rode inside the Trojan Horse of bourgeois respectability. For their heterodoxy, they were denounced and distrusted by dogmatic and statist leftists AND admired and respected by the educated/progressive capitalist class with intellectual aspirations. Had Frankfurters called for an outright assault on the Free West, they would have been identified and targeted as hardline radicals. But, they arrived on American shores as free-thinking intellectuals interested mainly in academic matters. Therefore, they were not met with the same suspicion as men like Lenin or Trotsky had been in pre-revolutionary Russia. Frankurters didn’t lead the masses to overthrow the government; indeed, they even admitted that possibility of violent revolution has either passed or was undesirable. Instead of playing the ardent warrior out to attack your body, the Frankfurt School played the doctor wanting to diagnose and cure you. For this reason, many members of the American intellectual elite were seduced by their observations, ideas, and proposals. White Americans failed to understand that the analysis and medicine being prescribed by the Frankfurters were really a form of poison. In this sense, the Frankfurters didn’t destroyl White America as an EXTERNAL enemy but as an INTERNAL agent. This isn’t to say that the Frankfurters consciously knew what they were doing. For all we know, they might have been sincere in their conviction in the progress and advancement of mankind. Even so, the Frankfurters couldn’t have failed to notice that they were working deceptively on some level.
The great deviousness of the Frankfurters’ achievement was that they didn’t need hard weapons to kill White America. No, they used the soft weapon of intellectualism to convince White America to either lay down its weapon or feel too paralyzed to use it. Thus, the Frankfurter School made white Americans PSYCHOLOGICALLY and MORALLY defenseless against the rising assault by blacks, illegal aliens, decadence, degeneration, and crime. White Americans had the material means to work and fight for their interests, but they became mentally and ‘spiritually’ unwilling to act lest such action be deemed ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ or whatever. In Godfather II, Michael recounts what his father said: "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer." Frankfurters, in the long run, accomplished more than hardline Marxists because their ‘respectability’, ‘academic intellectualism’, and ‘moderate’ radicalism disarmed white Americans who might have otherwise not trusted them.
In a way, one could argue that the Obama presidency is the ultimate product of the Frankfurt influence. Obama is a student of Alinsky-ism. Alinsky was a Marxist who argued that the only way radicalism had a chance of transforming society was by posing as a moderate and even patriotic middle class movement. Obama has been able to rise so high so fast because so many American institutions have become penetrated and dominated by Trojan Horse leftists and radicals.
Even so, it would be simple-minded to scapegoat the Frankfurters as the MAIN culprit of what went so wrong in white America and Western society. Frankfurters wouldn’t have had such an attentive and willing audience if it weren’t for what happened in WWII. Frankfurters and the Left in general earned tremendous moral capital and advantage over the Right because of the massive crimes of Nazism. Therefore, it must be understood that the main force that opened the gates to the Frankfurt Trojan Horse was none other than Adolf Hitler and his vile crimes against humanity. To be sure, even without the rise of Nazis or WWII, there would have been a powerful and influential radical Left as many leftists tended to be first rank intellectuals and were well-funded, especially by successful Jews and progressive WASP types. But, what really gave the Left an overwhelming ideological and moral advantage was WWII instigated by none other than Adolf Hitler. Why and how did this happen? Let us consider how Hitler unwittingly did the greatest favor to the Left.
　
By intimidating, bullying, conquering, humiliating, enslaving, and killing millions of white Europeans, Hitler undermined the appeal of the Right. This is all the more tragic considering that many European victims of Hitler were actually rightists or nationalists. Most of the Resistance in Poland belonged to the Polish Right–and were even accused of ‘antisemitism.’ When Mussolini stupidly attacked Greece, it was ruled by a right-wing regime sympathetic and admiring of National Socialist Germany. Tragically, Hitler was never for white or European power but only for "Aryan" power. Non-Aryan whites were seen as less noble, even less human. In time, even right-wing elements in nations under German rule came to hate the Germans. Northern Italy under German occupation was overwhelmingly anti-German. Even in fellow ‘Aryan nations’ under German occupation, people were none too happy as people generally don’t like to be ruled by a foreign power. Thus, Holland, Norway, and Denmark had little love for Nazi Germany. Finland was pro-German, but this had more to do with their troubles with the Soviet Union.
　
At any rate, the GREATEST Nazi crimes against whites took place in the USSR. Though many Soviet peoples initially greeted German invaders as liberators, it was soon apparent that Germans hadn’t come to free but to enslave and kill people even worse than the communists had. Communists had been arch-hypocrites in regions like the Ukraine, where they preached justice and equality but forcibly starved millions to death. Even so, there was nothing in the communist ideology that said entire peoples were less-than-human and should permanently turned into human cattle. But, this was precisely the ideology of Hitlerism where certain peoples were nto even to be treated as human–even if they were white or European. Though Hitler hated communism and hoped to wipe it off the map, it was for all the wrong reasons. It didn’t upset or sadden Hitler that communism has killed millions of Ukrainians or Russians. He couldn’t have cared less. The only communist mass-killings or deportation he really despaired over was the fate of Volga and Baltic Germans. Hitler hated communism because it meant Jewish power or an imperial power to rival that of Germany. He also saw communism as transforming Russia into a mighty industrial power, thus difficult to conquer at a future date for the sake of German lebensraum. Hitler had little MORAL justification for hating communism. WWII brought out the worst in the German people and their allies. They went into the Soviet Union and committed crimes so unspeakable and massive that whatever moral rationale for Nazism vanished–except to psychotic hardline Nazis and those getting all their info from German propaganda
　
Stalin and the Russians, who had welcomed the prospect for a long and peaceful partnership with Germany, turned their entire energy and resources toward not only fighting back but utterly destroying Nazi Germany and the ideology of fascism. Prior to the German invasion of Russia, it was almost as if the Right had it all. Most European nations were either rightist, right-leaning, or neutral. Even the communist USSR had come aboard, diplomatically and economically if not ideologically. Also, most Americans prior to Pearl Harbor had no desire to enter the war on the side of UK. Prior to 1939, many people around the world–even on the left–admired what National Socialism had done for Germany in terms of economic recovery and national pride. Also, despite horrible crimes committed by Germans in Poland in 1939, Nazi mass murder in the USSR and the Holocaust had not happened. Also, because of the Nazi-Soviet pact, leftists around the world were pressured by Moscow to oppose ‘war-mongering’. Indeed, many progressives in the US toed the Moscow line and smeared FDR and Churchill as craven, capitalist-imperialist war-mongers hellbent on instigating a bloodbath in Europe. Had Hitler maintained the peace between Germany and the USSR, most of the world would have been either with him, neutral, or accommodating. In this political climate, how far could the Frankfurt School have gone with their influence? If Germany hadn’t invaded the USSR–and convinced the world that the fall of the USSR was imminent–, would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor? Would Germany have declared war on the US? No and no. Japanese were emboldened by Germany’s lightening victories in Russia. Japanese were convinced that the Nazi Empire would stretch from Europe all the way across Siberia. Japan felt SAFE and SECURE as an ally of Germany. Japan thought that US would be intimidated if attacked by a close ally of Germany.
　
But, Hitler’s massive gamble didn’t pan out. Soon, Germans were sinking into a quagmire in summer and getting buried with snow in winter. Japan’s attack on US and the subsequent German declaration of war on the US finally turned majority opinion in the US for war and against fascism and rightism. Eventually, US and USSR became allies and won the war, and a GRAND NARRATIVE was developed in both countries of a noble war against total evil of the radical right. Russians called it THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR and Americans called it THE GOOD WAR. It was in this climate that the Frankfurters gained much ideological and moral capital. Not only did Germany lose but its massive crimes were exposed for all the world to see. Soviet Union and communism got a huge boost in Europe for having defeated the great evil of Nazism, and for awhile–especially in Western intellectual circles–, it was conveniently forgotten or ignored that communism too had been a massive criminal enterprise. As so many nations had been invaded or traumatized by the Germans, the era of Nazi Germany came to seen as the darkest chapter in human history. Of course, there were good many collaborators in Nazi occupied nations, and that too became a reason to bash everything associated with Germany, fascism or Nazism. The French, for example, had collaborated more than most, and therefore created the myth of the Resistance in the post-war era to assuage and even bury their guilt.
　
The fact that the horrible crimes of Nazism were predicated on racial ideology also gave the Left an easy opportunity to smear ALL ideas about race as ‘racist’ and evil. Since racism got equated with the Holocaust, it became impossible to discuss the reality of race or racial differences even in purely academic settings. And since Western Imperialism still dominated much of the world when WWII died, all European peoples became smeared with the sin of ‘racism’. The crimes of Nazism and their political/moral significance made it ever more difficult for whites to argue for maintaining their power and way of life around the world. Thus, Afrikaners in South Africa were accused of something akin to Nazism since Apartheid took race into account in politics and governance. Since racial ideology had been ‘discredited’ by Nazi crimes, everyone had to agree with the fiction that ‘all races are equal’. And, Europe and US were pressured to get rid of race-based immigration since that too was ‘racist’ and Nazi-like.
There would have been a Frankfurt school in exile even if Hitler had maintained peace with the USSR, but its influence couldn’t have gone very far. Jews earned tremendous moral capital because of the Holocaust. It was the Holocaust which turned every Jew into an automatic saint and immune to criticism. (The Holocaust also gave the Jews a special right among ‘Western nations’ to set up a nation-state based on racial ideology). It was the Holocaust which armed Jews and their allies with the ammo to shoot down any critic of Jewish power as an ‘antisemitic crypto-Nazi’. It was the Holocaust which made conservatives and rightists everywhere so slavish and sensitive to Jewish interests as though a conservative is morally suspect UNLESS he proves himself 100% free of any ‘antisemitic’ feelings.
　
Prior to the Holocaust, there was no great stigma attached to criticism of Jewish power, influence, or ideology. Indeed, it was as acceptable to criticize Jewish power back then as it’s acceptable for us today to criticize Arab, Muslim, Chinese, Hindu, Christian, Russian, Turkish, or French power, character, values, influence, etc. Without WWII and the Holocaust, we could all be freely and openly criticizing Jewish power without being threatened with blacklists and censorship.
　
It’s very possible that even without WWII and the Holocaust, Jewish power would have rose to great heights, especially in the US. After all, Jews are very smart and creative. But, we would have greater leeway to SPEAK TRUTH TO (Jewish)POWER than cowering before them with fear lest we be associated with Nazis and their crimes.
The Frankfurt School devised its own ideological concepts, BUT it was the radical right which served it with the MORAL advantage. Just as Soviet communist repression came to discredit the radical left in Eastern Bloc nations in the postwar era, Nazi crimes came to discredit the radical right around the world. Not only did the radical right in Germany invade and oppress people in Eastern Europe but it sided with Japan and encouraged it to attack the US.
　
Of course, Hitler had committed major crimes prior to the invasion of USSR and the Holocaust, but he had moral cover and international support for some of them. Also, the crimes had been balanced by real achievements. After all, Austrians had wanted to merge with Germany. As Sudetenland was majority German, there was a half-decent rationale for its annexation by Germany. Hitler’s taking of the Czech nation had no moral justification, but the major powers had grudgingly accepted it as fait accompli, thus serving as accomplices to the crime. There had been numerous vicious and despicable attacks on the Jewish, but prior to the Holocaust, it couldn’t be said that German treatment of Jews was markedly worse than how Americans treated blacks or Chinese or how the British or the French treated their subjects in their vast empires. The invasion of Poland was utterly evil, but as Hitler had brought in Stalin as a willing partner, the Left couldn’t squeeze any moral superiority out of that stone. Germans invaded France, but France had declared war on Germany, not the other way around. So, until the German invasion against the USSR, Hitler couldn’t be seen as particularly worse than other leaders around the world. And, the ‘crimes’ of Germans up to that time were no worse than the ‘crimes’ of others. Who were the Americans, who practiced legal racial discrimination, to preach to Germans about the evils of white supremacism? And prior to the German invasion of the USSR, the communists had killed many more people than the Germans had–and many commie Jews had been complicit in these mass murders. Across Europe, there was a vibrant and confident intellectual right to do battle with the intellectual left.
It all went to pot when Hitler invaded the USSR with an agenda to wipe out tens of millions of Russians and reduce the rest to a permanent race of helots to serve German masters. Though Hitler and Himmler ultimately failed, millions of Russians and others got enough of a taste of Nazism to see it as an evil that it was. And, then there was the Holocaust, a truly monstrous form of genocide. Communists had killed millions but hadn’t devised a plan to wipe out an entire race in the most heinous ways. The Holocaust made racial policies and oppression in other parts of the world seem like a picnic by comparison. Finally, the Nazis lost, and thus all their crimes got to see the light of day.
　
So, the real culprit for the fall of the Right and the rise of the Jewish Left was none other than the radical rightism of Adolf Hitler. The habit on the white right is to feign amnesia and blame EVERYTHING on the Frankfurt School for the decline of white power in the US and Europe. This is disingenuous, cowardly, and pitiful. Such white rightists are no better than black power idiots who blame all problems in the black community on whites, Jews, Arabs, Asians, Mexicans, etc.
　
This isn’t in any way to let the Frankfurters off the hook. It is only a way to put their ideas in proper historical context and understand why the white right became so reluctant or afraid to boldly take on Jewish power. Criticism of Jewish power became associated with the vile crimes of the Nazis. Guilt-by-association may be unfair but has always been a powerful psychological reality.
If anyone should know this, it is the Christian West which maintained moral superiority over the Jews on the notion that the Jews killed the Son of God. Jewish association with the murder of Jesus filled the Christian West with the moral ammo to target Jews, distrust Jews, attack Jews, isolate Jews, etc. In the first half of the 20th century, the rise of Jewish power and Jewish role in communism gave the white right even more ‘moral’ justification to take on Jewish power. Prior to the ghastly Holocaust, Jews had no special moral privilege over the whites. Indeed, many Jews joined in the criticism of Jewish power on both the left and right. Though communism did get tagged with Jewishness, Karl Marx hated capitalist Jews and the power of finance. And, many secular Jews despised traditional and tribal religious Judaism. Not all Jews felt a compulsion to ‘stick together’, and one of their favorite sports was Jewish self-loathing. Sigmund Freud didn’t only diagnose the presumed psychological maladies of gentile society but of the Jewish society. Most Jews were not even interested in Zionism and sought to assimilate into Western society. True, there were many radical and vile elements among the Jews, and they had to be countered. But, they were being healthily countered prior to the rise of Nazism whose antisemitism was so excessive and deranged that it gave any opposition to Jewish power a bad name. (Similarly, the drunken, clownish, and bullying excesses of Joe McCarthy gave the noble cause of anti-communism as bad name.)
　
Today, Muslims are causing lots of problems in Europe, and there are many courageous critics of rising Muslim power and demands. Despite PC, why is it acceptable for Europeans and Americans to criticize Muslim power and peoples in the way they aren’t allowed to criticize Jewish power and people? Because the West never committed mass genocide against the Muslims. But, if whites were to kill 6 million Muslims in genocidal madness, they would lose the moral justification or rationale to criticize Muslims as well. It is the BURDEN OF GUILT in a free conscientious society. Collective guilt isn’t rational but it is politically powerful and is used by all peoples. Even today, we guilt-bait the Japanese for having attacked Pearl Harbor. If the deaths of 3000 US military men has become so symbolically, nationally, and morally important to us, then just consider the significance of a genocide where 4-6 million Jews were indiscriminately killed in a few years.
　
Of course, Jews are not without modern political sin. In the USSR, they committed comparable if not equivalent crimes during the Leninist-Stalinist era. It is a shame that no one talks about hunting for Jewish communist mass murderers. It’s a shame that most people don’t know about the special role played by Jews in the ‘Russian’ Revolution. It’s a shame that so many Jews in the Free West aided and abetted the brutal and murderous regime in the USSR. This is partly due to the intellectual and media domination by the Jews in the West, but there’s another reason. Again, it’s the crimes of Nazism–WWII and the Holocaust. Because the Holocaust has become such a worldwide religion, few people dare to even open their mouths about the Jewish role in communism. Indeed, the only respectable scholars who dare discuss aspects of Jewish role in communism are Jews themselves. Being Jews, they have cover for their historical inquiry.
　
But, there is another problem. On the white right, many who discuss the Jewish role in communism tend to be Holocaust Deniers or Holocaust Revisionists of the Whackjob School. History is nothing without revisionism, but a lot of Holocaust Revisionism smells like Holocaust Denial through the backdoor. There have been honorable and decent men like Robert Conquest who detailed the mass killings of communism in the name of telling the truth. Sadly, many on the white right discuss the evils of communism with ONLY ONE PURPOSE in mind: To make Jews look bad and Nazis look good. They have no real sympathy for the victims of communism; after all, they are apologists for the Nazi invasion of the USSR and mass crimes committed by the SS. Their moral outrage about communism is utterly bogus, like the Nazi expression of shock and disgust over what Stalin’s henchmen did at Katyn. Nazis were doing the same thing in Poland and made a big stink about Katyn ONLY to delegitimize the USSR than out of any sympathy to the Polish people.
Finally, there is one thing to learn from the Frankfurt School. They had the courage to admit to the failures of communism, criticized the failure and illusions of the left, and creatively sought to forge a new set of principles and ideas that would better understand society and its problems. We may disagree with their diagnosis and proposals, their method of critiquing and reformulating the left in order to take on the right offers lessons to everyone. Frankfurters salvaged, redeemed, and retooled Marxism than sticking to old dogma. We need a critical and creative right that doesn’t doggedly cling to Old School fascism but finds ways to revise and retool it for the future fight.

The Right Must Fight with Bad Faith when It Comes to Free Speech.

The Left has several advantages on the issue of Free Speech and Hate Speech. They have a long record of fighting for free speech going back to days of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. When conservatives went after communists and fellow-travelers, leftists and liberals–many of them Jews–took a seemingly principled stand which called for absolute freedom of speech. Back in those days when white people freely expressed their hostility toward communism and called non-white people ‘niggers’, ‘kikes’, ‘chinks’, and ‘spicks’ with impunity, they didn’t fear their speech of freedom being curtailed or controlled. People who feared government control or being blacklisted were communists, fellow travelers, and trouble-making radical leftists of all kinds. Since there was no possibility of the Left taking away freedom of speech from white people(even of the far right), the most that the Left hoped for was total freedom of speech for everyone like the Constitution says in order to, at least, protect their own freedom of speech. If the Left in the 40s and 50s had called for banning ‘hate speech’ of the Right, anti-communists could have argued for banning dangerous and subversive communist or far-left speech. After all, if far-right speech should be controlled lest it lead to social harm, why shouldn’t leftist speech be controlled lest it cause similar harm? Besides, with the fall of Nazi Germany and heating up of the Cold War, America’s main enemies were on the Far Left soon after World War II.
The Left back knew they had to fight an uphill battle. So, instead of calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, they called for total freedom of speech for everyone–for Nazis and communists too, for white bigots and black bigots.

Even people who hated communists and leftists had to admit this was a principled stand, one upheld by the constitution. But, the clever Leftists knew that if you allow equal free speech to the Left and the Right, the Left would eventually come out on top since it had far more original, intelligent, brilliant, and dedicated thinkers than the Right did. Liberals far outshone conservatives in artistic, cultural, and intellectual pursuits in the modern era. And, the far left produced a number of brilliant and influential thinkers even if their ideas were ultimately wrong-headed and harmful.

The Far Right, on the other hand, was not only morally and intellectually bankrupt but associated with the unpardonable crime of the Jewish holocaust. Though communists murdered a lot of people too, they could stand proud as the vanquishers of Nazi Germany. As US had fought Far Right Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan–and had been indelibly altered by the long Liberal reign of FDR–, US was essentially placed on the liberal path even if it was anti-communist.
At any rate, there were numerous leftist and Marxist thinkers and artists of great talent in the post-war period. Though there had been talented rightist thinkers in pre-war Europe, they had vanished by the end of the war. The fall of Germany, the revelations of crimes, and etc made it difficult for anyone to be a respectable rightist intellectual or artist. Worse, those on the Hard Right in the post-war period tended to be criminal types, thugs, lunkheads, and dolts.
So, total freedom of speech for both left and right was bound to favor the left because the left made far better use of that freedom than the right. The left, populated with many intelligent Jews, wrote books, published fancy journals, directed plays and screenplays, made movies, wrote laws, etc.
The right, populated with crusty complacent wasps or ape-like rednecks, put on silly airs(like Bill Buckley) or waved the Conderate Flag and made Nazi salutes.
It was no contest. In time, the smarter and more creative Left won out over the Right in the so-called Culture War. Culture belongs to those who remember it, preserve it, and make it. You’d think the Right would at least preserve and remember their ‘proud’ culture, but your average American rightist was more into country music, silly pulp novels, and TV shows than culture. Even if Leftists waged war on tradition, they were far more likely to read the classics, think them through, discuss and dissect them, and write about them. Why is it that the English Department is run by Marxists and feminists? Partly because leftists who rule the roost favor their own kind for promotion, yes. But, the main reason is most people devoted to arts and humanities are found on the Left than on the Right.
Also, you cannot win a culture war if you don’t produce any ammo. Where are the conservative artists of note? The Right made a big deal out of Mel Gibson, but Gibson is no great artist. He’s good, and it’s nice to have him but he’s outgunned 100 to 1. And, if conservatives cannot stand Hollywood, why can’t they form their own film companies?
Leftists and liberals also tended to be more interested in journalism, a key area through which we learn about the world. For every Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak who went to journalism school, a 100 liberals and leftists majored in the field. Also, many rich liberal Jews bought up most of the media conglomerates or built them up from scratch with their brilliance, energy, and cunning.
Also, because conservatives tended to be anti-government, far more liberals entered government and took over all the bureaucracies. Instead of being for sound and clean government, conservatives were kneejerkedly for NO government. But, the fact is there will ALWAYS be government. Just as the Sunni boycott of elections in 2004 handed all the power to Shias and Kurds in Iraq, conservative animosity and defacto boycott of government handed all the levers of power in government to the liberals so that even when Republicans run the White House and Congress, all the agencies are managed and controlled by liberals who can stall, undermine, subvert, and counter everything Republicans try to do.

Anyway, in due time, Leftists and liberals won the culture war, the legal war, the social war, the media war, and took over the most powerful institutions in this country. In the 60s and early 70s, they completely triumphed over the Right on the issues of free speech. This was possible due to the consistency of their argument and logic, the aid of the liberal media and academia, and the tenacity/passion/talent of their members. Before political correctness appeared on the scene, liberals argued CONSISTENTLY(and correctly) that freedom of speech/expression meant freedom of ALL speech/expression.
When the issue of porn movies tore the country apart, liberals supported legalizing it as freedom of expression. Liberals were for the freedom of filmmakers to use greater violence on screen. Liberals were for use of foul language. Hollywood had been constrained for decades up to the early 60s by various moral groups–led by the Catholic Church–which said you couldn’t show this, you couldn’t say that. It got so ridiculous that one couldn’t even use the word ‘pregnant’ in an old Hollywood movie. A married couple had separate beds in the same room.
Of course, onne could make a compelling argument that these censorious controls kept filth out of the screen and had constructive social value. Even so, they did violate constitutional right of free speech. In the 60s and 70s, ACLU, though mainly a Jewish organization serving leftist causes, loudly supported free speech for all. In some cases, ACLU went out on a limb to defend the KKK and Neo-Nazis. (The fact that right-wing groups had to rely on the legal expertise of liberals and leftist shows you how intellectually–and financially–bankrupt the far right had become). However one may feel about them, people like Alan Dershowitz won grudging respect from all sides for their intellectual consistency. Dershowitz may be a "weasly Jew" but he stuck to what he said on the issue of free speech(though his recent derailing of Norman Finkelstein’s tenure at Depaul was a low blow of the worst sort). As the Far Right was both intellectually and financially bankrupt, it even became dependent on organizations like ACLU to defend its freedoms against local groups who were angry with the KKK’s right to light crosses or Neo-Nazis’ right to hold rallies in certain communities. So, even people who hated Jews–and denied the Holocaust or wanted to gas Jews themselves–came to rely on Jewish legal expertise to enjoy their right of extreme speech in all communities across this nation.

As time passed, with liberals and leftists(Jews prominent among them) controlling most schools and colleges, most media outlets, most popular entertainment industries, most publishing, most law firms, most radio(even conservative Talk Radio is downright slavish when it comes to Jewish/Zionist interests), and so on, it dawned on the ‘progressive’ community that it no longer needed protection of the constitution. Why would people who own and control the apparatuses of the nation need its protection?
When the left had been a pariah in the political wilderness during the early stages of the Cold War, it needed protection of the constitution. By the 80s, the left had become deeply entrenched in all the powerful institutions. Even if the 80s were the Reagan decade, the power and control of liberals(especially Jews) over institutions were near total.
Though Reagan was allowed to be anti-communist against foreign nations, he could not go after domestic communists and leftists INSIDE the US. He could only go after communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Reagan got a blessing to do this from many in the Jewish community(even among liberals) because the Soviet Union had turned anti-Jewish despite its ideological and historical roots in Jewish radicalism. By the 70s and 80s, most Jews were thinking in terms of ‘Save Soviet Jews.’ The very movement that the Jews had supported in 1917 had viciously turned on them since Stalin’s final days.
Reagan was also acceptable to the Jews for he was archly Zionist as opposed to his predecessor Jimmy Carter who angered the Jewish community by sympathizing with Palestinians and pressuring Israel to make concessions. In 1980, Reagan incredibly got nearly 40% of the Jewish vote(and lots of Jewish support in the media). Though most Jews despised Reagan on social and cultural matters, they wanted to use him to bring down the ‘antisemitic’ Soviet Union and to strengthen Israel’s hand in the Middle East. Anyway, Reagan’s anti-communism could only be aimed at enemies outside America. The Iron Rule in the media allowed the far right to be depicted as evil both abroad and in America, BUT the far left could only be shown as evil abroad. In other words, Hollywood movies could show heroic guys blowing away Nazis in Europe or mowing down subhuman ‘white supremacists’ in the US–like Clint Eastwood did in "Pink Cadillac." But, it was generally not permissible to show far leftists or communists as enemies IN America. They had to enemies abroad. Take Rambo where Sly Stallone fights Vietnamese commies and the Soviets but not commies and leftist radicals in the US. Even "First Blood" had Sly Stallone inexplicably at odds with rightwing rednecks than with leftwing reds. "Red Dawn" by John Milius took place on American soil but all the enemies were Soviet invaders. There was no American-born leftist collaborator in sight.

What was true with movies was true with Reagan politics. He could brashly attack communism abroad but he couldn’t go after leftists IN America. For any government official or big businessman to go after or denounce far leftists IN America was said to be ‘red-baiting’ or ‘McCarthyism’.
The liberal media and academia had pulled off a clever trick after the excesses of McCarthy. Though McCarthy had largely been right about the communist subversive threat, he had played his cards sloppily, drunkenly, paranoid-ly, boorishly, and stupidly. Instead of being surgical and cautious, he went the shotgun approach and hurt people whose connections to communists were dubious.
Because McCarthy came to be nationally disgraced in the most humiliating way, ALL of his ‘victims’–even real commies–were rehabilitated as innocent saints and ‘patriotic Americans’ whose constitutional rights had been violated. The liberal media and academia lost no time replaying this political soap opera narrative over and over. Though FDR had used similar means to suppress the anti-war Right and even locked up 130,000 mostly innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, the liberal media and historiography declared that US had never faced such a danger to its democratic freedom as during the McCarthy period(and again during Nixon’s Watergate scandal though it was small potatoes compared to what Woodrow Wilson and FDR had done during wartime. But what do you expect from liberals? They complain that Bush was acting like a dictator but don’t mind that Obama has become a ‘sort of god’).

It is for this reason that there has long been a double standard in American culture and politics. It’s wrong to ‘red-bait’ but it’s okay to white-bait. If you burn the American flag and attack this country from the leftist perspective, liberals defend and even praise such expressions as what America is all about–dissent and freedom of speech. But if you attack the far left or Marxists, you are said to be a paranoid McCarthyite red-baiting lunatic with no respect for free speech nor for American values of radical dissent.
According to liberals and leftists(especially among the Jewish kind), radical dissent is more truly American than conservative values. For liberals and leftist, the True America is that which the country must become in the future. The REAL America and its past are regarded as essentially negative and hypocritical. This is why 60s radicals and the KKK get different treatment in the media. Though some 60s radicals have been shown in a negative light to some degree, they are seen as essentially well-meaning, idealistic, and ‘ahead of their time.’ They are shown to be essentially good people who got overzealous and did bad. Indeed, even Jim Jones–the original Mr. Kool Aid–was partially idealized in a recent grisly PBS documentary. Though the documentary showed the murderous excesses of Jim Jones’s movement, it ended on a kind of hopeful note, as if to say Jim Jones had wonderfully utopian ideas but failed to see them through because he was sick in the head(the implication being that his rage was the product of our refusal to recognize and support the goodness of his movement and his followers).
.
In contrast, KKK people are shown to be evil incarnate. Naturally, liberals and leftists in the media and academia favor the far left over the far right even if both are deemed dangerous in the larger sense. Anyway, we saw the final culmination of this double standard in the 2008 election. Obama got off scot-free though his political origins are of the radical left and though he hung around radical lunatics like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright all his life. If McCain had such connections, he would have been shot down right away.
The rationale employed by liberals to justify this double standard has a degree of validity. Generally, we believe that those with great power should be held to greater account and responsibility than those with less power. Since whites had long discriminated against blacks and are still dominant in the politics/economics of this country, it could be argued that blacks have more of a legitimate gripe against white society than vice versa, notwithstanding the fact that in the past four decades, black crime and violence have been endemic in robbing, raping, and murdering white folks. It could also be argued that the Far Left, no matter how wacky, are closer to the letter and spirit of the US constitution than the Far Right is. Though the Far Left rejects individualism, personal liberty, and private property, it does subscribe to the notion that all people are created equal and should be treated equally in a color-blind manner. Leftists have never lived up to these principles, but as far as ideas go, it is true enough that Leftism and the US constitution agree on the universality and equality of man–though the definition of ‘equality’ isn’t uniform across the Leftist spectrum. The Far Right–whether it be the KKK or the Black Muslims–, on the other hand, reject the notion of equality of man, universality of human rights, and the brotherhood of man. The Far Right tends to be bio-realist or tribalist whether on cultural grounds or national scale. Because the Far Right is based more on animal instincts of clannishness and us-against-them, it is bound to come across as uglier, meaner, and less moral than the ‘noble ideals’ of the Left. In as much as The West has been deeply influenced by Christianity, a egalitarian and universalist doctrine, and Hellenic philosophy, which sought the universal and unifying truths across the, the Left will enjoy a moral advantage over the right at least in the ideological and intellectual sphere... unless the Right makes a powerful and effective argument for biology as the fundamental basis of our social reality and functionality.

Anyway, Leftists have arrived at a time and place where they no longer have to struggle or plead for freedom of their own speech. They control most of the levers of society determining laws, ideas, values, fashions, and trends. Since their speech can no longer be threatened, they are now looking for ways to control the speech of their enemies. But, Leftists and liberals know that they cannot do this overnight. After all, they would come across as sheer hypocrites. People would wonder how activists who’d been at the forefront of Total Free Speech in the 50s, 60s, and 70s suddenly morphed into a political force trying to control speech by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. How is it that liberal free speech activists, who used to throw fits about curtailment of speech for communists–and even aided Neo-Nazis and KKK in free speech cases to show that it supported Free Speech for EVERYBODY–, have been so silent about the erosion of free speech due to the machinations of liberals and leftists? Why aren’t members of the Free Speech Movement getting out there to fight for the free speech of ALL people, even of the radical right? It’s because the radical left is no longer threatened. The Radical Left controls all of the academia, runs Hollywood and makes movies like V for Vendetta which dehumanizes white gentile males, and control the news media. Heck, the radicals even ideologically prepared and groomed Barack Obama who is now president despite his disgusting associations. Most trial lawyers are liberal or leftist, and most legal scholars are liberal or leftist. Even most capitalists–educated by leftist professors–are socially and culturally leftist.

So, the Left is now poised to take away our free speech. But, being clever and patient, the Left will not try to enact their laws overnight. They don’t want to look like hypocrites after decades of having fought for total free speech for everyone. If they suddenly called for curtailing far right speech or ‘hate speech,’ people would realize that the Left(mainly controlled by Jews) had acted in BAD FAITH all along.
So, leftists and liberals must make it appear as though the NEW GENERATION of good decent people are DEMANDING ‘hate speech’ laws in order to create a better society. Though the older generation of liberals and leftist had called for Absolute Freedom of Speech, they instructed their own students and audiences(via popular culture) to view The Right as disgusting, evil, vile, hideous, gross, sick, demented, and etc. Though the new generations since the 70s grew up under a system of total free speech, they were emotionally and mentally conditioned to virulently and rabidly hate the White Right. By the 90s and 2000s arrived, the new generation had grown into politically indoctrinated young adults incapable of critical thinking. They were brainwashed into thinking ‘blacks, Jews, homos, and feminists are GOOD’ and ‘whites, especially white gentile males, are BAD’. They were told that EVERYTHING wrong with the world–poverty, oppression, corruption, crookedness, etc, etc–was the product of white ‘racism’, imperialism, and blah blah blah. Since young ones, indoctrinated by political correctness, are loudest in calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, the previous generation of ‘progressives’ who fought for Total Free Speech can pretend that ‘hate speech’ laws are not their doing but demands made by idealistic younger generations whose feelings we should respect. Though people like Alan Dershowitz and Ira Glasser will pretend to oppose the new censoriousness, they will only go through the motions without really putting up a fight. Indeed, almost all liberal and leftist Jews–even or especially those who had called for total freedom of speech in the past–privately want ‘hate speech’ laws. Indeed, the whole Free Speech Movement wasn’t meant as an END but only as a MEANS to bring about the real goal which is ‘hate speech’ laws so that the Left will have freedom of speech to itself while the far right and even the mainstream right will be hamstrung.

It’s a very clever trick, which goes to show that one should NEVER underestimate the brilliance of the left-wing Jews. Notice that though Alan Dershowitz and Nat Hentoff are still officially committed to Total Free Speech for all, they barely stand up to the Leftist PC Police nor to the liberal efforts seeking to institute ‘hate speech’ laws. They make just enough noises and complaints to show that they are still free speech stalwarts, but deep down inside, I’ll bet both leftist Jews are happy that The Right is poised to lose their freedom of speech–like already happened in Europe and Canada.

This is a very dangerous time for the Right. In Europe freedom has already been lost. Only violent uprising can save Europe as white people no longer have their freedom to save their own countries from social decay and foreign invasion. We still have freedom of speech in the US, but with the liberal and leftist control of institutions and shifting demographics, the white right is bound to lose their rights of free speech in the US as well.
This is why we must FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. USE BAD FAITH AGAINST BAD FAITH. You see, the Liberals are playing it both ways. By supporting extreme leftist and anti-American speech–‘dissent’–, liberals claim that they are defending total freedom of speech. After all, they are even defending the right to desecrate the American flag or to denounce the US government–as long as the hostile speech comes from the Left(radicals) or People of Color(‘underdogs’) of course.
But, Liberals also win moral points for standing up to HATE. They say that as important as free speech is, freedom of dignity is even more important. So, they take pride in opposing ‘hate speech.’ Of course, by HATE, liberals generally mean hostile speech from the White Right. In simple terms, only leftist dissent should be allowed.

Now, anyone with any integrity should plainly see that one cannot be for Total freedom of speech yet also be against ‘hate speech’. Yet, this is the game the liberals(mostly Jewish) play in utter bad faith. Remember that these are the same people who say ‘gay marriage’ is really marriage or that illegal aliens are true Americans. Liberals twist logic into a pretzel to impress people that they are for both total free speech and for ‘social justice’–by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. This isn’t a true duality but merely a form of duplicity.
More and more people are being won over to the anti-‘hate speech’ crusade since they are hooked to stuff like Oprah and have been educated by public schools and get the news from the liberal media. In their stupid minds, Hate is simply a bad evil thing, so what’s the loss if people are not allowed to express ‘hatred’? As far as they’re concerned, it’s no worse than banning smoking in a public restaurant or banning farting in public. Since there’s NOTHING of value in ‘hate speech’, why not ban it outright? It’s only removing toxins from our collective consciousness, right?
And, even those who oppose ‘hate speech’ laws are loathe to stand up openly because they don’t want to come across as condoning ‘hate’. Even if they argue that they are only for the FREEDOM of ‘hate speech’ than for the hatred per se, they still feel like secret supporters of the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

This is why Political Correctness has been so crucial and important to the Left. The Left needed to shape the hearts and minds BEFORE pushing for laws curtailing free speech. The Left had to show that the White Right is truly evil and distasteful. The Left had to make Americans feel this animus against the White Right EMOTIONALLY. So, as ‘hate speech’ laws incrementally arrive, the majority of Americans are embracing it–not intellectually but emotionally. If you can’t win over people through the head, go through the heart.
After generations of kids raised on stuff like ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Fried Green Tomatoes’, ‘Boys Don’t Cry’, and PBS documentaries on Emmit Till, it’s no wonder that so many young people FEEL that ‘hate speech’ laws are necessary. Butter the heart and the mind soon turns to mush.

Indeed, liberals(again, mostly Jews)have done the same thing with the gay agenda. Notice how all these liberal Jewish dominated publications are saying it’s time for ‘gay marriage’ since all these young people–the future majority of this country–demand it. In other words, w we need ‘gay marriage’ because of POPULAR DEMAND from fresh young people. But, who shaped and influenced all those young minds addicted to pop culture, dependent on school textbooks, and attuned to the latest fashions and trends? We know full well that liberals and leftists(good many of them Jews) control the top levers of pop culture, academia, and trend industry. So, the rising popular demand for ‘gay marriage’ is merely the product of the masses being brainwashed by the softly coercive and nudge-nudge-nudging manipulation of the liberal and leftwing Jews. Indeed, Cass Sunstein, now working in the Obama administration, even wrote a book on how to nudge, nudge, and nudge the masses toward goals favored by liberals and leftists. These super-smart leftist and liberal Jews see us as Pavlovian dogs or guinea pigs to manipulate. Dimwit goyim, at the end of day, come to believe that they are for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘hate speech’ laws from their own volition when, in fact, they’ve been gently and not-so-gently nudged, nudged, and nudged in that direction by powerful liberal and leftwing Jews who control so much of our society.

This is why need to act in bad faith and call for the curtailment of leftist speech while calling for total free speech. Not because we really believe in controlling free speech but just to drive the Left crazy like it drives us crazy. In boxing, you cannot win by defense alone. Go solely into defense mode and your opponent will just attack and attack. Sometimes, offense is the best defense. If you attack the opponent, he will be too busy covering up to punch you back(unless he happens to be a great counter-puncher); constant jabbing is the best form of defense.
In the free speech debate, the Right has long been purely on defense while the Left has been on Offense. The Left no longer need to be go on the defensive since its power is deeply entrenched in media, academia, culture, etc. Since leftists need not fear any control of their own speech, they are busy attacking the free speech of the Right. In order to divert leftist energy from their non-stop offense against our freedom, we must attack the freedom of leftist speech. We don’t want to control leftist speech; we simply want to put the left on the ropes. We simply want to beat them at their own game.

What is the leftist game? The leftist game is that ‘hate speech is not free speech’ because it may lead to violence, oppression, and hurt feelings. Leftists say that speech itself is dangerous because a hateful statement by a prominent far right figure might inspire a street-level skinhead to go out and commit acts of violence. The leftist argument is that those who inspire such hatred and violence are just as culpable. Well, we can make the same argument. After all, if Karl Marx hadn’t written the Communist Manifesto, not so many people would have been ‘inspired’ to join the radical leftist movement and commit massive crimes against humanity. Where did Che Guevera get his sick ideas? From leftist intellectuals he read in books and magazines. So, if some far right intellectual or leader must be held account for actions committed by others who may have been inspired by his words or teachings, then leftist intellectuals and leaders must be held accountable for all the violence committed by leftist revolutionaries, saboteurs, guerillas, and murderers inspired by the writings of people like Jean-Paul Sartre, Franz Fanon, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Ayers. All theories may lead to practice. If dangerous right-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous right-wing practice, then dangerous left-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous left-wing practice.

Well, we can play this same game that the Left is using against us. We can say radical leftist speech IS hate speech. Marxism is hatred for certain classes slandered as ‘exploitive’ and ‘evil’. Marxism is also hatred for religions as ‘the opiate of the masses’. It is also hatred for national cultures as ‘irrational tribalism’. Tally up the body count from the history of leftist hatred and it approaches 100 million in the 20th century. It was Marxist-Leftist hatred for the so-called bourgeoisie which led to dispossession, expulsion, and/or mass execution of people of property. It was leftist internationalism that led to mass deaths of various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Or, just consider what Chinese Marxist imperialism did to the culture of Tibet. Just look at what leftist Jewish radicalism has done to our national borders? Legal citizens in this country are routinely being robbed, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens thanks to the leftist Marxist ideological hatred of national borders and identity(especially those of white nations and peoples). The left is filled with hatred, no less than the right. If we on the Right hate certain things, ideas, and peoples, the those on the Left have their specialized hatreds. Sure, leftists claim to be for equality and universality and loving all mankind, but their formula for justice and love requires ALL OF US to conform to their demands... OR ELSE! Otherwise, you get persecuted, attacked, and even killed. Islam is universalist too. It too embraces all of humanity as its brother and sister, but Islam says everyone has to do as the Koran says; otherwise, you’re a no-good infidel. So, both Marxist and Islamic forms of universalism are conditional, coercive, hostile, and aggressive. They embrace you like a python and spare you ONLY IF you kiss their ass. It’s a kind of love that makes all the demands and tolerates no deviance. Indeed, it HATES all those who refuse to comply.
There has been an element of this in Christianity as well. Christianity also tried to spread universality all over the world and create a unified brotherhood of man. So, what’s the problem, you may ask. What’s wrong with spreading love and justice? The problem is religions or ideologies like Christianity, Islam, and Marxism assumes that it holds all the TRUTH and all other beliefs and values are lies or worse. In the name of their supposedly higher and righteous love, the followers of these faiths have felt justified in hating those who don’t comply. To be sure, Christianity, as an ideal at least(and ideals do color and shape practice), is better than Islam and Marxism because it advises persuasion than coercion to convert non-believers. Also, Christianity is anti-utopian and accepts that there can never be Heaven-on-Earth.

Anyway, we can make a powerful argument that Marxist intellectuals, academics, activists, and others are haters and that their speech should be curtailed(or they should be fined or dragged to prison)since they are espousing and spreading an ideology of hatred(of classes, nationalities, and religions).
We can also charge them of Bolshocaust Denial or Apology. If David Irving should be locked up for denying the Holocaust or apologizing for Hitler, why shouldn’t leftist intellectuals in Europe, Canada, and the US not be locked up too for having denied communist mass murders or having praised the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che? Who says only racial hatred is hatred? The Left is filled with all sorts of hatreds. Hatred for the US, hatred for national borders and identities(especially white), hatred for religions, and hatred for the supposedly ‘wrong’ classes–not just the bourgeoisie but also the peasantry. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky despised the Russian/Ukrainian peasantry, targeted farmers, took their grain, and let them starve? Why? Because communism favors the urban working class. The peasants were seen as backward and stupid animals whose only purpose was to be worked like cattle so that their blood and sweat could be stolen by the government so as to build up the proletarian class in the cities.

Leftists also say that ‘hate speech’ should be banned because it hurts people’s feelings. But, doesn’t leftist speech hurt people’s feelings? Aren’t Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Americans not emotionally hurt when they go to Western universities taught by left-wing Jewish professors who extol communism, the ideology and system that starved and killed millions of Ukrainians? How would Jewish students feel if a Nazi-sympathizing professor demeaned the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust? If Holocaust denial or apology is ‘hate speech’, then Bolshocaust denial or apology is also ‘hate speech’.
How would refugees from communism–Polish, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc—feel if they had to attend high school or college classes where some leftist professor(Jewish or brainwashed by leftist Jews) gave a lecture or passed out reading material saying that communism was a good thing or that Lenin, Stalin, or Mao weren’t so bad or even good in many ways? Wouldn’t the feelings of those students be hurt?

Of course, we are for free speech, and we don’t believe that speech should be curtailed or controlled to spare bruised feelings, BUT we’ve come to a point where many forms of speech have already been banned because they are said to be hateful and hurtful to various groups. Since political correctness is already the law, we can only fight fire with fire. We must use the same tactics. Relying purely on pure principles will not work at this time. We must fight fire with fire. We must say that leftist speech is deeply hurtful to people who, or whose relatives, suffered under communism. Just consider how Cuban-Americans must feel when leftist Jews in this country praise Castro to high heaven or when leftist Jewish PBS mis-characterizes Cubans who fled Castro as a bunch of mafia-connected hoodlums when in fact most Cuban refugees were decent people who left because of communist tyranny.

And, consider the number of white people victimized by black crime. Think of the people who’ve been robbed, looted, raped, and murdered. Think of their relatives.
Given this horrible reality, many white people are understandably hurt and offended by black speech in gangster rap and from demagogues like Al Sharpton and Henry Louis Gates. It’s bad enough to be robbed, raped, or murdered, but it’s even worse when black artists, leaders, and thinkers continue to verbally attack whites and even threaten more collective rage and violence against the white community unless we toady up to black demands. If protecting the feelings of people is so important, we should ban Rap music since it hurts the feelings of people brutalized by black behavior and crime.

Just for the satirical fun of it, we should even call for banning speech making fun of ugly people. Indeed, whose feelings would be more hurt? A Polish American who’s called a ‘Polack’ or an ugly girl who’s called ‘a disgusting ugly dog’? The dumb Polack may laugh it off but the fat ugly girl may go home and cry all night. If protecting hurt feelings is so important, then we need to ban all speech that hurts feelings. Recently, Letterman deeply hurt the feelings of the Palin family, so maybe we should call for the banning of nasty, snarky comic speech too. After all, we have to protect people’s feelings. And, how would a hard working small businessman feel if he worked all his life yet is called a ‘parasitic capitalist pig’ by leftist intellectuals? He would feel hurt and angry. So, we must ban all leftist speech that might hurt the feelings of hard working business folks.

This whole thing would be a game, but we need to play the game. The left operates in total bad faith. We know that. We know that leftist Jews are clever, brilliant, and Marx-Brothersy in running circles around us. We cannot act in good faith with those who only operate in bad faith. We must fight fire with fire. If they call for banning hateful rightist speech, we must call for banning hateful leftist speech. If they say rightist speech hurts feelings, we must say our feelings have been hurt by leftist speech.

We need to do the same with ‘affirmative action.’ If liberal and leftist Jews say white gentiles must give up their jobs to blacks and browns, we must call for affirmative action for whites whereby Jews have to give up their jobs to us. Indeed, this is how White Russians took their country back from Jewish control–through Soviet Affirmative Action which limited the Jews in top echelons of society. We need to do the same. Though we are opposed to Affirmative Action in principle, the superduper powerful Jews are saying we white folks must give up our jobs to blacks and browns. Well, well, then it’s only fair for superduper rich powerful Jews to fork over their wealth and privileged positions to us... OR ELSE!!!

The Pre-emptive Destructiveness of Marxism-Communism.

When surveying the history of communism, we focus on what communists did to pre-existing capitalists–the businessmen, entrepreneurs, bankers, landowners, and other members of the propertied class. Some intellectuals will, even today, find justifications for what communists did, but few still believe that communism is a viable economic system. Therefore, majority of thinkers, even on the left, agree that communists did much harm by destroying the capitalist class and the institution of private property. But, this criticism of communism doesn’t go far nor deep enough. Communism didn’t merely rob the then-existing capitalists but pre-emptively prevented the development of future capitalists who could have done so much for the economy. When Stalin and his henchmen wiped out the ‘kulaks’, they not only killed off the hard working farmers but destroyed the long term future of Soviet agriculture. (This is why ‘progressives’ still wax romantic about Cuban communism. They compare Cuba in the 1970s/80s with Cuba in the 1940s and 1050s, and shout ‘look at the progress!’ They never compare communist Cuba in the 1970s/80s with what Cuba would have been in the 1970s/80s had it remained free.) Unless we recognize this, we cannot fully understand why formerly communist nations haven’t done well following the fall of communism. In the Soviet Union, for example, communism had lasted for over 70 yrs. Communist destruction of capitalists wasn’t just a one-time thing–in order to establish a new regime–but a concerted effort to root them out entirely generation after generation. (As an analogy, consider having to destroy entire towns to win a war. It’s terrible but necessary for victory. Once your side wins, you allow the defeated side to rebuild their cities. Now, imagine another scenario where your side not only destroys towns to win the war but believes that destruction of towns in and of itself is good. So, even after winning the war, you destroy more towns and don’t allow them to be rebuilt. That was the communist approach to capitalism. Of course, it wasn’t as if communists wanted to destroy the economy itself, and indeed they had an alternative or counter-theory of economics which was supposed to work better than capitalism. But, as things played out, only capitalism could build and maintain a modern economy that liberated than enslaved man.) Several generations in the Soviet Union grew up knowing nothing of freedom or capitalism. They understood neither big business nor small business.
The only socio-economic model they understood was top-down statist totalitarianism. Despite the inefficiency and wastefulness of the Soviet economy, it was extensive, powerful, and penetrated into the life of every person. This fact needs to understood and reiterated over and over if we are to understand why ‘capitalism’ has been a catastrophic failure in Russia after the fall of communism.

Imagine if all capitalists in America had their property taken away by the totalitarian state. Though robbed of their wealth, they would still be capitalists. They would still know how capitalism works and go into business again–if given the chance. They would be closet-capitalists living in a non-capitalist nation. If the totalitarian system were to fall, they would go right back to the business of creating wealth, and the nation would economically revive again. (Indeed, consider Japanese-Americans who’d been robbed of everything during WWII. Though materially reduced to little or nothing, they still had the value and knowledge that would help them rise in the post-war order. Or, consider the West Germans after WWII. Though their nation was a heap of ruins and most Germans had lost all their possessions, they still knew how capitalism worked and had solid business sense. It’s no wonder that West Germany revived so fast. But, when East Germany was liberated from communism, it was sluggish and slow to catch up to the West because 50 yrs of communism had sapped the work ethic of East Germans and robbed them of their business sense. We can see such on display in the movie "Goodbye Lenin".) But, suppose a totalitarian system takes over in America and not only takes away the wealth of capitalists but kills the capitalists. Suppose this regime remains in power for 50 to 100 yrs and tries to root out all capitalist instincts in the hearts of citizens from cradle to grave. Such system would could be near-fatal for any civilization. Imagine a system that forbids books but allows the literate to remain literate. If the system were to fall, the literate could go back to bringing back book culture. But, suppose a system bans not only books but roots out literacy itself. It would not only be a war on books but a pre-emptive war on future literacy itself. Suppose no one understands the art of reading for 50 or 100 yrs. Even if the system eventually falls and books are allowed again, there would be no book culture and no literacy since no one understands or appreciates the importance or advantage of reading.

So, the failure of capitalism in post-communist Russia was less the fault of capitalism than of what had become of Russian consciousness under 70 yrs of communism. It was as though books were allowed again, but there was no one who could read. Money was allowed once again in Russia, but no one know how to invest, build, and trade. Therefore, what developed from this crisis was not true capitalism but Soviet capitalism or Sovietalism. Again, there was rule by an oligarchy, concentration of power in the hands of a few, majority of people looking to the government for solutions and answers than dealing with problems themselves. Freedom may be an opportunity to a Western or Asian capitalist, but it was a dangerous drug, obstacle or mystery to those brought up with communist mentality. Worse, many Russians came to understand the West through TV imagery. There was this false idea that the West was rich and powerful because young people listened to rock music, had long hair, and acted trashy. It was as if Russia would grow into a rich nation IF Russians imitated the superficial manifestations of Western(especially American) culture. But, in fact, no economy could be founded upon poor Russians imitating heavy metal rock bands, getting tattoos, snorting coke, or acting juvenile. Yes, the West have long enjoyed hedonistic fun, but that was the gravy than the real meat of capitalism. Real capitalism means determination, hard work, commitment, discipline, and lots and lots of energy. The American Dream was built on American Reality. There was no free lunch nor short cut. (Sadly, this is a truth forgotten by many Americans in the post-work-ethic era, one where entitlementality is affecting ever greater numbers of people, especially as they’ve been taught by ‘progressives’ that (1) they must take care of others (2) government must take care of them. Also, the mindless hedonistic consumer culture since the 60s has directed generations of kids toward whatever offers immediate gratification.)
Capitalism is like a car. You have to be willing to learn how to drive, have respect for the law, stay sober while driving, and pay attention to other drivers/road signs/traffic signals, and be equipped with good maps. Giving a car to a lazy, drunken, irresponsible, clueless, and reckless buffoon can end up doing more harm than good. In a way, Boris Yeltsin was a drunken fool who didn’t know how to drive the newly capitalist Russian economy of the 90s. He drove it into the ditch. Putin is like a sober son who has observed what his father had done, and so, he’s been careful to curtail the freedom of who gets to drive and how and why. But, Putin hasn’t solved the main problem of Russian character which is a crazy mix of boorishness and grey authoritarianism. Russians can be very wild or very tyrannical/submissive. They haven’t figured out the balance between order and chaos that is so crucial to democracy and capitalism. Russia doesn’t have ‘creative destruction’ but constrictive destruction.

It’s amusing to see leftists point to Russia in the 90s and blame its failures on capitalism when the real culprit was 70 yrs of communism which destroyed the entrepreneurial spirit in that country. Plants grow on fertile soil, and fertile soil of capitalism is the enterprising spirit of individualism. But, such consciousness never developed in Russia as a result of 70 yrs of communism. The Russian soul by the early 90s was arid and depleted of the qualities and values that nourish the growth of capitalism. The capitalist seeds in the Russian soil/soul couldn’t grow due the poor quality of the latter. (The problem was not with the seeds). So, instead of capitalist growth, we only saw ‘capitalist’ robbery. The so-called oligarches–former communist bosses–used their connections and trickery to appropriate the big national industries of the Soviet Union. There was little else to grab since mid-sized and small businesses had barely existed in the USSR. The big guys grabbed the big state industries. That was the extent of Russian ‘capitalism’ in the 90s. It was more like piracy or confiscation than investment and development. Even so, individual Russians from all walks of life could have built up small businesses and then expanded them up into mid-sized businesses(which then could be made even bigger) IF they had an entrepreneurial consciousness. But, few Russians possessed that kind of business spirit. Also, Russian banks were corrupt and useless. There was little law and order to protect businesses from hoodlums and gangsters.

It would be nice if Putin and Medvedev could reverse the current economic reality in Russia, but that would require fundamentally changing the way most Russians think about society, work, and entrepreneurship. The problem is that it’s much harder to teach people to be free than to teach them to follow orders. Indeed, we are seeing the same problem in America. Why do majority of Americans prefer Obama over Ron Paul. Obama says ‘I’ll take care of you’ whereas Paul says, ‘I want you to take care of yourself’. Being free in a constructive way is different than merely being free. In raising their kids, parents are preparing their kids to be free and independent. But, freedom and independence are NOT built on freedom and independence. They must be rooted and founded upon a solid bedrock of values, respect for laws, sense of priorities, sense of obligations, and morality. A child who’s given full freedom at the age of 10 will surely make a mess of things. Good parents incrementally allow more freedom in proportion to the increase in knowledge and responsibility among the kids. This is why libertarianism is lacking for it ONLY emphasizes individual liberty and freedom while saying little or nothing about values. This is why conservatism must be the foundation of ALL ideologies. This is also why all ideologies, no matter how radical, become conservative once they gain power. People must be governed by shared laws and morals for there to be any social order. For any social order to exist, most of its values must either be conservative or conservatized–made to function as the new ‘nationalism’ or new set of shared moral values by all.

It’s easy for a government to establish authoritarianism or allow freedom. What is difficult is developing social and moral character in people that will thrive in a free society. Freedom is only as good as the character of the people who have it–which is why freedom for Germans and freedom for Jamaicans produce very different results. The values, morals, habits, characters, and priorities of those peoples are shockingly different. Libertarianism has worked more or less in a nation like Holland because the Dutch are a Germanic people with a long history of discipline, sobriety, and respect for order. Would Dutch style libertarianism produce Dutch-like results in South Africa or Zimbabwe? Of course not.

So, what can Russia do to build the kind of character among its people that can lead to a true economic growth and democratic development? Russians must look to something other than the cult of freedom, cult of capital, or cult of the state. It’s really a matter of shaping the hearts and minds of the people.(The Russian Orthodox Church, though important as cultural and historical heritage, can’t provide the answer in the modern era for it has emphasized little other than slavish devotion to the Official Government–before, during, and after communism. Also, the Orthodox Church emphasizes the spiritual and timeless whereas Russians need moral values closely associated with worldly matters. Protestantism has had an economic advantage over other sects by emphasizing individual conscience, hard work in This World, and thrift and long-term investment than ostentatious spending for the vanity of man or glory of God. Of course, vanity of man and glory of God often went hand in hand in both the Catholic and Orthodox world, with rich people erecting beautiful cathedrals reserved for themselves or wearing expensive jewelry of gold and gemstones in the shape of crucifixes. We can still see the pattern today, with rich people supporting Obama and Obama promoting himself through a perverse combination of socialism and elitism.) How can the Russian government play a role in creating the kind of people’s consciousness and heart that uses freedom in a sensible and constructive way?
This is difficult because it’s almost always in the interest of the state to keep the people as dependent and obedient as possible. Why would any state want the people to be free on their own, develop their own economic power base, and even challenge the state? Also, isn’t it a contradiction to expect the state to exert its power to teach people to gain more power for themselves?
But, such contradictions are sometimes necessary and inevitable. For instance, any state that desires lasting peace needs a strong military to win wars and keep enemies at bay(though the politicians and people must always be careful not to fall victim to the very thing they’ve created to serve as their protector.) Paradoxically enough, in a nation like Russia where most people look to government, only the government may have the power to set the people free–or shape them to be free. Indeed, we mustn’t think that setting something free will inevitably lead to its happiness or welfare. An animal that’s been caged all its life cannot survive if set free into the wilderness. It wouldn’t know how to hunt, how to forage for food, how to survive. It may feel a momentary thrill, but it will soon have to get down to the business of finding food and shelter and spotting, fending off, or running from enemies. The story of "Born Free" is heart-wrenching because Elsa had grown up depending on humans. She was happy but not free. The owner decided to set her free than send her to a zoo, but Elsa didn’t know how to be free in the wild. She had to be prepared and trained to be free. She learn to be free, but even so, died at the age of 6. Again, freedom isn’t born of freedom but from preparation and training. Independence grows out of dependence. Masters start out as students.
Russians were set free into a new free order in the 90s, but none of them had been prepared for freedom. Worse, during 70 yrs of communism, most Russians had come to rely on nothing but the state. Prior to communism, many Russians had connections and links outside the state–family, tradition, community, church, etc. During communism, the state was the church, ideology, family, schools, and etc. Russians were all like caged animals in a zoo or prison. It was a harsh and repressive system, but it gave you a sense of place and took care of you if you accepted it as god. You didn’t have much, but you had basic necessities and a spiritual-ideological pride that you were living in a ‘workers’paradise’.

Leftists always say that success is a matter of economic background. In other words, some kids do better in school because their parents are richer while some kids fail because they come from poor families. But, if this is true, how does one explain the fact that millions of Chinese, who’d lived in dirt poor poverty under Mao, became well-to-do, prosperous, and even very rich after China adopted free market reforms? How is it that Russian Jews who come to the US with little wealth end up making more money than average Americans within several years? If we follow the logic of the left, a nation that is poor should always remain poor since most people are poor and poor people are fated to remain poor. If one must have rich parents to succeed in life, people with poor parents have no chance. But, we know this to be untrue. So, the truly interesting comparison is between children of poor parents who succeed and children of poor parents who fail. Leftists would like to point out that some children of poor parents succeeded thanks to government help, but, as important as public education may be, the crucial factor turns out to be cultural values in which the kids were raised. Almost all successful kids grew up with respect for knowledge and authority. Kids don’t know anything, and they need patience, diligence, and respect for authority to learn from teachesr with knowledge and skill. Of course, only patience and diligence won’t lead to originality and independence, the engines of innovation and progress. The problem of Asia has been its lack in the originality-and-individuality(independence) department though it’s amply supplied with diligence, patience, and respect for authority.

Anyway, the only true way to assess the damage of communism requires us to examine not only what communists did to capitalists but how communists pre-emptively rooted out and forbade the growth of the entrepreneurial spirit. When one looks at China and Vietnam, one sees examples of how formerly communist nations made a successful transition to free market economy driven by work ethic and energy. But, it must be remembered that China was under hardline communism for only 30 yrs, and Vietnam(at least the more vibrant South Vietnam) for only 17 years, before embarking on free market reforms. Russia was under communist rule for over 70 years which means that, by the time communism fell, there was barely anyone alive who remembered how things were like without or operated outside communism. Communism was the only thing that Russians knew. Russians in the 90s boldly swept communism aside and embraced freedom but under the harsh and confused conditions. Imagine a lifelong prisoner who finally smashes the walls and stands free. He’s finally free, but he no longer has a roof over his head nor any idea how to build a new shelter with his free hands.
China and Vietnam also were fortunate because several Asian countries remained capitalist and demonstrated the superiority of the capitalist economic system. Also, nations or city-states such as Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan provided China and Vietnam with a blueprint for economic growth and entering world trading system. If all of Asia had fallen under communism and if Asian communism had lasted 70 yrs, perhaps it might have damaged the entrepreneurial spirit as much as it did in the USSR.

The Duped and the Duplicitous. The Secret of Obama’s "Popularity"

There are several reasons why Obama has won over many Americans, but I shall consider two. There are two kinds of Obama supporters. There is the genuinely duped, the kind of people who really look at him as the messiah of CHANGE and HOPE for whatever pitiful reason–ignorance, sappiness, guilt, fear, anxiety, etc. But, there is also the duplicitous, the kind of people who know exactly who and what Obama is and feel that they know the Grand Game Plan. It is the combination of images of radiance(for the duped) and of radicalism(for the duplicitous) that has fueled Obama to power. Unless one understands this duality, one cannot grasp the essence of the Obama phenomenon.

We have seen countless images of swooning crowds at the feet of Obama. He is their Jesus, their Leader, their Lord, their Prophet. He might even be their Will Smith or Oprah. Many of these people tend not be well-informed nor too bright. Many of them are young, which means they are impressionable and prone to social and cultural pressure. (Though young are said to be rebellious, most happen to be slavish to peer pressure; even oddballs who take pride in their deviation from The Norm are acutely aware of their social exile, and as such, even their rebellion is a form of emotional slavishness. They need to prove themselves out of a sense of inadequacy.) Many of these people surely heard of reports of Obama’s sleazy Chicago politics or his many lies. But, they are essentially emotional people who respond to images and sounds than think rationally about issues. Once they’ve latched onto Obama, he’s their ‘rock star’ hero; and, whenever in doubt, they go into the ‘say it aint so, Joe’ mode. They WANT to believe that Obama is the savior. This desire is so powerful that evidence to the contrary doesn’t make much impact. The ONLY way they can be woken out of their doldrums is if the media finally do their job and go after Obama for all his lies and expose and shame him. Only if the authority higher than Obama–the liberal Jewish-run media–says he’s no good will the sheeple who worship him finally come to realize he’s a false god. Many of these people are good people, fine people. They are like the dupes in "MEET JOHN DOE". They so desperately want to believe in hope and change and a bright future where everyone gets along–especially whites and blacks–that they don’t want to know the truth about Obama. It would break their hearts and force them to think and use their brains–something they are not equipped to do. As they happen to be intellectually limited, they would rather believe in mantras and symbols. Whenever they hear bad things about Obama, they pray,‘say it aint so, O’. ONLY IF the media seriously go after Obama and expose him in a serious way will the minds of these people change. Remember that in "MEET JOHN DOE", the rich and powerful had to unite and expose Doe as a ‘fake’ before the minds of people finally changed. Obama supporters are just like that.

This of course raises a question. How can so many people be so stupid? Well, they just are. Why do so many Americans prefer stupid TV shows and movies to serious literature and art cinema? And, this is a problem in both camps. Remember that conservatives went with the mediocre George W. Bush because he promoted himself as a pious man of God and a ‘regular guy’–though he was born with a silver spoon his mouth. Many people are dumb.
But you may ask, ‘but, how come so many intelligent and well-educated people also support Obama?’ Why did 50% of upper middle class people vote for Obama? Why did the majority of very rich people support Obama? Why was Obama’s support so overwhelming among the Ivory Tower crowd in the academia.
There are many reasons for this, and let me run them down as fast as possible. (1) Higher education these days means higher indoctrination where thinking CORRECTLY counts for more than thinking FREELY. (2) People with most education tend to come from the privileged class, which means they have had little contact with REAL reality, and as such, are prone to be more naively idealistic. (3) The rich, at least white gentile kind, tend to feel a degree of guilt and ‘social obligation’ since this country was founded upon Christian ethos which says ‘greed is evil’. So, one could argue that even intelligent and well-educated people can be duped or can dupe themselves. They are human after all.

But, there’s another reason why well-educated people–often in influential or powerful positions–support Obama. It’s not so much that they are duped but that they are duplicitous. Conservatives sometimes wonder why so many well-educated and intelligent people aren’t troubled by the fact that Obama is of the Saul Alinsky school. Anyone who has paid attention to the news knows that Obama’s intellectual influences and political associations are pretty radical. We know that Alinsky-ism isn’t open and honest but subversive, cunning, and deceitful. It is the strategy of shrewd and devious ‘progressives’ manipulating the gullibility and stupidity of Middle Americans. Alinsky deviated from other radicals and came to the conclusion that Middle Americans had to serve as the clay for revolution. America didn’t have masses of poor, and the classic working class was shrinking. So, no great social change could be achieved without the support or involvement of the vast Middle Class. Alinsky-ism was about playing to Middle Class anxieties, fears, doubts, guilt, naivete, and hope. This didn’t mean that Alinsky-ism was pro-Middle Class or embraced American Middle Class values. Instead, it sought to change Middle Class values by pandering to Middle Class fears, anxieties, and hopes. Radicals would cut their hairs, act all-American, put on respectable three piece suits, and go among Middle Americans, work through mainline churches, and penetrate Middle Class culture. Through control of education and media, they would gradually persuade Middle Americans that there was something fundamentally lacking or wrong in their lives and in America. This missing element could be economic, spiritual, moral, or psychological.
Alinksky-ism is the most dangerous kind of subversive-ism as it comes with a hug and a smile, flowers and chocolates; it is radicalism made(or feigning to be) respectable and ‘safe’. Just as some radical leftists in the US served international communism by pretending to be for PEACE, Alinsky radicals served their hidden brand of radicalism by pretending to be for Middle Americans. (Of course, some of these radicals were indeed very much into Middle American life and fooled themselves about being radicals only to add some socio-intellectual spice to their humdrum lives. How much cooler if a suburban or yuppie couple flattered themselves as being part of some intellectual underground!)
We know that Obama and his close IDEOLOGICAL associates don’t care for Middle America. Obama is, at heart, a black internationalist and a stealth Marxist. He wants to take white wealth and give it to ‘exploited’ people-of-color around the world, mostly to black Americans and black Africans. Of course, Obama knows he can’t do this overnight as people will wake up and see his black ass for what it is. So, he’s in the Jackie Robinson mode of politics. He knows that national politics still has a long way to go to catch up to the NFL and NBA level, which are so black-dominated that blacks can say and do as they please. Recall that when blacks first entered professional sports, they were met with fear and suspicion from white players and fans, and so they had to act like they were nice gentle fellows who simply wanted to play ball and get along. So, we had guys like Jackie Robinson as the face of Integration in sports. Whites were assured that some nice Negroes would come and play, and that would be that. Well, look at the NBA and NFL today!
Obama knows that national politics is still in the age of Jackie Robinson, so he smiles a lot and acts partly like a nice and polite ‘House Negro’. But, it’s all just an act.

Now, good many educated people must know what Obama is really about. They read books, watch the news, read magazines, and etc. Even if the media are slanted to the Democratic Party and favor Obama, anyone with any brains and knowledge should know what he really is, what he really stands for, and where he came from. So, why do intelligent and well-educated white liberals and leftists go along with a man who built his career on deception, manipulation, two-faced-ness, and shrewd cunning? It’s because they find it all very exciting and feel that they themselves are IN on the Big Lie. This may sound crazy. One may indeed ask why intelligent and well-educated people would find pleasure or seek pride in participating in a Grand Lie. It’s because radicalism has long been very chic and hip among well-educated folks. You and I may see radicals as a bunch of extremists, but educated folks and intellectuals think RADICALISM is where real truth(or the spirit of truth) is, what the grand future holds, where real values lie, where real courage and purity can be found, where no compromises are made. For radicals, subversion is the necessary weapon against a society that is all too compromised–and requires everyone to compromise and conform to the oppressive Middle Norm to get along. (According to the Frankfurter left-wing Jewish intellectuals, Middle America offered false freedom, sham liberty, and a form of oppression that fooled people into thinking they were free through commodity-centric consumerism and socially normative conformism where one gauged one’s worth by keeping up with the Joneses. Though leftist and radical, this theory expressed the contempt and snobbery of European elite culture toward ‘materialistic’ Americans. For European intellectuals, materialism was a philosophy for understanding the world as it really operated. For Americans, materialism was a way of life where one’s happiness and ‘freedom’ were measured by how much material wealth one accumulated and enjoyed like silly little children. So, even as Frankfurter School intellectuals were egalitarians, they exhaled elitist contempt for mass society. According to Marxism, capitalism was supposed to make the masses poorer, and intellectuals were supposed to lead them to freedom. But, in America, the great masses had no desire for revolution since they ‘never had it so good’. Through the prism of Marxist theory, it was not acceptable that American capitalism had improved the lives of workers and ordinary people and expanded their freedoms. Since Frankfurters couldn’t find open oppression, they looked for invisible oppression in the hidden structures of society and people’s thoughts. From this arose Radical Feminism which argued that housewives were psychologically like Holocaust victims and Alinksy-ism which said Middle Americans were slaves but just didn’t know it because they ‘had it so good’. Since Middle America could not be convinced that their lives were horrible based on material evidence, the left had to play on emotional and psychological issues, which was why Marxism and Freudian psychology merged in the social sciences dominated by the Left.) Since subversion is deceitful, it merely pretends to compromise while concealing the radicalism within. Real compromise in a democracy is where two people openly and honestly come to an understanding and accept the compromise as just. Leftist radicals don’t think or act this way. Alinsky told his students to act as if to compromise, all the while gaining more and more power until the day arrives when they can take total power. For people who really believe in democracy, compromise is a worthy goal. For radicals, it is merely a means in order to gain greater and greater power untilthey can grab ALL the power. Salvador Allende of Chile was that kind of radical. So is Hugo Chavez. The reason why Chavez moves gradually is not because he likes to compromise and work with the other side. Instead, he wants to make it seem(especially to outsiders) as though the people democratically granted him ALL the power. Similarly, Hitler was a radical with a purist ideology who employed democratic compromise only as a tool in order to gain more and more power so as to eventually do everything his way.
We must never confuse compromise-as-goal with compromise-as-means. The former is made in good faith, the latter in bad faith. People who embrace compromise-as-goal regard it as a hallmark of a true democracy. People who employ compromise-as-means look forward to the day when they no longer need to compromise since they will have ALL the power. US is moving in that direction, not necessarily because of the rise of Obama but because of the increasing power of the liberal and left-wing Jews. Consider an average white goy whose total wealth may be around $30,000 in the bank. Compare that to people like Michael Bloomburg who’s worth $15 billion. That means that Michael Bloomburg’s net worth is equal to that of 500,000 white goyim. One rich liberal Jew = half a million white goyim. There are many liberal Jews with that kind of wealth and power, and they’ve come to own all the networks. Even the so-called conservative movies are made by liberal Hollywood, which means the profits made from conservative ticket buyers go to liberal Jews just the same. Many conservatives appreciated Spielberg’s "Saving Private Ryan" as a patriotic movie, and 100s of millions of dollars flowed into Spielberg’s coffers. So, how did Spielberg the liberal Jew honor this country that did so much for Jews? He helped elect Barack Obama, the stealth Marxist. Nearly half of all billionaires in the US are Jews, and most of them are liberal. Even so-called conservative businesses like Walmart are largely managed by top Jews, most of whom are liberal. Same is true of Fox News. We can grumble all we want, but the fact is Jews are smarter. Worse, conservative culture is largely stupid, un- and anti-creative, and simple-minded.

Anyway, affluent whites grew up watching movies, listening to popular music, and getting fancy education. All those things inculcate and celebrate radicalism as cool, cutting-edge, badass, heroic, exciting, far-out, and groovy. Some got radical chic or radical hip through Matrix movies, some got it through punk music, some got it through Che t-shirts, some got it through Rolling Stone magazine, some got it from their highschool teachers, some got it from books, some picked it up in college.
Frankfurters were wrong about Americans not being free, but they were right about American popular culture producing mental and spiritual zombies, gimps, and airheads. Intellectually vapid and spiritually empty in a vast pop cultural and consumerist wasteland, many Americans–everyone from college students to housewives glued to the Tube–were bound to be won over by at least certain aspects of radicalism. This transformation also involved many conservatives. After having grown up in the staid or banal culture of Christian fundamentalism, small town hick values, or colorless suburbia, many kids raised as conservatives found meaning in radicalism.
Generally, leftists own radicalism, but there’s also radicalism on the right, especially libertarianism and Ayn-Rand-ism. Libertarianism’s main attraction is its purity and un-compromised ideologic. Though libertarianism will never gain power, it makes a lot of rightists feel good about their un-compromised ‘integrity’. Libertarians don’t seem to understand that their brand of radicalism is useless for gaining power because it is anti-statist. How can you gain political power if you’re anti-government? Just as anarchism lost out to the communism, libertarianism always loses out to liberalism. All libertarianism can do is appeal to people to be more self-reliant, but truth be told, many people don’t want to be self-reliant as it means not only more freedom but more responsibility. They would rather shove the burden and cost to government. Of course, some people choose libertarianism precisely because it has no hope of ever coming to power. Some radicals want power, but some radicals just want to feel nobler-than-thou and pretend that the reason why power is denied them is because they are just too good, too smart, too pure, and too deep for the stupid crass world. Lost-Cause-Libertarianism is really just a form of intellectual-moral-narcissism.

Anyway, the reason why so many intelligent and well-educated people support Obama is they see themselves not as dupes but as the dupers or ones participating in Obama’s dupe-a-rube routine. They see Obama, a student of Alinsky, as their leader and comrade in hoodwinking the entire nation, especially Middle America. But, one may ask, "didn’t many of these smart and well-educated white Americans come from Middle America? Aren’t they subverting their own world and their own power?" Yes and no. Yes, many of them are indeed the products of Middle America. But, there is Middle America as economic status and Middle America as heart-and-soul. Many economic Middle Americans are culturally, spiritually, and politically ‘radical’ since they grew up on stuff like Matrix, rock music and its related politics, liberal or leftist education. Just as many rich people have been leftists and many poor people have been rightists, it is wrong to think that economic status = political/spiritual/cultural identity. If such were the case, Karl Marx, born and raised in privilege, would not have become a radical socialist. Entire generations of kids have been raised on left-colored music, movies, magazines, textbooks, teachers, media. Though Hitler is said to have been evil, evil, and evil by our media and academia, the same has not been accorded to the mass killers of the Left. Though Stalin and Mao are remembered for their evil, the general liberal line is that they committed evil because they betrayed their leftist principles. In other words, Hitler was evil because he was indeed a true rightist whereas Stalin and Mao were evil because they weren’t properly leftist. So, rightism is evil for what it is whereas leftism can be evil only for what’s done in its name. In and of itself as an idea, leftism is supposedly of the highest moral order.
Marxism has a place in the West similar to that of Christianity. Christians feel that they cannot live up to the highest principles of Christianity and that trying to create a Christian utopia may actually do more harm. They reject theocracy not because a world ruled by God’s laws would be bad but because man cannot be trusted to rule the world according to God’s wisdom. Even so, Christians believe that Jesus was a perfect man and that it would be nice IF INDEED we could all live in a perfect Christian world. In other words, the problem is not in the ideas of Christianity but in the sinful nature of man who makes a mockery of those ideas.
Liberals and leftists feel the same way about Marxism. Though they acknowledge the miserable history of communism and accept the fact that communism failed as a totalitarian or ideocratic system, they believe that Marxism as an idea still holds the highest principles of Human Justice. In other words, it’s no so much that communism failed mankind but that mankind failed (to live up to) communism. Liberals and leftist reject communism or Marxism not because they think it’s a bad idea but because they think it’s an unattainable Great Idea. In contrast, fascism is regarded as evil in both ideology and practice(as opposed to communism which is supposedly good in ideology but was bad in practice–because stupid man couldn’t live up to its noble and demanding ideals).

So, even as liberals and leftist reject classic communism, they spiritually long for the Marxist promise. This isn’t surprising since man is naturally ‘spiritual’ and seeks something to cling to with his deep emotions and prophetic imagination. Christianity isn’t enough for their spiritual needs because (1) liberals and leftists are supposed to be rationalist and scientific and immune to ‘superstition’ (2) Christianity is 2000 yrs old, too old for modern people with a fetish for the New. (Though Marxism too is pretty old by now, it’s been repackaged time and time again as a fresh idea. Consider that with the recent financial collapse, some liberals are pushing Marx as relevant again (3) much of Christianity is culturally associated with the Right.
So, liberals and leftists prefer Marx to Jesus. Even liberals and leftists who readily admit that Marx got it wrong maintain that he was a man of the highest intellect, moral character, seriousness, noble intentions, and so on. Just as Moses has been revered by Jews for having led the way despite his major flaws, even ‘progressives’ who now admit that Marx had been wrong on crucial issues and ideas still revere him for what he stood and strived for. They believe that even if Marx ultimately proved to be wrong, his bold and determined search for Truth should be the template for all true intellectuals with a moral stake in the world.

What appeals to many liberals and leftists about Marx is his total devotion to the radical calling. Marx chose the life of a ‘starving radical’ through and through(though, to be sure, he had rich patrons who supported him time and time again). Most liberals and leftists feel that they ‘sold out’ and feel guilty and compromised as a result. They grew up with fancy ideas about justice and saving-the-world by gaining wealth and power, but most of them turn out to be affluent and privileged professionals or businessmen. And, even the less successful spend a lot of time scrambling to make more money and get ahead in life. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, but something in their education and cultural experiences/preferences informs them that it’s so lame and a waste of a life to be a privileged materialistic yuppie who lives the Ugly American lifestyle. They long to be AUTHENTIC, and you can’t attain that brand by being a middle class middle of the road white yuppie!! The only way you can buy some Authenticity is by supporting some ‘radical’ cause, listening to Afro-pop and calling for more aid to Africa, going on travels to less developed places around the world where pristine cultures haven’t yet been spoiled by rich materialistic Western people–as opposed to ‘caring’, ‘sensitive’, ‘cool’, and ‘progressive’ Western people such as themselves.
Just as materialistic and compromised Christians attend church on Sunday and seek forgiveness for their sins and trespasses, modern liberals and leftists pray to Marx and Martin(the Noble Negro) for their compromises with the materialist ‘greed’.
Che Guevara is also very appealing to modern liberals and leftists because he, like Marx, supposedly went all the way and compromised nothing. If Marx was intellectually 100% committed and courageous, Che was physically 100% committed and courageous. He died in the jungles of Bolivia, and attained the status of new Jesus for the New Left. Of course, most actual liberals and leftist are more like Naomi Klein. They want their yuppie privilege, fancy condos, fine dining, expensive coffee, travels and tourism to exotic places, and etc. Though politically, culturally, and spiritually raised to be leftists, they are the beneficiaries of the ‘capitalist-imperialist’ system. So, they latch onto something that gives them meaning and assures them that they are indeed involved in the radical revolution, if only indirectly or in spirit. Some affluent ‘progressives’ find radical redemption by vacationing in Cuba, smoking Cuban cigars, going to rock concerts where the star-as-saint yammers between songs on saving the rain forest/feeding the hungry in Africa/impeaching George W. Bush.

Anyway, the point is that many leftists and liberals know what Obama is about and up to. They know all about his Alinsky past and his far left sympathies. They know that Obama is a subversive radical. But, this excites than disturbs them since they too grew up with the notion that being ‘radical’, ‘revolutionary’, ‘subversive’, and so forth is cool. Indeed, being straight and forthright are considered white, middle-class, and lame. Educated people who listen to NPR and watch PBS prefer slick and sly jazz to straight-forward country music or even sober & dignified classical music. Obama is a radical slickster and jive-master, but being a subversive, he also knows how to feign earnestness. He knows how to pull the Will Smith schtick in ‘Six Degrees of Separation’.
That’s what makes him subversive as opposed to people like Malcolm X who were radical and anti-mainstream but not subversive. Malcolm X was straight forward in everything he said, regardless of whether they happen to be true or false, sane or insane. In contrast, Obama always wears masks, and he must be understood in terms of an actor in a blockbuster movie financed and written by liberal Jews. He’s their Will Smith in politics.
Anyway, though ‘subversive’ has negative connotations for conservatives, it’s a badge of honor for leftists and even many liberals. It means being cutting-edge, daring, cool, exciting, rebellious, slick, tricky, witty, and brilliant. Just as con-men take pride in their ability to trick people, many ‘progressives’ take pride in fooling and hoodwinking the lame, banal, bland, and dull white middle class. ‘Progressive’ subversives also take moral pride since they believe their deviously naughty fun will bring about ‘social justice’. (It’s a matter of having the cake and eating it too. They get to have fun playing bad boys and girls rebelling against The System, but miraculously the end result of all this conceited and contrived game is supposed to be the Better Future. Of course, there has long been a connection between the super-rich and the radicals, not least because the super-rich are vain, narcissistic, and want to share in the fun of being ‘progressive’ and ‘revolutionary’ in the locomotive seat of history. So, it’s not surprising that many rich people have tried to appropriate the radical style, rhetoric, outlooks, and manners. In a way, the rise of Obama is the product of an understanding between the liberal super-rich business class and the super-privileged Ivy League radicals. Obama is like the most expensive political doll built or bought by the super-rich class who, having amassed tremendous fortunes in the past 30 yrs, want to play at being big government socialists by pulling the (purse)strings of their toy radical puppet. In this sense, Obama is to the rich liberal Jews what Will Smith is to Hollywood Jews.)
It’s surprising that many ‘progressives’ come from the white middle class, but it’s not hard to understand why that is. Having come from Middle America, they feel lame and inadequate(as middle class America is depicted that way by popular culture and higher education), and many seek meaning and excitement though radical politics, subcultures, or avant-garde intellectualism. Look on youtube and you find a whole bunch of bedroom philosophers and kitchen table revolutionaries speaking into the digicam to prove that they are not just another lame middle class person but a member of the avant garde or some cool secret society or movement. And so, when conservatives point out Obama’s Alinsky past, many ‘progressives’ think it’s so cool that Obama is a subversive, wink wink.

Of course, there is genuine awe and admiration for Obama on the part of many liberals and leftists, among both the duped and duplicitous. But, how can the duplicitous who know what Obama is really about look upon him as a ‘shining prince’? It’s because the human mind is infinitely complex and can fool itself in countless ways. Yes, it’s possible for even cynical and subversive duplicitous individuals to fall under the spell. Man is half intellect, half emotions.
‘Progressives’ have long sought a racial healer or a deliverer who embodies the positive qualities of Kennedy, King, FDR, Lincoln, Oprah, and Malcolm X. So came Obama, the master of many masks. (Even makers of masks can fall for their own masks, just like liars can come to believe in their own lies, and fabulists can fall for their own fantasies. It’s like the spider is forever the prisoner of the web it spins.) Also, no matter how subversive or cynical ‘progressives’ may be, their deepest core is enervated by a naive quasi-religious view of world salvation. Leftists may be tricky and sly on the outside, but their inside hugs-n-tugs an innocent child who wants the world to be perfect. So, strange as it may seem, not only the duped but even the duplicitous can get carried away by the Obama cult.
This was true of communist movements as well. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, many communist members were subversive, ruthless, hard-nosed, and pitiless. But, many of them did indeed believe in the shining myth of Stalin EVEN WHEN THEY KNEW that Stalin gained and maintained his power through the dirtiest and the most sinister of means. All people need something to stake their faith in, especially idealists. Therefore, even people who would later be crushed by Stalin died believing in the noble myth of the all-knowing Big Brother.
Similarly, on the one hand, many ‘progressives’ are deeply skeptical, sly, cynical, and cunning people. They are subversive. On the other, they are naive and quasi-religious idealists intoxicated with faith in a Better Future. They have this powerful need to attach onto some Great Theory or Great Personality. So, even those who know Obama for what he is are willing to project onto him their hopes and delusions. Even the duplicitous are capable of duping themselves. Obama, of course, knows this, how it works, and how to manipulate it. He knows that many of his followers are the duped while others are duplicitous. But, he also knows that even the duplicitous have a certain psychology that needs to cling to a Great Faith or Myth, and he knows how to play to those emotions. Even the smartest person responds to the world rationally only 50%. The other 50% is affected by sights, sounds, rhythm, texture, the groove and style, etc. This is why a man as smart as Einstein could fall for socialism or delude himself that Gandhi is a great saint.
Jesus said man doesn’t live on bread alone. It’s also true that man doesn’t live on ideas alone. The ideas he espouses must be attached, embodied, and expressed by a personality. Personality gives life to ideas. So, the "I Have a Dream" speech was just an idea from the pen of a Jewish writer. It came to life only with the delivery by Martin Luther King. King gave Life to those ideas, and in a way, became the very embodiment of or even bigger than those ideas. Today, his message of Love and Peace mean nothing to most blacks who listen to rap music and demand racial favoritism. But, the cult of King-the-personality is bigger than ever. Ideas become personified, and the person becomes mythified. In the end, the meaning of the ideas takes a backseat to the Myth of those ideas as embodied by The Great Personality. Same is true of what has become of Mao in China. Chinese no longer care for his communist ideas but still revere him as a symbol of Chinese unity, glory, pride, and power. Maoism isn’t no longer about actually following Mao’s ideas by the letter but celebrating the spirit of those ideas by adapting them into symbols of nationalist power and glory.
Similarly, blacks embrace Martin Luther King personality cult not because they believe in color-blindness or peace but because the cult guarantees them automatic moral superiority and racial pride. White ‘progressives’ cling to the King cult either out of opportunism, naive idealism, or radicalism. Scared conservative opportunists want to use the King cult to argue against racial favoritism(‘content of character’ over ‘color of skin’) and to persuade blacks to choose peace over violence. Liberals cling to the King cult in the hope that some kind of racial harmony may prevail. Radicals want to use the King cult as a Trojan Horse tactic to fool white people into dropping their guards against the rise of black and Jewish power.

Anyway, just as King imbued white liberal ideas of 60s with Music and Charisma, Obama aims to do the same today. Again, we see a similar set-up and pattern. Most of the writers are Jewish. Jews have great intellect and cunning but not much in the way of charisma. Blacks have that hormone charged intensity but aren’t much for ideas. We saw this in pop music too. Brill Building was largely made up of Jewish songwriters, but many of the singers were black. Jews supplied the songs, and blacks delivered the performances. Of course, Jews did this with whites too. Jewish Hollywood came up with screenplays but found big tall handsome goyim to bring the pages to life. Ayn Rand the Jewess wrote the novel and screenplay of "The Fountainhead" but big tall handsome Gary Cooper brought it to life. Milton Friedman was the funny looking yoda-like man of ideas behind Reaganomics, but Reagan was the man who gave it a face that inspired millions. Jews are brilliant, smart, and/or cunningl but tend to be gnome-like and funny looking. They need to partner up with the ‘Aryan’ or the ‘Negro’. In the past, Jews used ‘Aryans’ like Charlton Heston to popularize their artistic ideas and political values. Today, ‘Aryans’ have been vilified and dehumanized while Negroes have been elevated in their place. But, the people who are still financing this and writing the script are the Jews. Even in the conservative movement, the writers have often been people like David Frum, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, etc.

Many white liberals and leftists see themselves as people of brilliance, knowledge, intelligence, and ideals. But, they feel that they themselves lack either charisma or the moral right to preach to the world about a Better Future. After all, leftist history says white people are to blame for all the evils in the world. Of course, Jews are exempt from ‘white guilt’ but good many of them tend to look funny and have annoying public personas. Anyway, most white people feel that they don’t have the right to be moral leaders or exemplars because of the morally stained history of white people.
With white liberals, the problem is compounded by the fact that they’ve also burdened also themselves with American guilt, whereby Americans are supposed to apologize to the rest of world, especially to Europeans, for being too powerful, being too rich, and consuming too much.
Therefore, many ‘progressives’ have wanted a ‘person of color’–innocent of the sins of Western History–to lead the way, but most blacks turned out to be crazy and unfit for this role. Even Martin Luther King, observed closely, was a scumbag in private life. Liberals felt they had the message but not the proper messenger nor the ‘perfect storm’ through which their ideas could be embraced by most people. Of course, conservatives too had a similar problem for a long time before Reagan finally came along during the Perfect Storm of 1980.
Conservatives felt they had strong and solid ideas but suffered an image problem in the 60s-70s. There was the granite-faced not-very-likable Goldwater, the dark and shadowy Nixon, and the inept Ford. The great conservative moment came when Reagan arrived on the scene just when the Carter administration was in total free fall. The Great Communicator had the physical and charismatic instruments to deliver those ideas to the public at large. He had a way of making conservative theories sound simple and accessible, even inspirational. He persuaded people as to why America needs a strong military and how that could restore American pride and power.
Just as a bomb, no matter how well-conceived, is useless without a missile to deliver it to its target, an idea is useless unless there is a personality that can deliver it far and wide to the public. Otherwise, it remains a just another intellectual idea or policy proposal. Conservatives really had to wait until 1980 for a man like Reagan to arrive.

Democrats thought their star had arrived with Clinton, but Billy boy turned out to be too rascally and childish(and out of control). Clinton let everyone down. So, Obama is the New Hope. If Clinton was the first black white president(prone to reckless self-destruction), Obama is like the first white black president(disciplined in terms of what he needs to do). Therefore, many liberals are crazy about Obama for this reason for the Messiah of the Great Liberal Message has finally arrived.
Obama is the great missile that white liberals–especially the Jews–have been waiting for all these yrs to carry their message all the way to the Moon. He is the political equivalent of the Final Frontier. He’s the (Rock)Star Child of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

White liberals have had Grand Ideas they’d wanted to implement for a long time but all their missiles proved to be duds or faulty. Duds were Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The ambitious but ultimately flawed missile was Clinton. There was Hillary with the Great Healthcare Plan but she lacked the charisma and ‘character’ to deliver it on target to the American public. Many people just didn’t warm to her nor trust her. They saw her as overly shrewd, cold, arrogant, and calculating. (Obama is no different but he knows how to seem different, at least to all the dupes out there.)
But, liberals now have Obama, perfect in the age of Will Smith, Oprah, and Hip Hop(when most young white people are more into blackness than whiteness). He’s supposed to be the super missile that delivers all the Neo-New Deal ideas right on target. Liberals are further emboldened by the fact that 2008 has been a year of the Perfect Storm. 8 yrs of Bush made the white male unfashionable. Bush was a poor missile who never hit the target; his public persona was especially a disaster. His words seem to drip out of his mouth like saliva. The Iraq War as long, painful, and costly. The economic meltdown of 2008 played into liberal hands since the blame usually goes to the party in power. McCain had the wrong image–weak voice, old face, wobbly body, etc–in a nation that’s into hip hop culture and youth narcissism. Also, Obama as a missile could rely on support of the launching pad and airspace–liberal Jewish controlled media and academia.

Anyway, when white liberals and leftists see Obama, they don’t just see a fellow duplicitous subversive radical, but the deliverer that has finally arrived to take the liberal (Jewish) ideas to their intended targets. He is the giant mythical bird that has finally arrived to take liberal ideas to the promised land. He’s supposed to finally finish what FDR started, what Kennedy failed to achieve due to the assassination, what LBJ failed to accomplish due to Vietnam War, what King failed to reach due to assassination, what Robert J. Kennedy failed to bring forth due to assassination, what Humphrey failed to do thanks to 60s out-of-control radicalism, what Carter failed to do due to his incompetence and bad luck, what Clinton failed to do thanks to his self-destructiveness, what Gore failed to do thanks to GOP having ‘stolen’ the election. In the liberal Grand Narrative, history was stolen from them by tragedies, accidents, bad luck, recklessness, etc. Obama is supposed to embody the perfect balance between white and black, between religious and secular, between national and international, between elitism and egalitarianism, between intellectualism and populism, between confidence and humility, between hip and the hop. So the stupid liberals think in their Hollywood-induced fantasies, as though mankind can be redeemed by mindless social engineering and pop-political gimcracks.

No less funny was the delusions of the Bush administration and many gentile whites in this country. White gentiles still seem to think they control America when they do not. The rulers of this country are liberal and leftist Jews. Liberal and leftist Jews dominate Ideas, Education, Information, Knowledge, History, and what we see, hear, and read. NY, the financial and intellectual capital, is mostly Jewish. LA, the pop cultural capital, is mostly Jewish. Northwest Coast, the center of high-tech billionaires, is dominated by Jews. Pharmaceutical companies are dominated by Jews. Most Jews are liberal or leftist. Most of the powerful lawyers are Jewish.
Yet, people like Bush and McCain still act as though white gentiles have all the power and therefore must be generous, kind, and tolerant of other people WHEN IN FACT the real people in power are the liberal and left-wing Jews(and their brainwashed goy allies and puppets)whose determined goal is to destroy and bring down white power, white interests, white unity, white pride, and the white race.

There’s a weird relationship between gentile whites and Jews, especially in the GOP. Though Jews are the most powerful people in this country, the political charade between white gentiles and Jews requires that white gentiles pretend that they have the power(and therefore must be overly kind and generous to others) in exchange for Jewish financial and intellectual support.
We have pretty much the same situation in Hollywood where Jews have the money and power, but they put forth bigshot gentile stars who give the false impression that Hollywood is dominated by people like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie. As the public face of Hollywood, gentiles are supposed to act like they rule and control Hollywood(and therefore be exposed to endless scrutiny and accountability)whereas the truly powerful Jews remain behind the scenes and amass bigger fortunes and gain greater power without any scrutiny whatsoever. We can see this with guys like Charlie Rose too. Having Charlie Rose as interviewer gives the impression that WASPS still control the media, but he’s just a puppet of Jews who really control the media. Well, that’s just how it goes.