The Myth of the Monroe Doctrine and Its Power.

in the historical and political consciousness of the americas there has been the idea of the monroe doctrine dominating the geopolitics of the entire region. the understanding is that united states has been the hegemon dictating policies to all other nations, even playing an imperial and bullying role. but, how much truth is there in this?

first off, this topic interested me when pat buchanan recently said that russia should have control of eastern europe and central asia in the way that US has control over all of the americas.
morally, this seems a dubious proposition, a notion based solely on 'might is right'. according to buchananism, america should ignore small and weak nations and deal only with big important ones... as long as the big nation is NOT at war with the US. this is a reiteration of buchanan's point about Nazi Germany in 'Republic, Not an Empire'. in that book, UK and france--and certainly not the US--should NOT have stood in hitler's invasion of Poland. germany was big and strong, poland was weak and backward. let germans kill and conquer all those polacks; it's none of our business. following buchanan's logic, US should have looked the other way when China was supporting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, leading to the deaths of 2 million out of 7 million. since china is big and important and cambodia is small and unimportant, so what if china is supporting mass murder in a small country... as long as china is willing to do business with the US.
anyway, the same attitude that buchanan has about nazi germany, he now has about putin's russia. since it's no longer communist, russia is the new white-knight-right nation in europe. and since its borders are threatened by all those chinese--just as american whites are threatened by all those mexicans--american white right should unite with russian white right. together, they should act for racial-national self-interest. there is some validity to this argument... but not when the moral dimension is completely ignored.

america's power in the world hasn't been founded only on military might but on fairness and moral values. sure, america hasn't been perfect, and there are many anti-americans around the world. still, most people know that US saved the world from both nazism and communism in WWII and its aftermath. even those who bitch about the US would prefer americanism over nazism or communism. US didn't just win the Cold War with better weapons and a larger economy but with superior moral values. when reagan called soviet union an 'evil empire', he was making a moral statement. and framed in such manner, it was not just a political but moral victory over communism. but, buchanan wants the american role in the world to be only self-serving, cynical, and mercenary. if a big nation stomps on small weak ones, US should deal with the big nation and ignore the plight of the small ones.
this is like saying if there's a big important rich guy who exploits poor people, we should deal only with the big rich guy and ignore the poor people exploited under him.
this is so un-american. i'll be the first to admit that there are limits to idealism. and naive idealism often does more harm than good. BUT, idealism and moral values should play SOME role in american foreign policy. otherwise, US is not a nation of just values and fairness but just a big rich powerful nation who chums up with other big powerful nations.
is this the kind of nation we want the US to be?
now, it's true that big powerful nations exert great deal of influence on its neighbors, but not all such influence are of the same kind. american influence over canada and mexico cannot be compared with nazi influence over poland and czechoslovakia, nor with soviet-russian influence over hungary or estonia.
american influence over its neighbors is partly justified because america is a fair and just nation. in contrast, russian, chinese, and nazi german influence on neighboring nations have been war-mongering, murderous, and imperialist.
if buchanan says US role in the americas is of the same kind as russian influence over its neighbors, he has very little respect for america.
that's like comparing the influence a husband has on a wife with the power that a pimp has over a prostitute. to say that russian bullying of its neighbors is no different than american influence on its neighbors is to say that US has indeed been a bullying, murderous, and imperialist power in the americas. if buchanan is right, then che guevara is also right--with different conclusion. buchanan says US owns the americas and should be left alone to do as it pleases. similarly, all of central asia and eastern europe falls under the sphere of russian influence so russia should have a free hand.
i can see the need for realpolitik and cold-eyed thinking in politics, but when such is the ONLY way to see the world, then america will NOT be a special nation but just a big thug among other big thugs. what US must do is balance idealism with realism. too much of the former gets us into quagmires like iraq. too much of the latter will turn america into just another china or russia or nazi germany--a nation without scruples that will do anything for national interest. the fact is we can have both. we can realistically deal with russia while supporting freedom movements in central asia and eastern europe. as long as we don't overplay either hand, US can maintain both its tough realistic policy and its unique idealism. sure, we may look a bit hypocritical but all nations understand that no nation can be totally good.

the more important question is has the monroe doctrine really been the nature of the relationship between US and latin america? or, has it mainly been a myth.
yes, it's true that there has been great deal of american investment in latin nations but this didn't come about due to american military pressure but simply because latin nations were unable to build certain industries on their own. so, they relied on american companies to extract certain minerals, oil, and other natural resources. in due time, american business did gain great influence in the region, but this is par for the course in such relationship. it had little to do with the monroe doctrine.
also, latin weakness was the product of its own history. if US and Canada were settled and developed by forward-looking anglo-americans and some french, much of latin america was settled by reactionary and feudalistic spanish and portuguese elites. also, if US and Canada was both predominantly white and united culturally, racially, and nationally, much of latin america was divided along three layers of whites-at-top, mestizo-in-the-middle, and indians-at-the-bottom. and in brazil, cuba, venezuela, and some other places there were also many blacks.
so, due to the racial/cultural divisions, much of latin america lagged behind and stagnated under a climate of mutual hostility, distrust, and suspicion. indeed, suppose US had been 1/4 white, 1/4 white/indian mixed, 1/4 indian, and 1/4 black; it would have been a historical mess and failure. US did have a large black population, but the racist ideology of the US discouraged race mixing and so the white majority had a clear sense of its identity, values, and future. if US had promoted race mixing like brazil, it could today be like brazil.

anyway, american role and influence in latin nations have been vastly exaggerated. and one of the reasons has been that the white latin elites have been eager to deflect the blame for all the problems onto the lap of america. like che guevara said of latin americans, there is no white, no indian, just mestizo. nice try!! according to che and even the latin right, all latinos--whites, mixed, or indian--should be united as victims of evil gringo USA.
this would be like american whites saying there are no whites and no blacks in america. only mulattos who are oppressed by the chinese.
the fact is latin whites felt shame for their lack of progress, for their history of oppression, for their backwardness, weakness, corruption, etc. yet, they didn't want to face the guilt and responsibility. so, it was fashionable to adopt marxism or (simon)bolivarism, feel washed of the guilt of the past, pretend to stand to for the revolutionary future, and then blame US as the villain standing in the way of progress.
given this mindset and worldview, it became convenient for latinos to explain all their failings and weakness on the monroe doctrine. yes, it was US that kept latin america weak, it was the US that forbade latinos to make progress, it was the US that kept latin america poor; and latin elites were corrupt because they were supported by US power.
it was all america's fault. of course, all the problems that latin america is facing today were deeply entrenched in the latin americas way before US gained the hegemonic role in the hemisphere. as spain and portuguese settled in the americas first and had a decisive headstart, they had every opportunity to be the dominant power in the americas. they failed due to their own problems. US may have taken advantage of latin weakness but US didn't cause that weakness. and without US investment, latin america today would be even poorer and more backward.
just look at cuba, a nation liberated from US imperialism. and notice that venezuela, while condemning capitalism, is making all its wealth by selling oil to capitalist nations like the US. without evil US to buy the oil, what economy would venezuela have? without foreign multi-nationals to drill the oil and set up the industry in the first place, what economy would venezuela have? also, if US imperialism is so evil, how come Chile, which does business with the US, is doing so well? and, hasn't south korea made great strides thru its business with the US? certainly more so than north korea, a communist paradise free of american imperialist influence.

even more surprising is the fact that despite the so-called monroe doctrine, american involvment in europe and asia has been much greater. if anything, europe and asia have been america's 'bitches' much more than latin america. US entered europe twice in the 20th century. first in WWI and then in WWII. following WWII, US maintained a significant military presence in western europe. and post-war recovery and political stability in europe largely depended on US aid, US advice, US influence, and US pressure. if anything, US influence and pressure were much greater on western europe during and after WWII than in any part of latin america.
monroe doctrine said european influence was not welcome in the americas, but in the 20th century, europe pretty much became US's 'bitch'; in the 20th century; it's as though monroe doctrine applied more to europe than to latin america(meaning US would not tolerate nazi or communist rule in western europe and would use military power to defeat Nazi germany and hold USSR at bay) western europe was saved from nazism and then from communism under US presence, pressure, and protection.
yet, no one calls this american-influence-on-europe a form of imperialism. of course, western europe following WWII made great strides, built up their economies, and became stable democracies. these goodies eluded the nations of latin america. so, one is tempted to conclude that americans treated western europeans as equals while treating latinos as inferior imperial subjects. but, this is not true. the reason why western europe recovered quickly and made great strides is that they were populated by talented, skilled, intelligent, serious, and united peoples. when US aid and investment poured into europe, much of it was used intelligently and seriously. also, US investment served as an inspiration for europeans to learn, imitate, and compete.
in contrast, aid given to latin nations were largely lost thru corruption. and latin elites weren't industrious in trying to emulate the american economic model, learn skills, and compete with america. rather, they were happy to let americans to build all the industries, get a share of the profit, and live well. as for the poor masses, the latin elite didn't care to educate them or invest in them. if europe after WWII had been populated by the kind of people in latin america, marshall plan would have gone down the drain. it would all have been wasted.

anyway, it wasn't just europe but asia that became america's 'bitch'. though there had been military incursions by the americans in parts of latin america, america was never engaged in a truly mega-military way in the region. US never invaded huge territories or defeated huge armies in the latin americas. the exceptions could be made of mexico during the mexican-american war, the spanish-american war, invasion of grenada, and invasion of panama. but all these were limited and local wars or military actions.
in contrast, US was engaged in a Total way in the pacific region. in WWII, US totally crushed japan. and until the communist takeover of china, much of asia was under US sphere of influence, much more so than latin america. so, the so-called monroe doctrine was applied more to western europe and asia than to latin america. instead of US-to-south influence, american influence has been more US-to-east and US-to-west.
in both western europe and asia, US involvement and presence was total.
germany following WWII was essentially a US military base, and germans had to swallow their pride and just live with it; it was relatively easy to do since the alternative was falling under russian domination. and even with china falling to communism, US military, political, and economic influence and presence was very great in japan, south korea, taiwan, philippines, all of southeast asia(except vietnam when it fell to communism).
if US policy on latin america was the monroe doctrine, let's call the american policy on europe the marshall doctrine(based on the general), and let's call american policy on asia the mccarthur doctrine. all in all, the marshall doctrine and mccarthur doctrine was much more heavy handed and 'pushy' and 'bullying' than the monroe doctrine. yet, western europe and asia made much more progress than latin america. latin america blamed US 'imperial' bullying for all its troubles, yet such 'imperial' bullying and pressure seem to have done wonders for western europe and asia. so, the real problem facing latin americas has never been US bullying or imperialism, but its own failings. had US never ever engaged in any part of latin america in any way, does anyone think latin american politics would be cleaner, economies more functional, populations more united and law-abiding, etc? i think not.
indeed, all over latin america, certain groups succeed a lot more than other groups. i dare say that if a nation like peru were populated with only jews or germans and had to deal with the same old US policy, that nation would be first rank economy and a democracy in 50 yrs. it's the people and culture, not US policy.
US policy can be same to nations A, B, and C. if nation A makes it while nations B and C don't, it says more about the problems inherent in nation B and C than in the US policy.
marshall plan will not work in africa because africans are corrupt, childish, unintelligent idiots.
latin america is diverse, so some nations--generally those with more whites--and certain populations within a nation--mostly jews, asians, germans, etc--have done much better than others.

what i find rather funny about latin american complaints about american imperialism is that latin american nations are still in the stage of imperialism. when the era of imperialism/colonialism ended in africa and asia, white europeans all went home--even those settlers who had lived in the colonies for many generations. all brits left kenya and india, all french left algeria and vietnam.
yet, why are spanish and portuguese whites still in the latin americas? if people like che and castro are really the enemies of imperialism, they should take their white asses back to spain, just like white french left algeria.
it's funny that 'liberation' movement in latin american nations have almost all been led by latin whites. this would be like white british or white french leading the struggle for kenyan or algerian liberation, and then playing the dominant roles in government after the 'liberation'.
because of the myth of american imperialism, latin imperialist whites who'd done so much to oppress and exploit the native populations have created this notion that ALL people--latino whites, imported blacks, and indigenous indians--of the latin americas are equal victims of gringo aggression and exploitation. this is alot of crap, of course.
this would be like the french in algeria telling algerians that they are all victims of german or american imperialism and therefore must unite and defend algeria from the bad guys.
to their credit, algerians nor the vietnamese would have fallen for this crap, yet so many indigenous folks of the americas have bought these lies.

also, if latin america is really to be liberated in the way that asia, middle east, and africa were liberated, not only the whites but blacks ought to leave. after all, the british brought many asian-indians to work and settle in africa, but when african gained their independence, africans kicked out not only the british but the hindus.
blacks were brought to the americas by whites as hindus were brought to africa. if africans had the right to kick out both the whites and hindus, why don't the indigenous folks of latin america have the right to kick out both whites and blacks?

historical consciousness is just alot of bullshi*.

Why Did So Many Jews Become Communists?

the west has been faced with two semitic threats. actually three if we include christianity. jesus christ was a jew, or a semite. the religion that he founded came to the official religion of almost all of europe, wiping out all the indigenous religions, myths, and gods of the europeans. but in time, europe and christianity become synonymous. europe became thorougly christian. also, as christianity was a universalist moral creed without stress on culture, europeans were able to preserve or revive much that was distinctly european in conjunction with christianity.

but, marxism and islam have a different history in europe. both have challenged the christian-eurpean order, but neither have been accepted by the majority of europeans--except in russia--as "our" culture. they were seen as hostile, alien, subversive, dangerous, inhuman, etc.
during the cold war, eastern/central europe was under communist rule but the majority of the people under soviet occupation didn't embrace communist identity; they more or less correctly regarded communism as a leftwing jewish & russian imperialism. the majority of people during the cold war wanted to be delivered from communism--as most greeks during the ottoman rule wanted to be liberated from the turks. similarly, russians never accepted mongols as legitimate rulers of russia.

both islam and marxism were essentially 'semitic' challenges to the west(mongols were the asiatic challenge to the west). no people wanted to be ruled or dominated by others, but when french or the dutch were under german rule, it was still a case of europeans ruling over europeans. it was bad europeans ruling over other europeans, but it was an european affair.
islam, on the other hand, was seen as an alien, foreign, non-european, and anti-european force in the world. and despite the secular universalism of marxism/communism, many in europe associated it with the jews, and they were not entirely wrong in this.

in some ways, the dangers faced by the west from islamic radicals is similar to those faced by the west under the assault from radical jews.
to be sure, there are key differences.
radical jews were often anti-jewish(religiously and culturally) and assimilated into the mainstream community. karl marx regarded himself more as a german than as a jew. lenin didn't know that he was 1/4 jewish, and trotsky saw himself as a world revolutionary, not a jewish revolutionary. yet, we can argue that jewish mentality was alive and well in all three men despite their conscious beliefs.
they didn't see themselves as jews nor as fighting for jewish interests. soviet jews were more likely to see themselves as russian revolutionaries than as jewish revolutionaries. one can find certain similarities in the structural mentalities of hebraism and marxism, but the idea among radical jews was that they were no longer jews but members of the brotherhood of man or some such.
in contrast, muslims are very much aware of their muslim-ness and fighting for islamic interests, power, and priorities. if marxism was a case of radical assimilationism--with jews assimilating totally into the nation and all people of the nation assimiliating into communism--, islam is about radical anti-assimilation-ism. radical muslims do not want to become part of european culture, christian or secular. to be sure, there is an element of reverse-assimilationism in radical islam; even as muslims refuse to join the european cultural community, some muslims are eager to convert europeans toward islam; in this regard, radical islam has something in common with marxism. marxism was both assimilationist and reverse-assimilationist--jews melting into the national or international community and majority populations forced to melt into communist ideology and system.

another key difference between the challenge of radical jewism and radical islam is the cultural and political climate of europe. during the late 19th and first half of the 20th century, many people in europe were comfortable with imperialism and racial consciousness. and it was widely fashionable to speak ill of jews as finance capitalists, bloodsuckers, or commie subversives. european nations were nationalistic, confident, strong, arrogant, and cocksure of their destiny and values. WWI dampended much of this, but much of the old passions and prejudices survived. even after the shock of WWII, many supported the idea of 'white man's burden', white man's superiority, western supremacy, jewish wickedness, and so on. it was really with the devastation of WWII which really changed european thinking. the reasons were obvious. (1). hitler represented white supremacism and racial imperialism at their extremes and they were not pretty. on one level, hitler was seen as the enemy of european civilization but on another, he was seen as the logical product of european imperialism and racism. so, europeans felt not just shame over the dead jews but imperialism and racism all over the world against africans, arabs, asians, etc. after hitler, it was harder to maintain the notion of white man's civilizating role in the world.
(2). european nations were weakened and lost their empires. as europeans now needed to deal with the world on a more equal footing, they had to be more diplomatic and emphasize the equality of all men. this applied not just to international diplomacy but to domestic affairs. immigrant workers, for example, had to be treated with respect and tolerance.
(3). the people who were victimized terribly in WWII were the jews, a very talented and smart people. in time, they would become the most powerful group in the most powerful nation on earth. jewish intellectuals would also continue to be important in the USSR. and even as the jewish population in europe had been greatly diminished, many jews would play very prominent roles in the brain centers of europe. as jews had been victimized by white racism, they used all their power and might to reduce or castrate white power or racial consciousness. in time, most white people were riddled with guilt, pussified, and ever-so-cautious-to-make-any-'racist'-remark. so, europeans, who had been so cocky, arrogant, confident, and proud became, in time, guilt-ridden, liberalish, goo goo, wimpy, tail-between-the-legs, and such.
so, the muslims didn't face the kind of animosity faced by jews in the late 19th and early 20th century. to be sure, there was some degree of discrimination and many tensions between immigrants and local native toughs. but, respectable and official society frowned upon and/or condemned all signs of 'racism'. the powers-that-be were on the side of the muslim immigrants. this has been the case in france, UK, denmark, belgium, holland, sweden, germany, etc.
so, one could argue that muslims, unlike jews, were 'spoiled' by european nations. they were allowed many liberties and privileges. they were not constantly criticized, condemned, and mocked like jews had been during the late 19th century. and, europeans were very sensitive toward muslims feelings and sentiments.
then, one must ask why did muslims become as hostile and dangerous as leftwing jews?

it's often been said that the reason why so many jews turned hostile and vicious is because the majority goyim were hostile and vicious. kicked about here and there, beaten up, discriminated against, and so on, jews finally had enough and chose a radical course to create a just society where people wouldn't treat one another like shi*. according to this narrative, jews learned that making money wasn't enough. no matter how much money or power a jew gained, he would always be seen as a jew. only solution for jews in the long run was communism which would do away with all national and religious affiliations or consciousness; there would only be humanity. also, class hierarchy must also go cuz such would lead to certain groups exploiting others and lead to resentment. for marx, a rich jew was no more safe than a poor jew. the resentful goyim would yell, 'hey look, a rich jew! let's kick his ass!'
there is some truth to this explanation as to why jews turned radical. but, there are other reasons. jewish personality at the biological level is wiley, abrasive, violent, aggressive, restless, irreverent, and disrespectful. not all jews are like this but enough are to make for a rather rage-filled and righteous community. alan dershawitz was born to be an asshole. he's not a communist nor necessarily a radical but he thrives on confrontation. he likes to make other people his bitch. he loves to show off his wit and intelligence. he is to law what ron jeremy is to porn. he likes to dickslap us.

also, jews are very proud people and the idea of simply melting in dimwit goyim society pathetic and insulting to many jews. if jews were to melt in with the goyim, it had to be on jewish terms. jews had to cook up the theory which would bring mankind together.
indeed, one wonders why so many american jews have been so vile and hateful toward the US. we can understand jewish hatred of russia and poland, but why such hatred for the US which was so nice to the jews? so, we must conclude that jewish or semitic personality played a big role in jewish relation to goy kind. jews struck at goyim cuz goyim were nasty, but goyim also struck at jews cuz jews were nasty. cuz jews were smaller in number, they got the worst of it thru history--except early yrs of communism when radical jews really had russia in the palms of their hands--and came to be seen as victims; but if jews had been in the majority they would have been no less nasty to dimwit goyim; perhaps more so.

muslims who immigrated to europe faced much less or no blatant discrimination, hostility, or such from the majority population. if such feelings existed, they were suppressed by the major political, cultural, and social institutions. most such institutions were run by liberal or leftwing bureaucrats. so, it's puzzling as to why so many muslims are so hateful toward europe.
if radical jews became hateful because of goy hostility, it seems as though radical muslims became hateful because of european generosity.
one may hate the enemy's power but despise the enemy's weakness even more.
both jews and muslims are a proud people. jews traditionally believed that they were the chosen people of the one and only god. so, they hated the fact that christians--who usurped the jewish religion--would call jews 'christ killers' and 'leeches'. and jews hated the power of the lowlife goyim.
muslims are also a proud people. they believe that muhammad was the last and final prophet; his truth is THE truth. and, muslims have traditionally seen christians/europeans as their main enemies or rivals. but, his hatred of christians/europeans was also mixed with admiration, respect, and awe. islam reveres militaristic power, and eurpean imperialism was truly badass. but, when muslims arrived in the europe of postwar era, they found alot of europeans who were wimpy, self-loathing, flaky, decadent, frivolous, spoiled, childish, etc. muslims no longer saw europeans and the west as forces to fear(and respect) but something to despise and look down upon. but, what was frustrating was that this decadent, prideless, self-loathing west still remained far richer, far more powerful, and far more influential than the proud and heart-thumping nations of islam and arabia. how could this be? something was terribly wrong.
it was also humiliating to be whupped by israeli jews in the wars of 1948 and 1967--indeed, muslims had been used to seeing jews as a bunch of wimpass accountants or merchants. but, at the very least, the jews of israel were militarist, proud, nationalistic, and such; so, israeli-jweish power made sense; jews were powerful because they were proud and confident.
but, how could the west continue to be so strong and mighty when so much of it looked mindless, pussy, drugged out, gay-ish, metro-sexualish, and feminized? so, the muslim mind went schizo. west looked weak but was still strong. muslim nations looked strong but were weak. for all of nasser and hussein's saber rattling, they were leaders of third rate powers.
in the 60s to the 80s, there was the idea that muslim nations would become rich, strong, and such under the rule of secular or revolutionary leadership. but, when guys like nasser, ben bella, assad, shah of iran, hussein, and others all failed to accomplish this, there was a growing sense that the only way muslim nations can stand up in the world is by adhering more closely to islam. the secular leaders has argued that islamism--at least as a national ideology--were archaic and held their nations back. but, when they failed to key wars or build genuinely powerful nations that could stand up to israel or to the west, there was a revival of islamism.
this is why the nuke is so important to iran. when the muslims came to power in iran and set up a theocracy, they promised an iran that would be richer, more powerful, and etc. but, iran remained backward. militarily, it lost to iraq in a bloody war. and so, more and more iranians have grown disgruntled with the claims of islamicism. so, the iranian leadership need something big and powerful to demonstrate to their people that islamicism does indeed lead to mighty powerfulness. and the short cut is to have the bomb. it's the equivalent to a poor, uneducated, and weak man proving his manhood by unzipping fly and saying 'at least i got a big dick'.
iran wants a big dick if nothing else. the big dick will justify islamic rule.
of course, the lure of the bomb-as-short-cut-to-legitimizing-tyranny(the big dick strategy) has been employed by stalin, mao, hindus, pakis, and north korea. notice that when israel attained the bomb, it kept it a secret. israel was a success story in terms of social, economic, and political power; israelis had plenty to be proud of even without the bomb. the bomb was a just-in-case weapon. but, for failed states, the bomb is the only thing they can hold up to justify the current rule.
US was an economic and social success, and so didn't need to have endless military parades.
USSR was an economic and social basketcase and had to rely extensively on military parades with giant big dick missiles. it was like saying, 'we may not be as rich as you guys but our dicks are bigger'.

anyway, back to the question as to why so many jews became communists.
was it partly because judaism isn't conversionary? suppose judaism had been conversionary? jews could have remained jews and dreamt of world power by converting others to judaism. indeed, christians and muslims don't have to adopt an ideology such as communism in order to gain great power in the world. their goals are to convert other peoples to their faiths. jews could never gain world power way cuz judaism is only for jews. so, for jews to play the kind of role that christians and muslims played, they needed a conversionary faith. indeed, one could argue that christianity was the first of its kind. jesus was a jew who wanted to turn everyone into a jew--reformulated to be sure. but, most jews opted out of this. most denounced jesus and colluded with the romans to have him killed. in time, it was the pagans who adopted christianity, and so a jewish-based religion came to oppress jews for millenia. this rejection of conversionary universalism haunted the jews all throughout history. as long as jews were content to stick together and maintain their jewishness, it didn't matter if they had power over others. what jews wanted was to be left alone, to be free from persecution. they wanted power over their own lives and community, not power in the whole world. yet, this was impossible cuz jews didn't have a homeland of their own and were forced to live amongst other people. and, with the coming of modern assimilationism of the 19th century, jews couldn't simply think or be jewish. they had to redefine their belief systems so as to merge with the rest of society. there was basically two forms of assimilation--religious, by which a jew turned christian, or secular, whereby a jew entered a profession in goy society and adopted modernity. in both cases, jews had to become part of goy-defined society. jews may have excelled at this--indeed become better christian theologians or better doctors/professors/scientists--but, jews had to play by goy rules and serve the goy worldview. so, neither assimilationism into christianity nor into secularism was satisfying to many jews.

in some ways, commuism was a secular ideology. but, as a form of radicalism, it was too dogmatic and 'religious' to be bunched together with, say, becoming a doctor or accountant in a modern cosmopolitan and individualist society. it was an iron faith. one had to convert to it totally as one would convert to islam or christianity. a muslim or christian believes in only one god and that jesus is the messiah or muhammad is the greatest/final prophet. similarly, marxism isn't the kind of secualrism that allows open minds and discourse. there is only one correct theory and one must believe it or else. so, communism was a neo-religion. and it was appealing to jews cuz it finally gave them the kind of power held by christians and muslims.
a jew as a jew was always at a disadvantage vis-a-vis christians and muslims who, thru conversion, always vastly outnumbered the jews.
a jew as a jew, no matter how radical or aggressive, cannot win the world. at best, he can win a place of his own--like israel. indeed, zionism, for all its aggressiveness, was an inward looking movement for a little bitty place for jews.
in contrast, when a muslim becomes radical and aggressive, he has world conquest on his mind. he knows that he can spread the faith thru jihad, war, terrorism, rallies, speeches, pamphlets, internet, etc.
christians have the same kind of advantage with their faith.
so, neither a muslim nor a christian needs communism to dream of taking over the world.
the only way jews can dream of world power is to adopt something like communism. such ideology would be invented by a radical jew, shaped and led by mostly jewish intellectuals and radicals. and, other people could be converted to it.

now, suppose judaism had been conversionary. would jews have entered communism in such great numbers? of course, this question is rather silly. had jews been conversionary, jews as we know of them would have become extinct long time ago. suppose when jesus preached a new kind of judaism, most jews jumped on the bandwagon. then, jews might have led that movement for quite a long time. but, with more and more goyim converting to this universal judaism, there would have been no traditional judaism or jewish identity left.
still, suppose in the early 19th century, judaism changed into a universal religion and stressed converting non-jews toward judaism. would the appeal of communism have been as strong for many jews? did many jews reject judaism mainly because it was reactionary/superstitious or because it was limited in gaining power in the world?
similarly, suppose islam hadn't been conversionary but only applied to a single tribe in the middle east. in the modern world, would many muslims have rejected it and embraced a radical secular ideology?

indeed, we can see the problems of judaism when we examine nazism. nazis, like the jews, felt special and unique. yet, they also wanted world power.
jews had traditionally been content to be unique and left alone in their own world. christians had been universalist/embracing and out to conquer/convert(conquert?) the world. there was a consistency in the world outlooks of both jews and christians. jews said leave us alone and we'll be content among ourselves. and christians said we'll spread our word and power because all people are god's children. nazis said we are special and unique but we should rule over other people. the problem of the nazis illustrates that jews could not conquer the world as jews. if jews had strived for world power as jews, they would have ended up like the nazis. yet, if jews had only remained jews, they would have been mired in backwardness and in the old way. as for assimilation, it was humiliating for a proud people--as it is for many muslims who feel superior to europeans--, and there was also bad faith among the goyim as even assimilated jews often faced discrimination--not least because jews were much more successful in many fields than their christian counterparts.
then, it's understandable why communism was appealing for many jews. it had an element of assimilationism in that jews and goyim would come together. but, the rule of this unity would be formulated by radical jews. jews wouldn't melt into the goy order but create a new order into which goyim would be converted or forced to join. so, it was both assimilationist and conquering--humanity would come together according to the rules set by radical jews. but, communism also retained elements of judaism and was appealing to jews for that reason. traditional jews were into hair splitting talmudic scholarship, and communism was a very intellectual ideology where intellectuals would rule and set the agenda. since the jews were the most intellectualish of peoples, they were bound to dominate this new ideology. communist jews violently rejected and repressed judaism, but many of their jewish habits carried on in the practice of marxist intellectualism.

the old testament tells of man's fall and ejection from the garden. jews have never accepted the world or humanity as it is. rather, jews have been more interested in what the world should be or was before the fall or what man should be than is. jews have been obsessed with abstract principles and ideals than with man as man or world as world.
and, this worldview extended thru communism. capitalism accepts human nature for what it is and believes in a live-and-let-live philosophy of letting people trade freely and letting the chips fall where they may. this was too random, too 'pagan', too compromised, too filthy for many jews. even as many jews had worked in finance, trade, and such, the intellectual aspect of the jewish community was disdainful of the filthyness of the world. all throughout the bible, there is a conflict in the jewish community between those who revel in the world and those who speak of a higher truth. and the bible were written by priests and prophets, not be jewish merchants. as jews got bashed here and there over and over, jews came to believe that earthly riches were temporary while god's truth was for all time. so, even rich and materialistic jews had great respect for rabbis and such.
and, this extended to modern times. many jews were happy to make money and gain material rewards. but, the jews who really captured the imagination were the communist jews. they spoke of the world not as it is but as it should be. and, the ONLY way the world could be as it should be is thru goodness triumphing over evil, not by a live-and-let-live attitude. milton friedman may be right but he offers no promise other than freedom of competition and choice. many jews wanted more. they wanted a new world, an end to history, a messianic paradise. and such could only be gained thru purity--if not of religion, than of ideology.
indeed, this probably explains why so many rich materialistic jews defer to leftist jews in the US. many jewish millionaires and billionaires fund the thinkthanks, organizations, magazines, institutions, and such dominated by leftwing jews who are hostile to capitalism. steven soderbergh has made tens or 100s of millions in hollywood but is making a movie on che guevara. why? deep inside, most jews still feel that the world is filthy. they understand that capitalism is the most productive and efficient of systems, but they also it as fundamentally savage, ugly, exploitative, trashy, etc. jews, being so intellectualish, feel that the world should conform to higher ideas rather have ideas conform to lower realities.

then, we may ask why don't jews balance their capitalism with their jewish faith?
make money outdoors and maintain faith indoors in the bosom of family and temple?
problem with this for modern jews is that judaism doesn't spiritually connect them with rest of humanity. so, marxism is still more appealing to many jews.
also, the scientism among jews makes it difficult for jews to take religions seriously. for most jews, jewishness is ethnic, not religious. being a jew may be spiritual in the sense that jews suffered so much thru history but not spiritual in the sense that jews are the children of god who doesn't even exist.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Sickness?

this is a devil's advocate argument that homosexuality is a mental disease or sickness.
personally, i'm not sure this is the case.
but, i believe one can still make a case.

now, by 'mental sickness', i don't mean that it necessarily originates from the mind.
what we know from the most advanced research is that there is no clear or distinct separation between mind and body. indeed, the mind is part of the body. so, even if the sickness doesn't originate inside the brain, it can impact the brain. that can lead to mental sickness.

consider blood poisoning. suppose someone gets a cut or abrasion in the arms, and certain metallic substances enter his bloodstream. so, the origin of his sickness is NOT mental. but, the chemicals do circulate throughout the entire body and can affect his brain functions. he may hallucinate. he may suffer from emotional or mood disorders. the effect can be longlasting or even permanent if enough poison entered and damaged his brain.
so, the origin doesn't have to be in the brain. it can be elsewhere.
or, consider someone who's been crippled in some terrible way. suppose his brain isn't damaged but he becomes paralyzed from waist down. this can lead to severe emotional or psychological distress and make him nutty.
or, it can even be behavioral. suppose you take a very healthy man but don't allow him to have sex. like a catholic priest. eventually, all that jism in his balls build up and up, and he starts feeling weird. he's so starved for pretty things that he lusts after cute little boys.
in all these cases, one can argue that these people are suffering from mental sickness or at least mental abnormality.

now, consider pewaothigs(people who are, among other things, gay). their minds may be rational and normal in most ways. but, the brain of such a person is connected to the body and biochemisty of fruitboy. so, his brain is constantly receiving biochemical signals that makes him want to do funny stuff, like sticking his dong into the anus of another guy. he CONSCIOUSLY and MENTALLY wants to do something digusting, icky, peeeewww, and ugh. this desire may not have originated in the brain itself, but the biochemistry of the fruit boy--the hormones produced by his body--make him want to do gayass stuff. doesn't that make him mentally sick?

traditionally, it was thought that mental problems originated in the mind. this was the essence of freudianism. it said that certain people underwent certain childhood traumas which led to being messed up for the rest of one's life. so, many argued that gayness was rooted in some childhood trauma. indeed, whole host of behavioral or emotional distresses were explained this way.

but, with more and more research, it was learned that alot of so-called 'mental sicknesses' couldn't be understood apart from biochemistry. a lot of people who seemed to be 'mentally sick' showed great improvement merely with certain drugs which altered the screwy biochemistry of the person. so, even a normal brain could made to perceive or think abnormally due to biochemical mess-up. if someone has a healthy normal brain but a part of his body secretes too much hormones or some other chemicals, his thinking could be affected in a negative way. he could show signs of mental malfunction or sickness.

while we cannot discount personal biography and thoughts, we now know that many mental illnesses cannot be properly understood without taking physiological aspect of the human body/mind. indeed, mind is part of the body, not apart from it.
indeed, even in the case of screwy personal biography, the impact is biochemical. suppose someone is thrown in jail and tormented by insects. this may lead to extreme chemical imbalances in his body. it may make him phobic toward certain insects. so for the rest of his life, he may harbor extreme fear of insects which are harmless enough.
so, it's not so much the remembrance of the past that affects those with emotional problems but how those memories release certain nasty chemicals in his body.

now, i don't know if gay chemicals are produced by the brain or by sexual organs. whatever the reason, it makes gays wanna do funny sexual stuff. because they CONSCIOUSLY want to do it, the gay chemicals clearly affect the mind. as such, it can be called not only a physical sickness but a mental sickness. by 'mental sickness', we don't mean it in the freudian or psychiatric sense. according to psychiatry, the problems of mental sickness is essentially or entirely biographical. if you can understand yourself, you can fix the problem. you're mentally sick or emotionally weird because you're repressing some trauma in the past, because you cannot face certain facts about yourself or your life.
there was a time when psychiatry treated homosexuality as a repressed sickness. you were a homo because you were repressing some trauma, especially in childhood.
later when homosexuality became okay, psychiatrists argued that alot of people were screwy because they were repressing their homosexuality. so, many folks say that alot of anti-gay folks are really closet gays who cannot accept the fact that they wanna boof butts.

the fact is homosexuality is essentially biochemical. one is born with it. can one become gay culturally and socially. yes, nothing is impossible. just look at catholic priests, many of whom were not born as gay or pedos. but, why are so many of them pedo-gays(as opposed to pedo-straights)? because they must repress their natural horniness for gals. guys naturally like pretty feminine folks. since catholic priests cannot lust after women, their sexual affection for feminine things is transferred to cute little boys. so, people can become sexually funny due to social pressures. but, MOST pewaothigs were born that way. they were born to feel gay lust.
it's biochemical. but, this biochemistry affects the mind as well as the body.
by this i mean that a pewaothig comes to CONSCIOUSLY to have gay desires.
indeed, sexuality is never just physical but mental. you consciously want to love a woman, a man, a child, or an animal. you can't say that a bestialist is just physically sick because he likes to hump a pig or goat. he CONSCIOUSLY wants to do it. now, there are two kinds of bestialists. while both are sick, one kind is using animals as a substitute for a human partner. suppose billy bob is horny and wants to hump mary lou. but, mary lou is going with bubba. billy bob may hump a pig and close his eyes, pretending he's doing mary lou. billy bob may not be mentally sick, just sexually desperate. indeed, alot of people who do gay stuff in prison are not really gay. they don't consciously prefer men over women. it's just that their hormones are raging and need some fuc*ing. since there aint no ho's, big strong negroes buttfuc* pretty lameass white pussyboys. so, bestial or homosexual act doesn't necessarily mean one is MENTALLY SICK with bestial or gay desires. BUT, there are people who CONSCIOUSLY desire, indeed prefer, animals or members of the same sex. such people don't just indulge in sick physical acts but desire them.
as such, one could argue that they are mentally sick. this sickness may not have originated in the brain, but whatever the chemical reasons it certainly affected the mind.
the chemicals released by the body made them wanna do sick stuff. it made them CONSCIOUSLY desire sick stuff.

suppose a doctor injects you with gay chemicals. after a week or two, suppose you wanna stick your dick up some guy's ass. though the chemical was injected into your body, it's clearly affected your mind. it makes you CONSCIOUSLY DESIRE gay ass stuff. then, it can be argued that as long as you're under the influence of those injected chemicals, you are not mentally normal.

also, 'mental sickness' doesn't necessarily mean your schizo or unable function normally in human society. indeed, most people with mental problems can function in most respects. most people who are neurotic or suffer from depression can function normally in most cases. pedophiles, likewise, have no problem navigating thru life's tasks. most mental sicknesses or abnormalites do NOT interfere with our perception of reality, doing math problems, cooking and cleaning, driving a car or operating machinery, reading a book, etc.
'mentally sick' doesn't mean you're some old lady in a mental ward who sees circles on the bedsheet or sees a giant spider that's supposed to be a god.
it doesn't necessarily mean you're mentally disturbed or violent or unable to cope or function. indeed, most mental sicknesses or abnormalities can be controlled thru self-control, medical help, or use of drugs. but, mental sickness is still mental sickness. even if you can control your pedophilia and not go out and molest chillun and even if you function mostly as normal tax paying citizen, your conscious sexual desires are sick and abnormal.
similarly, even if gays can function just like us in most respects and can think logically on just about everything like any of us, they do suffer from a psycho-sexual abnormality. again, this sickness may not have originated in the brain but in the sexual organs that produce hormones. but, these hormones, as powerful biochemicals, strongly do impact how one feels about reality. consciousness isn't just logic and reason but feeling. even if gays can add 2 + 2 like anyone else, even if gays can understand the laws of gravity like anyone else, and so on, they still feel like sticking their sexual organ up a shi*hole. because they CONSCIOUSLY feel this say, one could say that they are mentally abnormal.

again, we must no longer separate mind from body completely. while brain IS a separate organ, its mood and feelings are deeply impacted by biochemistry in the rest of the body.
also, we must understand that sickness doesn't necessarily mean being unable to function. alcoholics suffer from behavioral or even possibly genetic abnormalities, but most alcoholics can cope. sickness can be subtle, partial, or limited to a certain area. for example, a snake-ophobe is normal 99.9% of the time. but, if he's exposed to a snake or an object that looks like a snake, he's freaking out. a pewaothig is normal in most areas but when he sees some guy, he wants to stick his dong up the guy's shi*hole. or, someone suffering from diabetes can function in most respects, but he's still suffering from diabetes. it's like someone missing a finger or with a deformed finger can do most things we can, but his hand is still abnormal.
also, we must understand that not all cases of mental sickness is dangerous in the most obvious way. most mental cases are not like Jason in Friday the 13th or michael in Halloween or norman bates of Psycho. most mental abnormalities are no danger to other people. take dustin hoffman in 'rainman'. so, most pewaothigs are no danger to us directly.
they are a danger to us indirectly because their gayass ways make them superhorny and promiscuous. and gay sex is an easy way to spread diseases. when gays spread diseases in their community, it can spill over into other communities.
worse, when social activists insist that gayness is normal while those who find it disgusting are suffering from (homo)phobia, it's a total reversal of what's true and blue in this world.
nature meant for man and woman to fuc*. that produces kids. that's why we need families. family is essential to what civilization is. when social activists say homosexuality is a sound basis for marriage, then we are being led to believe that family is nothing more than some hedonistic lifestyle. this kind of loosening of basic morals can only be harmful. indeed, western societies are growing more and more decadent, diseased, and demented. it's becoming defenseless to all sorts of social maladies whether it be gayboy boofery or savage negro antics where the greatest thing to be in the world is to be either a pimp, thug, or skankass ho.

Why the Liberal Elite is NOT Bothered by Multi-Culturalism.

why are so many liberal elites not bothered by multiculturalism? by multiculturalism, i don't mean multi-racialism where people of many backgrounds melt into a unified cultural identity and set of values. i mean a condition where the concept of unified or mainstream culture is disdained in favor of a mosaic of many cultures where each of them are supposed to be equal to the other. there are leftists who support this concept in bad faith in order to cause and spread social havoc which they hope to exploit. indeed, according to this kind of left-multi-culturalism, all cultures are okay except the white 'eurocentric' kind. so, all cultures must unite against white 'eurocentrism'. this is really multi-radicalism, not multi-culturalism. indeed, women and gays are often included among the 'victim cultures'. so, if you're a white woman or white homo, you have the priviilege and honor of joining with the 'oppressed' people against white male patriarchy.
there is also tribal-multi-culturalism, a notion embraced by racial and ethnic demagogues of every cultural community. though white nationalism or tribalism is not allowed in respectable society, tribalism among non-whites--black nationalists or afrocentrists, hispanic nationalists, islamicists, asiatic nationalists, etc--is tolerated under multiculturalism. liberal multiculturalists don't like this aspect of multiculturalism. and, leftist multiculturalists support this state of affairs only in the short-run, just as bolsheviks supported anti-russian tribalisms in the russian empire as a means of overthrowing the tsarist and then the nationalist regime. bolsheviks didn't respect muslims in the border areas of the russian empire but only used them as a leverage against the central government. once the bolsheviks took power, they were far more merciless in forcing soviet policies and ideology upon the non-russians.
leftist multiculturalism is the led by and is the dream of white radicals, mainly jews.
tribal-multiculturalism is led by leaders of the non-white ethnic communities. a muslim multiculturalist uses multiculturalism to set up an islamic community in the US, not to 'celebrate diversity'. indeed, tribal multiculturalism uses american or european freedoms in order to erect barriers between itself and rest of society. such people respect multiculturalism only to the extent that it empowers them to create and maintain a world of their own; they are NOT interested in tolerating or accepting other cultures.
and leftist multiculturalism supports multiculturalism essentially as a political weapon against 'white dominated society'. other than the more anthropologically inclined, there is really no great interest among leftist multiculturalists in the cultures of different peoples. what's appealing about many cultures is how they may be exploited politically to cause social dissenssion and crisis.

but, there is a group that may called liberal multiculturalists. they are both the most sane and the most naive of the multiculturalists . they are motivated by good faith but blind. they are essentially cosmopolitans and individualists. they understand multiculturalism as individuals of various communities mingling with, learning from, being curious about, tolerant of, and welcoming of one another. as such, it may not even qualify as a real multiculturalism which emphasizes the collective over the individual. under multiculturalism, you always have a hyphen before the nationally defined noun. so, you are an african-american, arab-american, mexican-american, asian-american, etc, etc. and that cultural label is supposed to define you from inside and outside. you are supposed to define yourself as a ___-american and expected to be defined as such. to be sure, in a positive way and not in a prejudicial or chauvanistic way, but your cultural or ethnic background is supposed to matter a great deal. someone who says, 'i'm just an individual, a citizen of the world' would be eyed with suspicion--as someone led to loathe his own background or naive enough to think a person can have an identity outside history and culture.
still, liberal multiculturalism has too much individualism and cosmpolitanism at its core to really qualify as multiculturalism as we know it. and, for this reason, the debate on multiculturalism gets confused. because there are three multiculturalisms, when one is criticized many think all three are being criticized. suppose someone condemns leftist multiculturalism as politically radical and hateful; there will be liberal multiculturalists who will then mistakenly think that cosmopolitanism itself is being attacked when nothing of the kind is the case.
we can be anti-multiculturalist without being anti-multicultural. multiculturality is a fact of life of any nation. a school that has kids from many ethnic background is multicultural. when it tries to turn this diversity into political consciousness and ethnic allegiances, then it is multicultural-IST.
similar, being national isn't the same as being nationalist. being a member of a nation is to have a national identity. nationalism, on the other hand, is an overt attempt to turn national identity into a potentially dangerous political consciousness.
in this sense, US was always multicultural. yet until relatively recently, there was no overt attempt to politicize this multi-facetedness. instead, people were given the freedom to practice their cultures as long as such didn't violate the principles of american laws and values. in time, it was hoped that people of different backgrounds would come together and create a new unified america.
the emphasis was on unity and togetherness. while differences were tolerated and even, at times, celebrated, racial or ethnic groups were not encouraged to fixate on their cultural differences. organically and gradually, it was hoped that americans would form a new, more or less unified and common culture. in contrast, multiculturalism cannot allow multicultural conditions to develop organically. rather, it wants us to politically manipulate, exploit, and harness it for radical or tribal means. even this aspect of multiculturalism is nothing new as there have been mini-nationalist movements in the US such as that of marcus garvey. but, that was at the fringe of american cultural and political life. now, such may be in the mainstream.

to be sure, not all anti-multiculturalisms are alike. some attack multiculturalism from the position of cosmpolitanism and individualism. in this group, there are liberal and conservative--often libertarian--anti-multiculturalists.
other people attack multiculturalism as harmful to national unity and sense of common values. there are liberals and conservatives in this group too--samuel hungtington and arthur schlesinger.
and, some attack multiculturalism from the perspective of white nationalism or christianism; this is partly because white nationalism, christianism, or eurocentrism is one cultural or national outlook that is banned by multiculturalism. white nationalists don't care for cosmpolitanism nor for national unity; they don't wanna unite with non-whites nor care much for mingling with the peoples of the world. they wanna a world of their own, just like islamicists and black nationalists led by the likes of farrakhan.

so, unless we better identify the nature of the debate, multiculturalism will always confuse us. a cosmopolitan individualist could be attacking multiculturalism for the latter's tribalism, but someone may see it as an attack by a white supremacist on people of different races and cultures. indeed, there is even conflict within the multiculturalist camp. read 'the nation' and you come across left multiculturalists decrying the impact of tribal multiculturalists. and there are afrocentrists who despise white lefists as much as white rightists. and, there are mexican-american tribal multiculturalists who are at odds with african-american multiculturalists or with asian-american multi-culturalists. and, there are jewish-american multiculturalists who are at odds with muslim-american multiculturalists.
and, some groups exhibit more of one kind of multiculturalism than the others. generally, more educated a cultural or ethnic group tends to be, there will be more cosmpolitan multiculturalists than tribal multiculturalists. whites are not allowed to be tribal multiculturalists cuz any kind of political identity of whiteness is deemed as 'racist'. so, whites can only opt for left-multiculturalism or cosmopolitan multiculturalism. indeed, one may say harold bloom is a cosmopolitan multiculturalist in that he's interested in the cultures and literatures of all peoples. and, he's at odds with the leftist multiculturalists in the academia who wanna use culture merely as means of radicalization and culture wars.
to be sure, some whites can join in a kind of white-dominated tribal multiculturalism if they adopt as their main identity either homosexuality or womanhood. a white homo or white feminist can qualify as a victim of white male patriarchy and/or homphobia.
i suppose in times to come that some clever white pagans will also claim victimhood at the hands of christians. as such, we might have wiccan tribal multiculturalist nationalism.

anyway, why are so many liberals who are committed cosmopolitans and individualists so infatuated with multiculturalists? the answer is in cosmopolitanism and individualism itself. IF one is foremost a cosmopolitan individualist--and one who sees other people as being the same way--, then cultures and different ethnic groups are not threatening. cultures exist only to be sampled, tasted, experimented, studied. cultures don't exist as a bloc of political and social reality.
if one is rich, educated, privileged, and can afford much freedom, he or she feels above cultures, above ethnicity, above nationality. call it being aloof or being conceited. such people don't confront culture and people as they are but only as facades, as a travelogue or reading material.
when cultures are understood this way, none of them is threatening, dangerous, or worth getting alarmed about. islam doesn't mean 1.2 billion muslims and their intolerant ways; it means fine architecture, arabesque patterns, middle east cuisine, arabic poetry, syrian music, iranian cinema, etc. so, liberal multiculturalists think multiculturalism simply means more cultures to sample, to consume, to enjoy, and to ponder in literary journals. indeed, from an academic angle, aztec culture would mainly mean artwork, architecture, food, music, etc, not its bloody customs and sick values and warmongering ways.
and, if this is the essence of multiculturalism and if everyone can live the life of an aloof privileged individual, it wouldn't be so bad.
but, 99% of culturedom isn't about art, music, dress, etc. the essence of any culture is its identity, its passions, its prejudices, its agendas, its values, and its distrust of others. in other words, a traveling show of mexican arts in museums across america is not the same thing as bringing in several million mexicans. indeed, the majority of mexicans know little about their own artistic or literary tradition. many are barely literate. for most of them, mexican culture means mexican pride, mexican prejudice, mexican distrust, mexican nationalism, mexican chauvanism, mexican resentment, etc. while rich liberal multiculturalists merely sample the best of different cultures, the masses of new arrivals in the US have no such awareness nor interest in such matters. indeed, a liberal multiculturalist in the US who had regularly read literary journals will almost certainly have a better knowledge of chinese history and culture than most chinese immigrants who come to the US. for your average chinese immigrant, being chinese means being proud, resentful, chauvanistic, prejudiced, suspicious, etc.
same thing with italian-americans. how many of italian-american immigrants studied latin, read decameron or virgil, knew anything much about the romans or about the ruins around their home village? for most of them, being italian meant more power and clout to italians, serving the tribal interests of italians or italian-americans.
indeed, this is true of americans as well. how many americans really know or care much about their own history, heritage, literature, music, etc? indeed, how many americans even know or care much about first half of the 20th century? for most americans, american culture is a set of american interests, prejudices, social rituals, commonly shared symbolism, and so on. indeed, a french or japanese historian of america knows more about american high culture than americans.
but, it would be foolish for the french or japanese scholar to mistake most of american with american high culture. most of russia was not dostoyevsky and tchaikovsky. and most of america is not william faulkner and william james. most americans never read faulkner and most never heard of william james.
suppose a million americans were to emigrate to france, japan, or sweden. the educated liberal elites in those nations who understand america mainly thru its high culture and arts may think they are welcoming the culture of mark twain, herman melville, walt whitman, henry james, duke ellington, orson welles, aaron copland, etc.
more likely, they will get a mass of people whose idea of america is nascar, tv sitcom, apple pie, gun culture, flag waving, god and country, gangsta rap, and so on. american people are not the same as american high culture.
the problem with liberals is they are into high or serious culture. there is nothing with this perse but when this view extends to the culture or nation as a whole, liberals often mistake the minor for the major. for example, great russian works of art may tell us something about the russian soul. problem is it's essentially a myth created by high artists. REAL russians are people with their own prejudices, most of them petty, self-serving, and tribal. and in this regard, they are same as most other peoples. to be sure, some peoples are more educated, sophisticated, and cosmopolitian than others, but this is largely limited to rich european nations. but, even these so-called 'enlightened' and 'progressive' europeans are hopelessly provincial, arrogant, and self-centered despite, or especially because, of their conceits. oftentimes, they project their highfalutin sense of what is right on everyone else. for example, they are such committed anti-racists and universalists that they impose their 'goodwill' on african when, in fact, the reality of africa defies all european assumptions, no matter how well-meaning. european progressivism is often so naive, pompous, morally arrogant and guilt-ridden at the same time, and self-righteous that amount to little than intellectual pretension and moral imperialism.

people are much more and much less than the high cultures they are associated with. we may marvel at the ancient culture of egypt, so the educated amongst us may think that allowing a million egyptians to the US will mean welcoming the glorious culture of the pharaohs and such. but, in fact, 99.9% of the immigrants will not be 'men of culture' but cultural bloc of pigheaded louts. while liberal americans rub shoulders with the best of the world, ordinary americans have to rub shoulders with the ordinary people from rest of the world. and, many of these ordinary people are truly backward, distrustful, hostile, tribal, and resentful. this is why immigration policy must be gradual enough to allow for the arrivals to weave into the mainstream fabric of society. when too many arrive in huge numbers and at a time when the idea of national identity and unity are dismissed by the media and academic elites as 'racist', there is much trouble ahead. a huge number of blacks were brought to the american south but they were forced to assimilate to american culture. if all those people were allowed to preserve their african tribal identity, much of the american south would today be like africa--torn apart by tribal warfare. in the late 19th and early 20th century, great many europeans arrived in america. but, thankfully, there was a strong and confident american culture and identity which were promoted by the elites in media and academia--as yet not dominated by liberal jews. so, immigrants were pressured to adopt american identity as their main identity. also, as they were mostly white, they could easily melt into the mainstream and be, more or less, indistinguishable from the native white americans.
today, many arrivals are non-white and their separateness will always be apparent to themselves and to others. also, liberal and leftwing jews dominate the media and academia and often have radical agendas to cause social crisis and havoc.
and, multiculturalism encourages many new arrivals not to assimilate fully into mainstream society.
also, white america no longer has confidence in itself. white america lamely imitates blacks and obediently listens to liberal and leftist jews.

anyway, we must not make the same mistake that liberals made. for example, ethiopian high culture is NOT the ethiopian people. if you bring in a million ethiopians into this country, you will not get a million representatives of the best and the noblest of ethiopia. you will get a million ethiopians without job skills, with nationalist resentment, with social distrust, etc.
privileged white liberals can turn a blind eye to the real social reality cuz they move about in circles where they meet only the higher and finer representatives of the other culture. they will meet some ethiopian scholar at some cultural gathering. for the white liberal, multiculturalism will seem as little more than sharing polite company with educated and cultural people from all over the globe. and, i'm sure this is fun. but, multiculturalism at the demographic level is something entirely different. most people of any country do not care for nor know much about high culture. for them, culture simply means tribal loyalty, social unity, national prejudices, political conflict.
indeed, liberals had the same problem during the cold war. they would go to the USSR and talk with scholars, artists, and such people who were, more or less, charming, erudite, thoughtful, and relatively free. so, american liberals asked why does the US have such as an antagonistic stance against such nice people? well, it wasn't the russian intellectuals and artists in the USSR that the US was worried about but the communist leadership, ideology, and the vast armies positioned across the borders of the iron curtain. for some reason, all that reality was blind to many american liberals. as far as they were concerned, the russians were only reacting to OUR paranoia, our warmongering, our aggression. it was all up to us to be accepting of the USSR, not the other way around.

liberals would learn a thing or two if they left their privileged spheres and lived at the common-folks level in many american cities. they will learn that demographic multiculturalism is a different thing than cosmpolitan multiculturalism. multiculturalism of socio-cultural identity is not the same as multiculturalism of high art or culture. to be sure, many liberals are not rich nor privileged, but as bohemian types their eyes are set on the world of high culture and privilege and blind to the tribal mentalities around them. suppose there is a very pigheaded mexican-american or vietnamese-american community that care zero for art and culture but only for money, political power, and social clout.
the dumb bohemian liberal will go to some vietnamese noodle shop or some mexican taqueria, eat some 'exotic' food, and think think this is the real significance of multiculturalism--having the privilege of sampling different kinds of foods.
similarly, many white liberals were blind to the lunacy and madness of black communities cuz all they cared for was blues or jazz. as intellectuals, bohemians, or artsy-fartsers, they ignored the troubling social reality while fooling themselves that some good music or food was the essence of what that community represented. this is rather like ignoring the reality of nazi germany cuz one really digs the music of richard strauss, or missing the point of 'triumph of the will' because it's so brilliantly made. liberals see the style but not the substance.

at an international film festival, movies from all over the world share the same screening rooms. and visitors from all over may rub shoulder and engage in polite chatter. but, people are not movies. and most people are not aloof intellectuals, artists, or some such. and reality is not contained and/or controllable like works of art.
most people don't care about high culture or literary journals or ideas. for most people, culture is social identity, us-agaisnt-them, 'our interests', etc. the high culture of a nation may be 'liberal' but most of the people are not. there have been many japanese films of liberal bent, yet most japanese have been very conservative and/or nationalistic.
just because you met some highminded or openminded or cosmopolitian japanese filmmaker at a festival doesn't mean that all or most japanese are like that. it doesn't mean that if you bring a million japanese to the US, most of them will be like that filmmaker.
because liberals often mingle with the most highminded people around the globe, they have this foolish notion hat those highminds represent the essence of their nations when, in fact, they represent the exceptions. boris pasternak was not the voice of USSR but an exception.
similarly, we think of jews as anne franks but so many who came to the US turned out to be vicious haters, agitators, radicals.
we may be impressed by some liberal arab commentator on a news program--the kind that liberals usually rub shoulders with--but he doesn't represent the thinking that is common or prevalent among his countrymen.

granted, all people who come to the US can be made to love this country and adopt an american identity. but, this process is being overloaded with too many people coming too fast. also, it's not only not being encouraged but being discouraged due to political correctness and multiculturalism. leftist multiculturalists want cultural conflict to exploit for political purposes, tribal multiculturalists want to build walls around themselves, and liberal multiculturalists foolishly think that the high or bohemian culture of a people defines the culture of the masses.

The Problem of the Concept of "Social Justice".

today, we often hear the call for 'social justice' from many quarters, mainly from the left and the people-of-color groups. but, is the concept of 'social justice' applicable to a liberal democracy where freedom and rights are ensured to all?
the concept of social justice is valid in cases where there is genuine injustice. but where there is none, 'social justice' is a misleading concept that blinds us to the true nature of our social problems. the problems we are dealing with today are those of technological change, freedom, and economic imbalances that result from those freedoms--both positive and negative.
a positive freedom is using one's innately superior intelligence, in combination with one's ambition and discipline, to obtain great wealth and success thru the free market process. a negative freedom is abusing freedom to indulge in pathological behavior which does much harm not only to the community but to oneself, leading one to poverty, prison, or worse.
at any rate, the problem is no longer about 'social justice' since we are living in a free nation where rights are guaranteed to all.
the concept of justice makes no sense without injustice. and injustice is not a matter of social consequences but of intent to do others wrong, oppress, or such.
in other words, if there are two students and the teacher favors one student over another resulting in the success of the favored student and the failure of the unfavored student, then we can speak of social injustice and need for social justice. BUT, if two students are treated equally and fairly, and one does well and succeeds in life because of his diligence/smarts while the other fails because of his laziness/idiocy, then it's not a matter of social justice or social injustice. no injustice has been committed. as such, it makes no sense to call for social justice regarding the fact that one succeeded in life while the other did not.
IF one student had been given all the advantages while the other was denied all chances despite his best effort, we can speak of social injustice and the need for social justice. when such is not the case, invoking 'social justice' is a demagogic cheapshot.

in america today, there are serious social problems and consequences of economic divisions. and, one may argue that some of this is the result of the history of social injustice. we can argue that though US is truly democratic and ensures equal rights and protection for all, we can't just wipe away the effects of centuries of racial discrimination overnight. we can argue that the reason why blacks face greater social problems in this country is because of past social injustices. there is surely some truth to this.
however, it's arguable as to how much impact past history has on a certain group. after all, weren't jews terribly oppressed for centuries in europe? yet, why did they do so much better than gypsies? indeed, why did they often do much better than the favored goyim majority population? one may also ask why japanese-americans, among the most wronged people in american history, have done so well while americans of hispanic descent--even white ones--have done less well? how much is a people's accomplishment dependent on history and how much is it dependent on culture? both play a role surely, but more and more evidence seems to indicate that culture is more important than history. indeed, few people have gone thru as horrible a history as chinese in the modern era. yet, they are making tremendous strides. meanwhile, much of africa is sinking deeper and deeper into poverty and chaos--even parts of africa that were barely affected by western imperialism and its repressiveness. indeed, it gets funnier yet when the most successful african case today--for blacks as for whites--is south africa, a nation that had been the posterboy of white evil/oppression in africa. how ironic that the 'most oppressed' nation in black africa is now the richest, freest, and most poised to play a leading role for all of africa?
there is also the matter of women. throughout human history, men have ruled over womenfolks.
all through human history, women were told they are inferior to men in every way. this is a legacy that doesn't go back merely decades, centuries, millenia, but 100s of millenia. yet, upon the enacting of equal rights between men and women, it looks as though women have easily unshackled themselves from 100,000s of yrs of conditioning that they are not capable of intellectual feats and such things.
the fact of life is that no matter how long human history may be, the memory of each person goes back only decades. history have proven over and over that what really affects history is what we choose to remember from happened and how we embrace those matters. remembrance of history can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
upon the end of WWII, jews decided 'never again' and made a firm resolve to be stronger and work to build a powerful jewish community in israel and other nations where they were prominent. jews didn't take a defeatist position but an activist position. in contrast, alot of blacks in the US have decided to take a defeatist--no matter how enraged and aggressive the style of rhetoric--position that says blacks cannot do anything and whites must do everything for blacks. blacks are waiting for godot.


anyway, the concept of social justice matters when entire groups or individuals are denied basic rights and protection under the law. when there was genuine racial discrimination in the US, it made sense to speak of social justice since there was really social injustice. this was a matter of legal design and political repression. especially in the south, blacks did not have the same rights and access to legal/social protection as whites.

but, is that the problem today? of course not, but we still keep hearing about 'social injustice or the need for 'social justice'. one of the appeal of the term is the romanticism inherent in the idea of struggle for social progress. under this paradigm, society is oppressive, repressive, far-from-perfect, and has a-long-ways-to-go. so, we must keep struggling for social justice until we get closer and closer. one problem is that such rhetoric is utopian, even anti-democratic and anti-pluralist. modern liberal democracy is NOT utopian. it doesn't and mustn't aim to be perfect. rather, it allows equal rights and freedom for all. freedom can be used in myriad ways, good and bad, intelligently and stupidly. and metaphors aside, we are not created equal in literal terms. not all boxers are muhammad ali. not all financiers have the smarts of warren buffet. not all computer industry people have the genius or balls of larry ellison or bill gates. under a system of freedom, we are NEVER going to have equality. therefore, the idea that we should/must move toward a society of greater equality is not truly progressive if by 'progressive', we mean a better society. society is constantly changing, and it's human to always want to make things better, but equality is not synonymous with better if by equality we mean forced equality undermining the principles of freedom. also, society is advanced not by the masses but by geniuses. you can have a billion people of average intelligence. not in a 1000 yrs will they figure out E = MC2, yet it took only one einstein. a society moves forward and makes progress by giving freedom to its geniuses and visionaries to invent, design, and shape the new world.
in such a world, everyone must be equally free. we never know where the next genius will come from. it could be from any city, any town, any village. every person should have the freedom to follow his dream. but, following one's dream always means that one will rise above or even tower above others. we cannot predict who the next genius will be or where he will come from. of course, depending on the talent we can generally guess from which ethnic group the genius or supertalent will arise. if it's a matter of athletics, the chances are black community will likely provide the best talent. when it comes to math and sciences, chances are the genius will be an ashkenazi jew. still, we want the very best to be in the position of highest authority. and the only way to ensure that the best will rise to the top is by having a nation of freedom.
since everyone is equally free and has the right to climb in the world, there is no social injustice. there would be social injustice if a unversity said 'no jews allowed' or 'no hindus allowed' or 'no blacks allowed'. but, when all are allowed, it makes no sense of speak of social justice.

nevertheless, we must be mindful of the problems of freedom. some people will rise high and mighty. many will do moderately well. but a substantial number of people will not do so well, do badly, or completely fall thru the cracks. there are many reasons for this. one is cultural/personal values pervalent among some people. a culture of mindless hedonism, vulgarity, stupidism, infantilism, puerilism, and lazism will destroy any community. even with all the freedom and opportunities, people soaked with such lousy cultural (anti-)values will use freedom to be destructive, to skip school, fuc* everything that moves, and beat up teachers. once out of school, they simply don't have the proper mindset to hold a job; they are either lazy at work, steal on the job, or are chronically late or absent.
but, there are other reasons for failures as well. consider lower intelligence among some folks. some folks simply are dim-bulbs and not fit for any kind of skilled labor. in a nation where high skills are necessary for success in life, the dummies among us are gonna feel the pinch. there used to be plenty of low-skilled but decent paying manufacturing jobs in the US. no longer. many of those jobs have gone over to low wage workers overseas. in an increasingly globalized world where highly intelligent and ambitious people can practice commerce on a trans-national scale, integrating resources around the world for maximum profit for corporations, there's bound to be a greater rift between the very successful and very unsuccessful.
related to what's just been stated is the nature of the capitalist economy in general, global or national. capitalism necessarily creates hiearcharies based on merit and ambition(and luck); of course, there are connections at work among various groups. rich wasps have their network, rich jews have theirs. rich women have theirs. blacks have theirs. unions exert their own kind of block or solidarity power.
even so, we are always gonna have divisions. while hierarchies are necessary and not necessarily bad, certain hiearchies are problematic if an underclass with a set of lousy values develop out of such reality. in some cases, even with full rights/freedom for all and shared values by all or most, the economy will only be able to offer a choice number of privileged positions for a limited number of people. this is not a matter of 'social injustice' as the winners in such society gained their rewards thru fairness and transparency. but, there is still the problem of too many people left with little or next-to-nothing.
in such cases, it makes sense to have the government play an active role in implementing certain socialistic policies. we are not talking of welfare statism which is unconditional but of conditional socialism where the government distributes wealth to the people by demanding that something in return from the people. it could be public projects or training programs. at any rate, wealth is redistributed thru the government. now, this must only be done when and where the private sector or free markets are not adequate in ensuring decent living standards for the people.
never interfere in sectors or with people who are reaping the benefits of capitalism and free markets. but, it makes sense to reasonably tax those are doing well to provide programs for those who are not doing well at all or who have little chance of entering the free market system which, for the time being, cannot offer enough jobs or opportunities for all.
at any rate, such programs are not a matter of 'social justice'. it's a matter of social pragmatism and social sensibleness. again, the idea of 'justice' applies only where a group of people have intentionally done wrong to another group of people. if all people are free and if from this freedom some do better than others, it's not a matter of social injustice.
for example, consider this scenario: there are two friends in high school. one is named nick and the other is named mike. suppose mike makes the grades, studies business management, and does well in life. meanwhile, nick skips school, uses alot of bad drugs, and fails in life. now, mike is successful and nick is not. is it a matter of social (in)justice? did mike commit a wrong against nick? or, reverse this scenario. suppose nick had been industrious and built up a construction business and has done well in life. meanwhile, mike spent most of his youth listening to loud rock and using bad drugs and such.. nick is successful, mike is not. is it nick's fault that mike has failed? a leftist will say, 'look, we need social justice. one guy is rich, the other isn't'. but, is nick's success a matter of having done mike wrong or having stolen from mike? if anything, nick, in building his business, has hired people and created jobs, has purchases material which has added to sales to other businesses, and has served as a builder in his community. how is he an exploiter or oppressor? what does 'social justice' mean in this context?
most successful people in america didn't gain riches by oppressing others. they played the game fair and square and won. if two teams play a game following the rules and one teams wins, does it make sense to talk of 'athletic justice'?
in america, many of the media and academic positions are held by jews. it's too bad that many of these jews are evil leftwing jews, BUT most of them gained their positions fair and square by being smarter and more intellectually oriented. given this fact, does it make sense to speak of 'cultural justice' or 'intellectual justice', complaining of jewish dominance in cultural and intellectual affairs and issues?
of course, the mother of all ironies is that jews, the greatest beneficiaries of meritocracy and the richest and arguably the most powerful people in america are the ones who are making the biggest noises about 'social justice'. well, if the likes of george soros and larry brin(of google) and david geffen(all billionaires) think our society is an unfair one of privileged rich and oppressed poor, just what in the hell are they? are they confessing that they made their money in devious and venal ways? if so, give it back. pay all their earnings as taxes. pass it out to people in the streets. i find it funny that a people--jews--who have gained MOST from our system of freedom are the ones who complain the worst. one wonders if jews are trying to have the cake and eat it too. on the one hand, they want to be the winners and have more than the rest of us. but, they fear that we will see them as rich pigs, so they make a lot of noise about the evils of the rich. of course, by evil rich, liberal jews never mean themselves but rich wasps of old money or nouveau rich asians of japan and china. meanwhile, they present themselves as the nicest, most wonderful, kindest friends to all of humanity, especially negroes.

anyway, it's time to bury the concept of 'social justice' in america. problem is we--especially leftwing jews who control our thinking thru media and academia--are so indoctrinated with the paradigm of 'social justice' that we seem to think every failing, every problem, every imperfection of america is a scandalous example of social injustice. today, radical feminists--dominated by ugly leftwing jewesses--insist that there is no difference between the oppression of women in the muslim world and the 'oppression' of women in the west thru advertising which shackle women in the cult-prison-of-beauty. just because some leftwing jewesses are ugly as hell and are jealous of shikses, they have tried their darnest best to persuade every woman that looks shouldn't matter at all.

Leftist Moralization of Criminality and the Immigration Debate.

the difference between left and right is that the right understands the economic aspect of breaking the law but doesnt' make moral arguments for it.
for instance, if someone steals, we understand that he wishes to get something for free. a leftist would argue that he--if he belongs to an 'oppressed' group--has a moral right to steal(for past injustices or present oppression and inequalities).

in the 'illegal immigration' debate, american businesses hiring illegals and illegals entering illegally are breaking the law out of mutual economic interest. the right understands this and sees it for what it is. some on the right say there is no real harm being done. some say it has terrible social consequences.
the left, on the other hand, makes a MORAL argument for breaking the law. the darkies have a MORAL right to come to the US...
because (1) US stole land from mexico so SW belongs to mexicans just as much to americans.
(2) mexicans, like most third world or developing countries, are poor because of western imperialism. since we rob from them and invade their nations with our neo-imperialist enterprises, they have a right to invade us and rob from us.
also, the immigrants in the US are still seen as victims who are being exploited for their cheap labor by american businesses. the left tosses around the idea of capitalist exploitation and see all these illegals as potential proletariat to tap in the future guevara-ist war against the US.
now, if these illegals are only being exploited in the US, why let them come?
why not let them stay home in mexico? because things are worse back home and why?
american imperialist-capitalism.
this is the grand moral narrative of the left.

it's like this. suppose someone breaks into your house periodically. suppose the burglar not only takes stuff but does some housechores, so it's not a total loss. there is some gain on your part. now, suppose the house has 2 rightist roomates and 1 leftwing roommate. suppose one rightwing roommate says it's an outrage that some guy is breaking in and so it must stop! the other rightwing roommate agrees that breaking and entering is wrong, but as the burglar seems to do housechores and keeps the house tidy, why not let him come and go? this roommate agrees that it is a crime, and he doesn't defend it on any moral grounds. but, he sees some practical benefit in it.
but, the leftist roommate says the burglar has the MORAL right to break in since society owes him. the burglar is poor and 'oppressed', so why shouldn't he enter the house? and maybe the whole idea of private property is inherently evil and so there should be no walls or barriers of any kind.
it is for this reason that the leftist stand on 'illegal immigration' is far more dangerous than the rightwing stand. some rightwingers tolerate illegal invasion because they see some pragmatic benefits from it. but, they would not make the radical case that borders don't matter or that entering illegally is NOT breaking the law. but, the leftist defense of illegals is much more fundamental. it doesn't see national borders as legitimate or american laws as meaningful.
rightwing support of 'illegal immigration' where such exists is apologetic, practical, and timid.
leftwing support of 'illegal immigration' is righteous, enraged, and radical.

The Communist Memorial in Washington Mall is a JOKE!!!

national review recently ran an article about the communist victims' memorial in washington DC with a degree of pride and satisfaction. in fact, this memorial is the ultimate insult, and much of the blame must be laid at the feet of americans and at the fact that so much of our understanding of history is held hostage by liberal and leftwing jewish interests.

6 million jews died in the holocaust, and we hear about it over and over on PBS, NPR, newspapers, school rooms, tv news, academic discourse, and on and on. the anniversary of the holocaust is held year after year. indeed, there isn't a soul in the US who doesn't know the general details of the nazi mass killing of the jews.
in the DC mall, there is a giant, lavish holocaust memorial museum. though the holocaust didn't happen in the US and though jews make up less than 2% of the US population, the jewish tragedy has been the central focus of american history, politics, and morality since at least the 60s.
but, what about the victims of communism? we are talking of perhaps 100 million who were killed in myriad horrible ways--mass executions, forced starvation, forced labor, warfare, and by being pushed toward suicide. and that's just people killed by communism. what about the cultures destroyed by communism? and works of art burnt, churches razed to the ground, the people arrested, people living in abject fear, children brainwashed to spy and inform on their own parents, and all the oppressives measures of totalitarian states.
all of these horrors will be commemorated in the mall with what? a replica of the statue set up by chinese students in 1989? this is something to rejoice about? are conservatives at national review crazy?
would jews be giddy with a sense of victory if the holocaust had been finally commemorated by a statue called 'smiling jewess holding up a torch of liberty'?
other than that, the 1989 mass protests in china were not really about or against communism but about greater political freedoms. as such, it had more in common with similar protests--led by idealistic young folks--in nations like south korea and philippines. the issue wasn't rightwing or leftwing but simply more freedom and liberty for all. indeed, by 1989, china was less a communist nation than a fascist nation--like what taiwan and south korea had been until their transformation into democracies or like what singapore still is(a technocratic fascist city state). deng pretty much gave up on communist ideology and dogma. he mainly kept communist as a symbol of unity and chinese pride. in practice, programs, and overall national strategy, deng's path to modernity was essentially fascist--combination of socialism and capitalism, combination of traditional culture and modernizing influences, combination of nationalism and international trade, etc. so, it's wrong to see the 1989 student uprising as essentially an anti-communist affair. it was essentially an anti-authoritarian affair. in terms of youth protest and expression, chinese in late 80s had caught up to the youths who had risen up in south korea and philippines--nations ruled by authoritarian right.

other than that, the goddess of liberty is a wrong symbol for the horrors of communism. it's too general and could stand for resistance not just to communism but to any kind of tyranny. a memorial remembering the horrors of communism need to be specific just as holocaust memorials are specific. holocaust memorials are not simply about oppression or genocide throughout history; they are specifically about the crimes of nazi germany and its collaborators against the jews(and some others). if holocaust memorial encompassed the tragedies of all peoples at all times, it would lose its potency. similarly, the goddess of liberty is too general to stand for communist oppression. also, the statue is too blissful, hopeful, and pretty to emphasize the essence of communism--ruthlessness, drabness, grimness, murderousness, brainwashness, colorlessness, bloodthirstiness, etc. now, i'm for a communist memorial that dwells on the dark aspect of communism and then capped it off with a symbol of hope, redemption, and renewal. but, when the goddess of liberty is the central symbol of this memorial, then we don't get the full measure of what communism was about. it's history as kitsch. indeed, how ironic that the communist memorial is so much like communist iconography. when 10 million ukrainian peasants were being starved and/or shot to death, soviets gave the world 'social realism' with rosy images of happy well fed soviet farmers and workers. they gave us the statue of the soviet man and woman proudly holding up the hammer and sickle. and, how have conservatives honored the memory of 100 million dead and many more enslaved under communism? some pretty tart called ms. liberty holding up a candle. this is anti-communism as American Idol or Ms. Universe. i can understand and forgive the chinese students for coming up with that kitschy statue. they didn't have much time nor material so had to improvise with whatever was available.
but, after so many years of fundraising and planning, this is the BEST that conservatives could come up with? this is more pathetic than the general conservative representation in art and culture. many people have remarked on how just about all the best artists are leftists or liberals. look at the best novels, best plays, best movies, etc, etc. all liberals and leftists. the so-called conservative film festival is a joke!! and now conservatives have shown to be inept at even commemorating history. the only thing conservatives are good at is talk radio, a magnet for windbags, ruffians, demagogues, and fools. american conservative historical sensibility is pure top 40 hits, tailgate parties, and kitsch. there is little in the sense of nuance, sobriety, tragedy, etc.

the most painful thing about the national review article is that it completely fails to mention or discuss how conservatives have been totally neglectful in spreading news and info on the
building of the anti-communist memorial. heck, i never heard about it. the article says that the people behind the idea hoped to raise about 100 million but raised only 1/2 million. and with such pocket change, all they could afford is a dinky little statue, and gee, we should be happy with that.
now, how is it that they were only able to raise 1/2 million? are conservatives really so stingy, amnesiac, unconcerned, and uncaring that they refused to donate to this cause?
or, were they afraid that if they donated, they would be marked as 'red-baiters' by liberal and leftwing jews who are so powerful in the media, academia, and culture? or, were they afraid of offending many people who still run russia and china--and other nations--who still have links to communism in one way or another? did rich conservatives fear that supporting the anti-communist memorial would hurt business dealings with people in china or russia in the future? while putin and hu jintao are not dogmatic communists or communists of any sort, their sense of national power is still linked to communist past. china still have the massive portrait of mao zedong in beijing. and putin revived the soviet national anthem and has made statements that wax romantic about the glory days of communist superpowerdom.
if this is why rich conservatives refused to donate to the fund, they can go to hell; they are a bunch of cowards and pussies.
but, i don't think that was the main reason why only 1/2 million was raised. it was because no one heard about it. why didn't conservative radio hosts, columnists, tv people, authors, etc, etc raise awareness on this issue? america is a nation of 300 million people. i'm sure that at least 50% of americans see communism for what it is. if americans had been told about this project, i'm sure donations would have come pouring in--least from the jewish community(because so many jews had been mixed up in the racket) and from the black community(as blacks only consider their oppression as the ONLY oppression) but there would have been great many donations from polish americans, hungarian americans, chinese/korean americans, czech americans, protestant christian americans, catholic americans, other religious groups, american military personnel and their families, and etc, etc, etc. schools could have been contacted on this project. even PBS might have been pushed to air a documentary on this project. in time, it would have been something most americans had heard about.
it's like the Million Man March. it had to be hyped by its promoters, then picked up by the national media, and become a topic of discussion for it to turn into a massive event it was.
but, where was the hype, promotion, and dissemination on this anti-communist project?
i would have donated $100. there would have been many who donated $10, $20, $30. there would have been some who donated $5000, $10,000, or more.
but, we never heard nothing about it. in time, 100 million could easily have been raised for the purpose of the museum. but, why didn't this happen?
i suspect the people behind the project sabotaged it from within. they went thru the motions only to subvert it. they didn't do anything to gain attention, promote its purpose and necessity, or to start a national debate and consciousness-raising. instead, they pretended to be busy, hustled about expecting to raise little, and then they just shrugged their shoulders and said that all they could manage was 1/2 million and that's that.
there is only two explanations for this pathetic outcome. they people behind the project are either the dumbest, lamest, most inept bunch of fools ever OR they started the project to make sure it went nowhere. if latter is true, it's like hiring police personnel to look into police corruption. i wonder if the people hired to promote the project were jewish. jews have proven themselves to be expert promoters of everything. they can make countless americans dole out hard earned cash for the dumbest cds, stupidest fashions, or lamest movies. and heaven knows jews can be tireless in extorting billions in cash from all those associated with nazi crimes in the past. jewish lawyers have earned 100 millions, actually billions, by suing everyone left and right in germany, switzerland, etc. yet, the people behind this project failed to raise more than 1/2 million? in all of america? you gotta be kidding! i'll bet girlscouts raise more selling cookies!! anyway, unless the facts are in, we must settle for the promoters of the memorial as being the most inept bunch of tards.

we don't know if the people behind this anti-communist project were jewish. indeed, maybe the failure to raise much cash is proof that they were not jews. only dumb goyim could be so inept at raising cash.
but, if they were jewish, why were so they pitiful in raising the necessary cash?
the obvious reason is that communism was essentially the brainchild of jews, or to be sure, radical leftwing jews. leftwing jews in this country are still romantically fixated to marxism, spiritually if not dogmatically. and liberal jews still feel some affinity with the radical aspect of jewish culture. they feel pride in the idea that jews are soooo passionate about 'truth, justice, equality, universality, etc, etc', which was what communism supposedly was, albeit in aggressive, ruthless, and violent form. while liberal jews will admit communism was bad, many of them still think the central values of communism are essentially good; the way they see it, it's not so much that communism failed humanity but humanity failed communism. since humanity is not good enough for a utopian ideology like communism, it's better to have capitalist bourgeois democracy since we are such imperfect creatures.
though clearly in the minority, there is a group of jewish conservatives--perhaps 8% of jewish population. these people are genuinely anti-communist hook, line, and sinker, but even they are not too keen on putting too much focus on the evils of communism because jews played too important a part in communism's rise and mass crimes. jewish conservatives fear that if people find out the truth about communism--that it was essentially a radical jewish phenomenon--alot of people will not be able distinguish between good jews and bad jews. they fear that alot of goyim will blame ALL jews for communism. this is especially worrisome because great many jews were involved with communism as its loyal adherents or as its fellow travelers.
liberal NY Times made apologies for communist regimes and aggression time and time again. when US was embroiled in wars with marxist uprisings, NY Times relies on reports by people like john lee anderson and herbert matthews--admirers of radical leftists.
when mao zedong died, NY Times ran a glowing obituary. even today, you can read in nicolas kristof--left/liberal jew--going on and on the good things chinese communists did. even liberal jews have been trying desperately to salvage something from communism. even while admitting horrible stuff happened, they try to balance it with the good. of course, leftwing and liberal jews don't do the same when they discuss nazism or italian Fascism. they only focus on the bad and never discuss the good things that happened under those regimes. liberal and leftwing jews are eager to show the far right as ALL bad while the far left is shown as wanting-to-do-good but having-done-bad-and-so-oh-well.
also, liberal and leftwing jews have never made us forget the evils of the far right, especially the kind of right that caused the greatest damage to jews and jewish interests. jews run most of the media and control the academia, and we hear over and over about the holocaust and such.
as for the high crimes of the far left, liberal and lefwing jews will discuss them in highbrow journals--read mostly by intellectuals--but rarely disseminate this truth to the public at large. so, the vast numbers of people who do not read book or academic journals don't know much about communist horrors but they know plenty about nazi horrors.
PBS will give us documentaries which explicitly dwell on the evils of nazism, but when it runs documentaries on a murderous slave state like north korea, it will try to be 'balanced' and 'fair'. there is little or no mention of millions who are forced to work, forced to starvation, brainwashed from cradle to become cold killing machines, etc.

liberal and leftwing jews shamelessly go on and on about the evils of nazism and the holocaust. and they don't only do this among themselves but have made sure that ALL OF US know about it and care about jews. meanwhile, jews have mostly neglected the horrors of communism; and even conservative jews have been mostly mum about the jewish role in communism as theorists, leaders, secret police, spies, scientists, propagandists, etc.
indeed, jewish conservatives are eager to portray jews mainly as victims of both nazism and communism. now, there were many jews--those who rejected communism--who were tragic victims of either or both. but, there were many many jews who joined in the communist cause and carried out great crimes against many nationalities. they didn't do it AS JEWS but there is no question that marxism and radical leftism were stamped with the cultural personality of jewishness. it's like even if alan dershawitz or woody allen were to convert to catholicism or buddhism, their mentality and outlook would still be jewish. and even if robert redford or clint eastwood were to convert to jews, they would still be anglo-goyish, not jewishy.
marx was not jewish in the religious sense but was very jewishy in personality. he was like a modern day hebrew prophet.
we must identify the 'national' character or the cultural traits of a people and study how that character or traits create or shape new thoughts.
though japan is modern and japanese people wear western clothes and use western technology, we still say that japanese have a village-clan mentality going back to feudal times.
similarly, it could be said that even modern secular jews have something in common with traditional jews. in terms of their outlook, psychology, personality, style, etc, they could still be jewishy.
now, all cultures have something robust/healthy/thoughtful and something dangerous/extreme/pathological. germanic national character can mean bach, beethoven, kaiser wilhelm, or hitler. jewish national character can mean moses, jesus, marx, and chomsky. now, there is no clear borderline between noble/healthy and evil/pathological. just look at sam peckinpah who represented both the good and bad of american character.
but, all cultures have a pathological element, and when that element takes over, you have nazi germany, militarist japan, marxist jew, islamic terrorist. whether its radical particularism--nazism or militarist shintoism--or radical universalism--marxism or islamicism--, there is a self-centered idea that you and your idea can redeem your race or save the world.

there is no way we can understand marxism--or the likes of chomsky--without understanding the jewish mind. no social idea is simply an idea. it is an outgrowth of certain cultural views, emotional prejudices, personalities, and intelligence. and when the idea is adopted by another people, it changes in relation to the national character of those who adopt it. this is why russian communism evolved away from jewish communism--as more and more russians entered the ranks of party hierarchy at the expense of jews--and why chinese communism was different from russian communism. but, all forms of communism were extensions of radical jewish ideology which was rooted in the jewish way of thinking in the Old Testament.
in the Old Testament, jews have a jealous god, the supposedly one and only god that tolerates no other gods and no idol worshipping. so, over 1000 of yrs, jews got used to the idea of ONE TRUTH that allows room for no other. even jesus belonged to this school. where he differed from other jews is in sharing this one and only god with all of mankind. and much of mankind did indeed adopt christianity, which means goyim had been ersatz universal jews. jews suffered under christians because (1) christ killer reputation and (2) there was mutual hostility and distrust of the outsiders: jews felt that the ONE and ONLY god belonged only to them, not to the filthy impure goyim, and christians found jews to be greedy and stingy for not sharing the universal jewish god. christians didn't see jews as proper children of god, and jews didn't see any legitimacy to the chrstian claim that a messiah had come and blessed non-jews with divine love. as far as jews were concerned, christ was a phony and christians were NOT the children of god but disgraceful usurpers of genuine godly truth. but, as time passed, jews realized they were always gonna be outnumbered by christians and goyim. it's one thing to be a proud jew, but not much fun when you are outnumbered and get crushed by goy scum everywhere.
so, jews thought about assimilating with the christians and goyim. but, many could not go along with this. there was the problem of distrust in some nations of even converted jews. but more importantly, jews had inherited a mentality that stressed the unique brilliance, specialness, blessedness, etc of the jewish people. it just didn't sit well with jewish personality to fit in with the majority and become lame and square. IF jews were to join in with the rest of humanity, it had to be on jewish terms. jews had missed the boat when the jewish jesus arrived. maybe jews shouldn't have missed that opportunity. maybe all jews should there and then have converted to christianity and led the christian movement. but, instead, most jews objected to christianity and were persecuted christians. in time, christianity was adopted by pagans, and its leaders came from formerly pagan ranks. in time, christianity came to be anti-jewish.
so, when marxism arrived on the scene, alot of jews didn't wanna miss out again. again, there was a universalist ideology(or secular theology). it was created by a jew. it preached universalism but its rules were set forth by jews. its leading figures, thinkers, and such would be heavily jewish. prior to marxism, jews' only hope of assimilation was to melt into the nations, cultures, and traditions of goyim. with marxism, assimilation was reversed--everyone else had to melt into the vision of the world as created by jews. with marxism, jews were the kings and emperors of a new world, a new heaven on earth. they held the crown, staff, and the key. and all of humanity would be allowed--by force if necessary, which was always--to enter into the new vision of universalism. jews, who had fervently been the most particularistic people in europe suddenly became the most universalistic. from extreme particularism they went to extreme universalism... except that their new universalism preserved the old jewish notion of the Single-Unifying-Truth. yahweh said destroy all false idols. marxism said destroy all false ideols(ideologies).
Old Testament said there is one god/truth and one god/truth only. marxism said there is only one social truth and one social truth only.
Old Testament spoke of a chosen people. marxism was led by a chosen brotherhood of radical neo-prophets.
Old Testament said divine justice is more important than human lives. if god needs to smite entire peoples to set the world straight, punish the wicked, and put the world on the correct road, then god must do what he's gotta do.
similarly, marxism said 'social justice' is more important than human lives; marx's ideas take precedence over lives. ends justify means. so, if you gotta kill millions of class enemies, backward peasants, and so on, ya gotta do what ya gotta do in order to create a better world. in both judaism and marxism, the idea or theory matters more than humanity.
both the Old Testament god and marx claimed to love humanity but on condition that all of humanity strictly obey the laws laid down by god or marx. it was never love of humanity as it really was--that kind of forgiving love came only with christianity. even though marxism is universalist--like christianity--, it preserved the Old Testament's strictness regarding social rules and behavior. like islam, marxism was always an aggressive, ruthless, and intolerant form of universalism at its very textual core. there is no sense of humility in marxism, no sense that there is yet much to learned about history, science, humanity, and morality; instead, there is only the sense that marx figured it all out. marx, of course, never claimed to be God, but he claimed to know the full truth of what moved history and affected human behavior; he was not god, but as there was no god and only material reality, the man who understood the full breadth of material mechanism of history was a material god; marx saw himself as such and his blind followers treated him and his teachings as divine objects of worship.
but, judaism is rich and complex. eventually, its god grows wiser and accepts that people will be what they are--a bunch of morons. so, god pulls away from human affairs and takes on more of a live-and-let-live attitude. god comes to accept and forgive people for all their failings. and this set the grounds for the arrival of the figure of jesus who not only universalized the old testament but transformed god from a domineering father to a forgiving uncle.

anyway, it's a total disgrace that the anti-communist memorial has finally come to this: some kitschy statue modeled on some rickety sculpture set up during the tianenmen square protests, which, by the way, wasn't necessarily against communism but against authoritarianism.
also, as terrible as the outcome of those protests were--brutal crackdown costing 100s or maybe 1000s of lives--, that event was hardly the worst associated with communism; if anything, it was a picnic compared to stuff like the mass killings and deportations under lenin, the great famine under stalin/leftwing jews, killing fields of cambodia, boat people of vietnam, madness of sandero luminoso, mengistu's forced collectivazation and mass starvations, and the madness that is north korea. and in china, the worst excesses of communism were the initial land reforms(5 million dead), great leap forward(30 million dead), cultural revolution(80% of chinese cultural treasures destroyed, millions dead), etc.
but after such mass crimes, what do we have to commemorate the evils of communism? some thirdrate statue not even worthy for a disney theme park. why not have mickey mouse by its side?

the jews and anti-rightists have been smart to remind us over and over about the evils of nazism. as a result of their efforts, most americans associate evil at its worst with the white-far-right. and, jews have created this general mindset in a more or less dignfied manner, as if this historical awareness is merely humanitarian, not partisan or political. nazism has come to symbolize evil for EVERYONE, EVERY RACE, ALL TIMES.
in contrast, people on the right have been negligent in spreading the truth about communism. also, they haven't been very smart or courageous about it. consider books or documentaries on the holocaust or nazi evil, and there's a sheen of serious scholarship beyond mere politicking or ideological squabbling. but, most anti-communist literature or films have been blatantly political or ideological, making the whole thing just seem like right-wing propaganda.
take ann coulter's Treason. she's so eager to score political points that no one except her clones and mindless fans can take her book seriously. in contrast, many books written on mccarthy and red-baiting come across as scholarly, serious, and sober. now, these leftist books are, in their own way, just as lopsided and propagandistic, but they know how to cover up their ideological tracks by semblance of scholarliness.
of course, the lopsided public memory on the holocaust/bolshocaust has a lot to do with the fact that in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, jews pretty much took over the major institutions of information and entertainment and academia. and, they've used these institutions and forums to make all of think that jews are oh-so-wonderful and those who dare criticize anything or anyone jewish is an 'anti-semite'. and they've shown so many images in film and on tv of the word 'anti-semite' associated with images of the holocaust that we've all been made to think that any critical view of jews means that we must be closet nazis. so, we've all been afraid to be honest and forthright about jews. jews are so powerful that they've made us afraid to even think that they are powerful. now, THAT is power. most powerful people just manage to make others obey them. but, jews don't only make us obey them but command us to believe that we are not obeying them but being pro-jewish out of our own volition.

one of the problems of the anti-communist memorial is it tries to cover too much. communism has lasted for 70 yrs in the USSR. it is still very much alive in cuba and north korea. and there have been many crimes and mass murders. yet, they took place at different times and in different nations. to sum up all this madness with a single memorial dilutes the horror of what communism really stood for.
the holocaust memorial is about the holocaust, not about all the evils committed by all rightwing authoritarian states.
similarly, it would have made more sense to have a series of memorials on a shared site that focus on a certain great crime under communism. and it would have raised more money from many different ethnic groups.
imagine a site whose center has a sculpture or memorial symbolizing all the suffering under communism everywhere. and around the sculpture, there can be memorials to some of the greatest horrors that took place under communism: lenin's mass executions, stalin's great famine, the red terror, mao's mass killings, killing fields in cambodia, boat people of vietnam, madness of north korea, etc. each of these sub-memorials could have been funded by donations from various ethnic groups. for example, there can be a memorial on polish suffering under communism, and you know that many polish-americans and poles abroad would have given massive funds for this. and for the hungarian memorial, many hungarian-americans and hungarians abroad would have given alot of donations. and for the korean memorial, great many korean-americans would have donated money.
jews support the holocaust memorial and the state of israel because both are 'nationalist'. they are about jews. jews are interested in jews.
similarly, nationalism should have been one of the main appeals of the anti-communist memorial. it's funny that the very people who opposed marxist internationalism should now be using internationalist symbolism to illustrate the horrors of communism. communism was a crime against many peoples, nations, and cultures. then, it makes sense to appeal to the national pride and anger of many people who suffered under communism.
surely, a polish-american is mainly angry at communism for what it did to poland. a hungarian american is mainly angry at communism for what it did to hungary. and a chinese-american would be angry at communism for what it did to china. most people react to events personally or nationally, not universally or internationally.
jews hate nazism while having a soft spot for communism because of the jewish relation to both: nazism was totally and murderously anti-jewish while communism had once been the ideology of many (secular)jews. indeed, most jewish intellectual types turned against the USSR only in the 40s and 50s due to stalin's increasingly anti-semitic policies. jews rejected communism because it was becoming anti-jewish. but, when soviet communism had been controlled largely by jews and killing millions of non-jews, many jews loved communism; it meant power and glory to jews.
so, the lack of nationalist appeal in the making of the anti-communist memorial is a real pity.
yes, most americans are decent enough to care for all of humanity but they really feel great passions for their own kind. americans care mostly about americans. and among americans, black americans care most for themselves, asian-americans care most for themselves, jewish americans feel most for themselves, hispanic americans feel most for themselves, muslim americans feel most for themselves, and so on. the two exceptions among americans when it comes to special recognition are jews and blacks. yes, we ALL feel obligated to love jews and blacks because the jewish dominated media and academia have been telling us over and over that both jews and blacks are totally innocent lambs of history done wrong by evil white christians.
few people know about the connection between communism and jewish power. few people know that mussolini and franco, while brutal in their own ways, were saints compared to lenin, trotsky, stalin, and mao. indeed, it was hitler who was the psycho among the revolutionary right(fascism stood for revolutionary rightism as opposed to monarchism which stood for reactionary rightism).

the total failure to build an anti-communist memorial worthy of its name is, i believe, the result of either rightwing ineptness or jewish influence. it was either direct jewish influence or the fear of the jewish hand. indeed, many people who wanna speak on matters that directly or indirectly involve the jews get all nervous and afraid. they tone down their views so as not to 'offend' jewish sensibility. now, i agree that the holocaust was a great crime against the jews. but, it's equally true that many many jews--in the USSR, europe, and the US--were involved in one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century--communism. yet, we can't talk about this.
we must be careful not to offend jewish sensibility. this is like all of us having to tread carefully on the topic of holocaust lest we offend german sensibilities.
if we discuss nazism as we discuss communism, we would blame ONLY hitler for the murder of 6 million jews. we would have to pretend that all the germans who helped him were totally innocent. when we discuss communism, we only blame stalin. it's as though stalin alone killed 20 million. but, his orders were followed by others. and stalin's policies and ideas were formulated by others. who were the people who came up with communism? who were the people who set up the totalistic system? who were the people who headed the secret police? who were the people who forbade all freedoms for the masses? who were the people who stole all of private property for everyone but themselves who lived with privilege? who fed stalin all those evil ideas? the fact is leftwing jews did all of that. yes, there were many latvians, russians, poles, and others in the movement, but they were generally followers, not leaders of the movement. the people who cooked up communism and led it during its crucial period were leftwing jews. even during most of stalin's rule, most leftwing jews thrived, enjoyed special powers and privileges, and killed millions. just read yuri slezkine's 'the jewish century'.
and these leftwing jews of USSR tried to spread communism thru brutal means through all of europe. and they were helped across the seas by american leftwing jews. the fact is the majority of american jewish intellectual were communist, pro-communist, or communist-sympathizing. they only turned against communism when USSR turned against the jews. when USSR was killing millions of kazakhis, tatars, ukrainians, volga/baltic germans, greeks, poles, etc, etc, leftwing and even liberal jews in the US didn't give a damn. they cheered on their leftwing jewish brethren in the USSR; they spied for the USSR; they did everything to subvert america. it was only when stalin turned on jews that jews in the US turned against soviet communism. even so, many jews in the US in the 60s turned to other forms of radicalism; many cheered for mao, ho chi minh, castro and che guevara. even today, we have people like barbara walters kissing castro, swooning over hugo chavez. we have liberal jew steven soderbergh glorifying stalinist-maoist che guevara while presenting US as an evil imperialist nation. yes, this is the sickness of the leftwing jew, but we can't say anything about it because the liberal jew run media and academia have brainwashed all of us into believing that jews are totally blameless, totally wonderful, totally saintly, and would never hurt a fly.
in reality, jews were not only one of the great victims of the 20th century but one of the great criminals. no, not all jews. but, not all germans were guilty of nazism but it seems okay to blame all germans, and indeed every fresh generation of germans are made to feel guilt over the holocaust. but, jews have never faced up to their role in bolshocaust.
germans have come to terms with the fact that while there is much greatness in german culture and heritage, there was something dark and pathological in teutonism which led to nazism. but, jews never looked into their own culture and came to terms with its pathological sickness. the irony is that many leftwing jews, by abandoning judaism and embracing communism, may have felt that they were breaking with the evil inherent in jewishness--tribalism, irrationailsm, superstitionism, stingy moneygrubbism, etc--embracing humanity and universal justice. but in fact, when they rejected judaism in its entirety, they were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. and in adopting marxism, jews were perpetrating the most dangerous aspect of judaism--moral arrogance, intellectual contempt, ideological intolerance, etc.
of course, jews were not alone in this. soviet communism was the mixture of the worst aspects of both jewish and russian(and georgian)traditions. it was a blend of jewish mono-centrism, tsarism, and georgian(stalin and beria)clan chiefdom.
and mao was a neo-emperor of sorts in the imperial tradition. no matter how one pretends to break with the past, the mental habits of the past persist in new forms. mao claimed to be a new man in a new order, but he ruled like a feudal chinese despot over his imperial subjects.
similarly, the feminist movement in the US, despite its anti-christian and anti-traditionalist agendas, is a continuation of the puritanical protestant social activism mixed with jewish talmudic hair-splitting-ism. traditional feminism was an outgrowth of christian social activism, and the new feminism of the 60s led by ugly hags bela abzug and betty friedan was a pussified branching off of jewish radical intellectualism. friedan and her ugly sisters felt even 'progressive' movement was mostly led by men, so for (jewish)women to have their say, they must have a world of their own. in a way, new feminism started out as a selfish movement for the empowerment of jewish women who were all brains and no looks. without looks, they felt miserable. so they could only be happy with ideas and intellectual bragging. yet, most of the intellectual spots were held by men. so, friedan decided to start a sexual war and then lead it. she made all women feel as though they were slaves. she compared american housewives with holocaust victims(funny she didn't compare them with victims of communism). the liberal and leftwing jew run media and academia picked up on these ideas and spread them far and wide. supported by jewish media and academic aid, she became a superstar despite her intellectual obnoxiousness.

anyway, back to the anti-communist memorial. i say shame on all those involved. why didn't they play on the element of nationalism? why only go for a unified memorial on all the victims of communism when the memorial could have been both universal and nationalist? cuban-americans alone would have donated millions if one of the submemorials honored the victims of castro. just imagine a series of memorials shaped like stone henge. each of the stones in the circle would symbolize the nation crushed by communism. and at the center of the circle, you could have a heap of human skulls and bones and on top of that, the head of marx.

such is more important than ever as marxism is making a comeback. the fall of the USSR was only a temporary setback for marxism. in the long run, it was a boon for marxism.
remember when the christian roman empire fell. many thought it was the end of christianity, a complete discrediting of chrisitian values and power. but, st. augustine wrote 'city of god' and saved and strengthened christianity by arguing that the fall of roman empire was not necessarily a bad thing. with its fall, christianity can start anew without being associated with a brutal and corrupt civilization. as long as the USSR existed, communism was associated with all its crimes. but, with its fall, marxism can be washed clean of its association with the evil empire.
also, as the media and academia--run by liberal and leftwing jews--suppress the truth of communist horrors, the young ones have no idea of how evil it was. meanwhile, every new generation is told over and over that nazism was evil and jews were poor noble victims of the 20th century. never mind that the USSR was a leftwing jewish gangsta paradise. never mind that many jews in the US spied for the USSR and did everything in their power to subvert anglo-american power. today, liberal and leftwing jews rule america like they had once ruled the USSR. they control our collective memory, shape our moral sense, and determine our preferences. why does an average american think that a negro or a jew is wonderful while having such a low opinion of southern white christians? hollywood, public schools, tv, news, etc, controlled by jews. jews favor negroes because jews wanna be associated with another victim group. jews are rich and powerful but don't wanna be seen as rich and powerful. a liberal jew wants to be a billionaire but seen by the public as a friend of the poor and needy. so the liberal jew maintains this bullshi* image of jewish-black alliance. of course, many blacks were not so eager to play along with this charade. but, now jews have their 'house nigger' in barack obama, the product of jewish agitator alinsky's theories and harvard law school--headquarters of main liberal/leftist jewish thought in america. obama is the liberal jews' boy.

anyway, the fall of USSR will be advantageous for marxism in the future. marxism will no longer be associated with a giant bloated evil empire. thru the che guevara myth perpetrated by hollywood jews and thru stuff like pan's labyrinth, we are already seeing a new generation of kids being brainwashed into thinking leftists were a noble freedom fighting breed.
also, most artists are leftist and liberal, not least because many of them are jewish.
but, even the non-jewish ones get their social and political ideas--if not their talent--from books, tv, schools, etc, controlled by liberal and leftwing jews.
no one is born a leftist artist; he is made into a leftist artist or entertainer by the forces and influences around him. an artist born in the 16th century was invariably a christian. an artist born in 18th china was invariably a confucianist. and an artist born today will most likely be influenced by public schools, pbs, npr, art departments run by leftists, etc, etc.
so, they are turned leftists.
the brilliant cultural coup by the left is that they've fooled alot of artistic and entertainment folks into thinking that leftism stands for 'freedom' and/or 'justice'. never mind that marxist nations allowed no artistic or cultural freedom. as long as artists are told that leftism stands for 'freedom', art doesn't really have to be free. who needs legal freedom when you have spiritual freedom? according to leftism, an artist under capitalist may be legally free to do what he wants but as he's a capitalist slave of the marketplace, he's never free. in contrast, an artist under leftist rule may not be allowed to do everything he wishes, but as leftism stands for the 'liberation' of mankind, he's 'free' even if he's not free. it's like telling someone that he's free as long he stays inside the prison because being on the outside means being oppressed by the unstable forces of the world; how great to be liberated from uncertain freedom.

leftists have also recruited alot of artists by arguing that leftism stands for 'justice'. this is a more dangerous notion because 'justice' is used to justify suppression of freedom. notice that a lot of film and literary journals are not much bothered by censorship within cuba. communist censorship often gets a free pass or a slap on the wrist because the leftist logic is that suppression of freedom is being enforced in the name of 'social justice'.
if pinochet clamps down on free press, it must be condemned in no uncertain manner because it means suppression of freedom in the name of social 'injustice'. but if castro shuts down ALL newspapers or if hugo chavez takes over all the tv stations, well, that's not so bad because it's in the name of 'social justice'. a socialist who's for people's interests are taking power away from evil capitalists. leftists and liberals in the west made apologies for lenin's repression, and not much has changed since then when we see so many liberals make apologies yr after yr for castro and chavez's increasing thuggery. the idea is that if castro allows freedom, capitalists and other scum will bring down the revolution; therefore, for the revolution to continue, repression is a necessary evil(recently, there was a PBS documentary--called WideAngle--on cuban boxers, and it shed negative light on cuban boxers who defected to the US; they were shown in a thuggish way in slo-motion and were described as having chosen money over social justice; they were judases. at the end of the documentary, the narrator said cuban boxers are torn between 'fighting to for pay or fighting for the revolution'. how about fighting as a free person vs. fighting as a puppet of castro's vanity? oh no, the documentarians are too much in love with castro and che's vision of cuba.
we are to believe that all this repression and brainwashing of young kids are justified cuz the
'revolution' is just so sacred. this is all the more funny when the so-called revolutionary athletes in cuba are, indeed, professionals who enter sports cuz they want privilege and glory like any other athlete. for all the rhetoric of being selfless, they are all selfish.
and it's funnier when we consider that these documentarians who support castro's 'revolution' and repression of cubans would never tolerate such conditions for themselves or their own children; 'revolution' is always for OTHER people, not for western liberals and leftists. barbara walters wants her limitless freedom and wealth; 'revolutionary press' is only for those journalists living under castro).

marxism will also gain greater currency in the coming yrs because capitalism's impact on culture and social values have really become ugly, disgusting, putrid, sick, demented, etc. never mind that liberal jews are behind most of this rot. they will make billions off of this rot, and then blame it on american capitalism as a whole--instead of on themselves--, and in this moral vacuum, more and more young people will seek 'spiritual' answers thru hipsterish radicalism as seen in matrix movies, V for Vendetta, motorcycle diaries, pan's labyrinth, children of men, and the coming Che Guevara movie.

and what do conservatives have to answer for all this? what do conservatives have to say about the ideology that killed a 100 million and enslaved over a billion people and robbed them of freedom, property, dignity, individuality, etc? a kitschy statue.
memorials commemorating a handful of murdered civil rights activists in the south have a greater sense of tragedy, injustice, and dignity than this memorial which is supposed to honor a 100 million dead. and national review is gloating over this. what a bunch of tards that magazine has.

at any rate, what we need is for conservatives to go into documentary filmmaking and make stuff for PBS and other outlets and venues. most peoples--oldies and youngies--get their general history from watching History channel and PBS--at least most people with mainstream interest in history. and conservatives are represented only in print journals and talk radio. SERIOUS people don't listen to talk radio. and there are far more leftist journals than conservative journals. worse, most non-political journals(on music, movies, art, fashion, sports, tv, pop culture, women's stuff, etc) tilt toward liberalism and leftism. and many of them are owned and run by liberal and leftist jews.
conservatives must not only make documentaries and focus more of their attention on tv and but also make sure that certain anti-communist books become common reading material for young folks growing up. how about an abridged version of gulag archipelago? how about the books of robert conquest? an abridged version of 'black book of communism'? what does it say of the right that some of the most damning books on the left have been by leftists--orwell, koestler, and the authors of 'black book of communism'. even leftist anti-communism has been more thoughtful, brilliant, effective, and intelligent than rightwing anti-communism which has often been stupid, pigheaded, demagogic, boorish, and imbecile.
there is an element of intellectual seriousness and thought among leftists and liberals--at least amongst jews--lacking among conservatives who often come across as smug, overly comfy in their positions, or just pigheaded. the recent masterful book on the cultural revolution--'mao's last revolution'--is also by leftist. if rush limbaugh were to write an anti-communist book, could anyone take it seriously?

also, conservatives must commemorate the Great Famine, the Killing Fields, and other such matters year after year like the holocaust is commemorated year after year. and just as holocaust appeals to jewish 'national' interests, conservatives must engage the 'national' righteous rage of americans whose people had been crushed by communism. conservatives must appeal to polish-americans and their experience under communism, hungarian-americans and their experience under communism, cuban-americans and their experience under communism, vietnamese-americans and their experience under communism, etc.
(indeed, there is such lack of sympathy for cuban-american anger in the US because most americans have little idea of what castro did to them. even when jews get really obnoxious, we forgive them cuz we know about the holocaust. but, unless the american people learn about what cuban-americans went thru, cuban-americans will only seem boorish--whereas even a boorish jew wins sympathy cuz we figure his anger is about anti-semitism).
the cumulative effects of all these annual commemorations will expose communism for what it was: a murderous ideology.
sure, marxists and leftists admit that communism did commit horrendous crimes BUT they say communism was still for 'social justice' and equality; they say the crime of communism was it was too zealous in trying to be good and in the process ended up killing alot of people. it's said that fascism went out of its way to do evil and did just that. communism ended up committing acts of evil by trying to do too much good in too short of time. what kind of bullcocky is this?
first off, fascists thought they were doing good no less than commies did. also, other than hitler's mad racial ideas, fascism was in every way far more humane than communism. how can anyone say franco or mussolini were worse than lenin, trotsky, and stalin?
also, what kind of 'social justice' is one where all freedom is abolished? how can there be good without freedom? communism says man doesn't deserve to be free cuz freedom only leads to exploitation of man by man. so, man must be imprisoned in a worker's paradise and do as told. this is 'social justice'?
and they brainwash you to make you into 'new man'. and they shoot you if you if you disagree. some justice. and what good is forced equality? and how is forced equality socially just? if all students are given a "C" no matter the variations in performance, is that socially just?
what's most exasperating about the history of communism is that jews, a people who were best at capitalism and benefitted most from it, often supported communism. many jewish fathers who made a shitload of money sent their kids to universities where they came out as commies. in some cases, the kids were reacting against their capitalist fathers. in some cases, the capitalist jewish fathers felt shame for their moneygrubbingness and wanted their sons to use family wealth to promote radical leftism. even in the US, many capitalist jews raised their children to be radical leftist lawyers, professors, etc.
in many cases, it was the wish of the jewish capitalist father that his kids turn out commie or commie-loving. just look at hollywood. you have lots of superduper rich jew millionaries and billionaires. but, they raise their kids to revere people like marx, che guevara, castro, hugo chavez, betty friedan, and the black panthers. it's like the capitalist jews wanna have the cake and eat it too. on the one hand, they wanna 'moneygrub' all they want and be fabulously rich. on the other hand, they wanna pose as cutting edge radicals at the forefront of social revolution. what a bunch of sick fuc*s.