The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
Conservativism, Inc. and the Ideological Follies of My Youth
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

One of the first essays I ever published was in the left-leaning Canadian Forum, to which I contributed a dissenting article, from the right, in 1968. Those were the days when the Left was far more tolerant than it is at the present time, and also far more tolerant than are the Stalinists and Trotskyites who run Conservatism, Inc. Unfortunately I can’t say much for the essay that I wrote as a young assistant professor at Case Western Reserve, which was full of sound and fury but signifying about as much as the latest NR editorial In fact there wasn’t much difference between what I said in 1968 and what a minicon today, looking back at the 1960s, would likely be saying. I berated the hippies and the “Counter-culture” for being unwilling to recognize the mortal struggle we were engaged in against the bad guys. Combatting the communist beast, I thought, was all-important, and the malodorous hippies who were high on a psychedelic life style, were AWOL in our war for civilization. What I didn’t mention was that I was then a fervent Republican and had just made a donation to the presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. My views in 1968 were reducible to the facile formula: “Hippies are bad; Republicans are good.”

Boy, was I deluded as well as insufferably pompous back then! The hippies were epiphenomenal in terms of what the Left has since become, while the Republican Party seems an insurmountable barrier to any attempt to stop the further progress of the Cultural Marxist epidemic that has grabbed hold of the Western world. The most critical political development of the 1960s, as I argue in After Liberalism, was the explosion of the managerial state in the Western “liberal democracies,” together with the state’s increasing involvement in “social policy.” The flower children had nothing to do with this tendency, although those who later promoted the new politics, like Hillary Clinton, are delighted to pull out old pics of themselves looking like flower-power kids. There were intelligent thinkers in 1968 who did point out the big picture. But since, like my later friends Christopher Lasch and Murray Rothbard, these critics were deemed as weak in fighting the Soviet challenge, they were not regarded in official movement circles as “conservative.” Back then I imagined that arch-conservative political thinker George F. Kennan, who was blistering in his attacks on Western decadence, was a raving leftist. After all, William F. Buckley said so and to prove the case, Kennan was in favor of making agreements with communist countries.

Mind you, I’m not saying the Soviets were not an international danger or that the Right was not justified in calling for resistance against aggressive communist dictatorships. Not everything the Right argued for or against during the 1960s, particularly on the domestic front, was wrong, and in retrospect, I would prefer the Right we had in 1960 to the grotesque caricature of the one we’re stuck with now.

ORDER IT NOW

But the onetime preoccupation of the American Right with what its critics described as “apocalyptic anti-Communism” has had unhappy consequences. Among them are saber-rattling and a fixation on foreign enemies that have to be invaded before they overrun the “homeland.” These obsessions have found lasting form in what is now imagined to be conservatism. In most meaningful respects the conservative movement has moved far, far from where it used to be. Today it shamelessly fronts for the GOP and the Israeli Right (sometimes so abjectly that it may embarrass Israeli politicians); at the national level it goes along with increased immigration from the Third World and various plans to “normalize” (read amnesty) illegal residents, and most conservative publicists whom I encounter either acquiesce in or jubilantly affirm the sanctity of gay marriage. But for our self-described patriots and vicarious front-line warriors, these developments are not worth our mental energy. We should be standing up for “American exceptionalism” and against all those who would resist our expanding conception of “human rights.”

Although on every social issue the current conservative establishment is light years to the left of the founders of National Review, on at least crucial two points, past and present merge. Today’s conservatives no less than the militant Cold Warriors of an earlier epoch seek to “roll back” the foreign enemy. What James Burnham once said about America’s fate in the Cold War, has now been extended to all foes of “American democracy.” We are “in a struggle for the world,” with changing Axes of Evil and see it dramatized every day and night on Fox News. Although admittedly a world power like ours faces real enemies, one has to wonder why enemies requiring military preparedness and possibly military intervention keep popping up every night on “conservative” TV and in the Republican press. This issue overshadows all other concerns, exactly as the Communist menace did for the older conservative movement, even after the Commies had ceased to be an international threat.

The other point on which conservatism then and now would agree is that the main, perhaps overshadowing domestic threat is creeping “socialism.” The worst insult that the “conservative” press hurls against Obama, when he is not attacked as an adversary of American military strength, is that he is really a “socialist” and a “Marxist” at heart. Fortunately, we are told, there is an alternative. Apparently, whenever the GOP captures the presidency, the socialist threat recedes, although the same massive welfare state that the Democrats preserve and expand remains in place. Still, we are assured, there is a difference: When the Republicans manage public administration and collect taxes, they claim (counterfactually) to be “getting government off our backs.” Again I am willing to concede that Republican administrations tweak the taxes a bit better to favor certain business interests and don’t unleash the EPA as often on landowners in rural areas. But they certainly don’t change the structure of the administrative state and whatever distinguishes them from the other side, is a difference of degree rather than a large difference of kind.

ORDER IT NOW

Even more upsetting is the persistent use of the word “socialist” to divert us from the real threats of overreaching government. Why doesn’t the relentless advance of anti-discrimination laws and government-enforced sensitivity training matter to so-called conservatives as much as does the specter of full-blown socialism? Significantly, Western countries, led by the Labour government of Tony Blair in England in the 1990s, have generally been moving in the direction of denationalizing industries. Economic socialism as it existed in the past has become less, not more, visible, if by this term we mean direct government ownership of productive forces. But at the same time public administration is taking away our economic and other freedoms, without being technically “socialist.” For example, government is steadily tightening control over our behavior, in the name of fighting prejudice. When the Left went after the Confederate Battle Flag and began attacking other symbols and place names associated with Confederate heroes, the protest from Conservatism, Inc. was deafening silence. After all, the Left, we were made to believe, is fighting bigots, even if that means stripping entire regions of the country of the outward signs of their heritage. The Left, for Conservatism, Inc., only becomes a threat when it skimps on military weapons and avoids military confrontations. The Left becomes an even larger threat when it doesn’t favor GOP donors. Then we’re truly playing with “socialism.”

I most definitely am not a friend of a state-controlled economy and, in fact, would like to see our increasingly centralized managerial government and meddlesome courts get out of our lives as much as humanly possible. But this is not likely to happen, given our leftward-trending electorate and disastrous immigration policies, and given our even more radicalized media and educational establishment. But what makes the desired outcome even less possible are the obvious priorities of Conservatism, Inc. Some of its emphases are of relatively recent origin, but others reveal a dangerous continuity with the obsessions of a less leftist conservative movement that arose after the Second World War. Today the conservative movement offers the worst of both past and present. It is unwilling to confront the Left’s social agenda, and usually submissively accepts it, but to make matters worse, it outdoes an older, more conservative Right by screaming incessantly for military intervention and larger military budgets. Finally, it diverts attention from efforts to limit the scope of runaway government by making it appear that the solution to the problem is voting for the Republican Party. I am still waiting to see how such an action could reverse the march now underway into a grimly leftist future.

The eighth annual meeting of the H.L.Mencken Club will take place Nov. 6th and 7th. To find out more about the conference and to register, click on this link: http://hlmenckenclub.org/2015-conference/

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement 
    []
  1. Trumped says:

    Oustanding as always.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgottfried/conservativism-inc-and-the-ideological-follies-of-my-youth/#comment-1121842
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. to “normalize” (read amnesty) illegal residents

    Giving illegal interlopers citizenship, or even just legal residency, is not “amnesty”. It’s a gift, a damned reward, an unearned million-dollar check.

    To use the once-august word amnesty for such an atrocity is to cheapen its real meaning.

    “Normalizing” them would mean sending them home. So would “amnesty”.

    Read More
  3. In most meaningful respects the conservative movement has moved far, far from where it used to be. Today it shamelessly fronts for the GOP and the Israeli Right (sometimes so abjectly that it may embarrass Israeli politicians); at the national level it goes along with increased immigration from the Third World and various plans to “normalize” (read amnesty) illegal residents, and most conservative publicists whom I encounter either acquiesce in or jubilantly affirm the sanctity of gay marriage.

    This quote demonstrates the power of popular voting.

    Todays 2-party system hacks care foremost about votes, and the subsequent lifetime perks and patronage that public office has to offer.

    We live in an environment where the US government has assumed unlimited law making power. That amount of power is mighty tempting for any 2-party system pol to exploit.

    [MORE]

    The organized super-majority of voters in the US and Israel is the protected class people.

    No politician, Republican or Democrat left or right can ignore the voting power of the protected classes, because the protected classes are easily over 90% percent of voters.

    Ninety percent of voters is protected class majority supremacy.

    Israel has the same protected class majority supremacy as the US, and Israel’s protected classes are lead by the same people that lead in the US.

    US protected classes include all these people…

    Jewish
    Queers
    Women
    Afros
    Military professionals
    Asian
    Hispanic
    Muslims
    Disabled
    Natives

    Diversity leaders are discussing whether to add police officers as yet another protected class to the federal register.

    Read More
  4. anowow says:

    Dr. Gottfried should be required reading for undergraduates in required civics courses.

    As always, he writes with clarity describing the real threat to our well-being, the managerial state allied with international elites, correctly dismissing distractions like hippies, who do provide useful foils for centrist elites and propagandists.

    It’s an up hill struggle, always reminding people that the rot begins way before the 1960′s and issues like gay marriage or abortion are symptoms, not root causes of our dilemma. Of course, you often don’t even get to this point, being stymied in discussions trying to break people of party jingoism. Centrist liberals like the late Hubert Humphrey and D.P. Moynihan are the real enemies of a stable, healthy conservatism. Indeed, Moynihan and his ilk have done more damage to the country than Al Sharpton et al ever could.

    Read More
  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    WHITE EXTERMINATION AT THE DOOR—DO OR DIE TIME.

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. You are right on most points. However, the alienism and support for other liberal ideas on the part of the “right” is mostly on the part of the Republican party. The Republican party is just a sham or token opposition to the one party system of the Democratic party, both being financed, controlled, and owned and operated by the Jewish Oligarchs.

    Because the Judaists (who are behind liberalism) control the media also, they are brainwashing the public to accept 3rd world immigration and homopathy, etc. by calling these invaders “migrants”, etc. Joe Biden admitted this here:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349155/joe-biden-attributes-social-liberalism-jewish-control-hollywood-and-social-media

    Conservatives who stand up for these basic human principles of white racial preservation, banning immigration and cultural preservation or speak up against the Holohoax or other Jewish control are demonized by the Jewish controlled media. They can be hounded out of jobs by the Jewish controlled media or even framed by the Jewdicial system. So many find it easier to give in than fight.

    But fight we must, because Jewish white genocide by proxy is in progress.

    Read More
  6. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Ideas, ideas, and ideas.

    But maybe the Butt won the culture war.

    Read More
  7. nickels says:

    Interesting. I’ve been working on understanding the difference between viewing the government control of today as a march towards communism or something else, namely the Managerial Therapeutic State. My Czech friend often shoots down my talking points about how we are heading straight to communism, and oft the MTS seems more applicable.
    I do wonder, though, they both seemingly point in the same direction, government running your entire life…

    Interesting, relating to the mentioned hippie culture, my study of Czech communism unearthed the realization that there was a ‘hippieish’ contingent near the dusk of Czech Communism that was actually fighting against the Communist way. I found this very interesting in light of my nascent understanding of Culture Marxism and my simplistic first attribution of hippieism as a step in the road towards destabilization and hence Communism. In fact that was too simplistic; the counter-culture works against whomever they perceive as a ‘drag man’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    I’ve been working on understanding the difference between viewing the government control of today as a march towards communism or something else, namely the Managerial Therapeutic State.
     
    Ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? It paints a vivid picture of what the ultimate 'Managerial Therapeutic State' would look like--and it bears a striking resemblance to what we're rapidly becoming.
  8. When reading this article and others like it by Dr. Gottfried, I wish someone would place them in a time capsule. We are clearly in decline and after the dark age is over, how we threw it all away will be of interest.

    I’m not kidding.

    Read More
  9. Disambiguation-of-Life Protocol
    Problem, Reaction, Solution ~ First of all, THEY create a problem with someone ELSE to be blamed for it. Then the problem is reported in the media the way that THEY want it reported. Then THEY get the public to react to it and say that something must be done, that this can’t go on, and what are THEY going to do about it?

    http://pialogue.info/definitions/Problem-Reaction-Solution.php

    Don’t solve problems, create opportunities.

    “You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They’ve got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ­ lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.”

    “But I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.” They want all your savings, retirement money, coin collections…everything so they can give it to their crook friends for donations and bailouts. They’re going to get it all. Kids are stuck with debt and ghetto cities. Athens on the Potomac is exporting poverty.

    Read More
  10. Speaking of George Kennan, I was appalled to learn that historian John Lewis Gaddis, who won a Pulitzer for his excellent biography of Kennan, is an admirer of George W. Bush. I don’t see how an expert on George Kennan can admire W.’s disastrous foreign policy, which was the complete antithesis of Kennan’s pessimism and realism. This suggests that anyone, who wants to be involved in the debate about American foreign policy, has to pay homage to the neoconservatives. This is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of the Cold War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I seem to recall there was some criticism of Gaddis' biography of Kennan in that he seriously played down Kennan' opposition to the Vietnam War. Here is a message I posted on TAC in response to a Larison blog on a review of Gaddis' biography of Kennan:

    tbraton says:

    December 13, 2011 at 11:47 am

    I was wondering when you were to get around to discussing the new Kennan biography. I read Henry Kissinger’s review in the NY Times Book Review a few weeks back, but I was much more impressed with the review by Frank Costigliola that I read a few days later in the NY Review of Books, which criticizes Gaddis’ virtual omission of Kennan’s Vietnam War criticism. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/08/is-this-george-kennan/?pagination=false

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/george-kennan-an-american-life/comment-page-1/#comment-246299
  11. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    A couple of years ago, I came across an interview of Dr. Norman Cousins on a 1980s television program called “The Open Mind.” It concerned Dr. Cousins book, recently published at the time, “The Pathology of Power.” I was impressed enough to go to Amazon and purchased it. It had a forward by non other than George Kennan. Mind you, the forward was written before the fall of the Berlin Wall and at the height of Reagan’s Evil Empire promotion and the thought that a war with Moscow was so probable that we needed to install an entirely new nuclear weapon system right up to borders of what was then there sphere of influence. Mr. Kennan, the original architect of the Cold War paradigm and strategy, state unambiguously that, even if the Soviet Union were to disappear tomorrow, the economic structure of the United States was so controlled and dependent on the machinery of warfare (the Deep Warfare State) that an existential threat would have to be immediately invented to stave off economic and social collapse. And, this is what has actually happened, and continues to happen.

    It is hard to see a way “back..” I often muse on the old Beatles song, “Once there was a way to get back home…. .” Having turned 70, I find it almost unbearable to watch TV news of any sort. It is dreadfully uninformative and un-insightful. Lucky for me, I live in a nearly all white upper middle class area, with abundant cultural events around me, with Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner daily staples in my life. But, I know the tide is rising and in my opinion 20 years is about what’s left of this possibility for living for anyone not supremely wealthy. I remain as active as I can in local political affairs, hoping to effect a rear guard and pray that somewhere, some yet to known force or event will save the day.

    The author of this article is a remarkable intellect and cultural hero, worthy of the highest complement, A Clear Thinker.

    Read More
  12. @nickels
    Interesting. I've been working on understanding the difference between viewing the government control of today as a march towards communism or something else, namely the Managerial Therapeutic State. My Czech friend often shoots down my talking points about how we are heading straight to communism, and oft the MTS seems more applicable.
    I do wonder, though, they both seemingly point in the same direction, government running your entire life...

    Interesting, relating to the mentioned hippie culture, my study of Czech communism unearthed the realization that there was a 'hippieish' contingent near the dusk of Czech Communism that was actually fighting against the Communist way. I found this very interesting in light of my nascent understanding of Culture Marxism and my simplistic first attribution of hippieism as a step in the road towards destabilization and hence Communism. In fact that was too simplistic; the counter-culture works against whomever they perceive as a 'drag man'.

    I’ve been working on understanding the difference between viewing the government control of today as a march towards communism or something else, namely the Managerial Therapeutic State.

    Ever read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World? It paints a vivid picture of what the ultimate ‘Managerial Therapeutic State’ would look like–and it bears a striking resemblance to what we’re rapidly becoming.

    Read More
  13. tbraton says:
    @David Bruce
    Speaking of George Kennan, I was appalled to learn that historian John Lewis Gaddis, who won a Pulitzer for his excellent biography of Kennan, is an admirer of George W. Bush. I don't see how an expert on George Kennan can admire W.'s disastrous foreign policy, which was the complete antithesis of Kennan's pessimism and realism. This suggests that anyone, who wants to be involved in the debate about American foreign policy, has to pay homage to the neoconservatives. This is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of the Cold War.

    I seem to recall there was some criticism of Gaddis’ biography of Kennan in that he seriously played down Kennan’ opposition to the Vietnam War. Here is a message I posted on TAC in response to a Larison blog on a review of Gaddis’ biography of Kennan:

    tbraton says:

    December 13, 2011 at 11:47 am

    I was wondering when you were to get around to discussing the new Kennan biography. I read Henry Kissinger’s review in the NY Times Book Review a few weeks back, but I was much more impressed with the review by Frank Costigliola that I read a few days later in the NY Review of Books, which criticizes Gaddis’ virtual omission of Kennan’s Vietnam War criticism. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/08/is-this-george-kennan/?pagination=false

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/george-kennan-an-american-life/comment-page-1/#comment-246299

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Bruce
    @tbraton,
    Thanks for the links! I was also disappointed with how Gaddis omitted Kennan's criticism of the Vietnam war (Gaddis seems to have trouble imagining conservatives who aren't militaristic). Nicholas Thompson, in his dual biography of George Kennan and Paul Nitze, does a much better job of covering Kennan's criticism of the Vietnam War. Thompson's biography also does a much better job of showing that Cold War liberals were often much more hawkish than traditional conservatives, such as Kennan. John Lukacs, whose biography of Kennan is much shorter and much more concise, also makes this point. That being said, I still think Gaddis's biography of Kennan is still worth reading; the reader should be aware of Gaddis's biases and blind spots.
  14. @tbraton
    I seem to recall there was some criticism of Gaddis' biography of Kennan in that he seriously played down Kennan' opposition to the Vietnam War. Here is a message I posted on TAC in response to a Larison blog on a review of Gaddis' biography of Kennan:

    tbraton says:

    December 13, 2011 at 11:47 am

    I was wondering when you were to get around to discussing the new Kennan biography. I read Henry Kissinger’s review in the NY Times Book Review a few weeks back, but I was much more impressed with the review by Frank Costigliola that I read a few days later in the NY Review of Books, which criticizes Gaddis’ virtual omission of Kennan’s Vietnam War criticism. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/08/is-this-george-kennan/?pagination=false

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/george-kennan-an-american-life/comment-page-1/#comment-246299

    ,
    Thanks for the links! I was also disappointed with how Gaddis omitted Kennan’s criticism of the Vietnam war (Gaddis seems to have trouble imagining conservatives who aren’t militaristic). Nicholas Thompson, in his dual biography of George Kennan and Paul Nitze, does a much better job of covering Kennan’s criticism of the Vietnam War. Thompson’s biography also does a much better job of showing that Cold War liberals were often much more hawkish than traditional conservatives, such as Kennan. John Lukacs, whose biography of Kennan is much shorter and much more concise, also makes this point. That being said, I still think Gaddis’s biography of Kennan is still worth reading; the reader should be aware of Gaddis’s biases and blind spots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    You no doubt caught the second comment to Larison's blog by "Anderson" who shares your enthusiasm for John Lukacs. Since I haven't read Lukacs, I can't add anything worthwhile, but your and Anderson's endorsements make me want to add him to my long list of unread books I want to get around to reading some day. (I have an impressive stack by my bedside table right now.)

    BTW Larison had another blog on another review of Kennan's biography a few weeks later, in case you hadn't read it. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/kennan-and-solzhenitsyn/
  15. tbraton says:
    @David Bruce
    @tbraton,
    Thanks for the links! I was also disappointed with how Gaddis omitted Kennan's criticism of the Vietnam war (Gaddis seems to have trouble imagining conservatives who aren't militaristic). Nicholas Thompson, in his dual biography of George Kennan and Paul Nitze, does a much better job of covering Kennan's criticism of the Vietnam War. Thompson's biography also does a much better job of showing that Cold War liberals were often much more hawkish than traditional conservatives, such as Kennan. John Lukacs, whose biography of Kennan is much shorter and much more concise, also makes this point. That being said, I still think Gaddis's biography of Kennan is still worth reading; the reader should be aware of Gaddis's biases and blind spots.

    You no doubt caught the second comment to Larison’s blog by “Anderson” who shares your enthusiasm for John Lukacs. Since I haven’t read Lukacs, I can’t add anything worthwhile, but your and Anderson’s endorsements make me want to add him to my long list of unread books I want to get around to reading some day. (I have an impressive stack by my bedside table right now.)

    BTW Larison had another blog on another review of Kennan’s biography a few weeks later, in case you hadn’t read it. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/kennan-and-solzhenitsyn/

    Read More

  16. I highly recommend reading Lukacs’s small (about 200 pgs) biography of Kennan. Lukacs definitely has his own biases (he was a good friend of Kennan), but Lukacs has a better understanding of Kennan’s realism and traditionalism. During the Cold War, Lukacs, like Kennan, was often critical of the conservative movement’s excessive anticommunism (Lukacs didn’t think too highly of McCarthy and Reagan).

    Read More
  17. Hepp says:

    Prof. Gottfried,

    As a student of German history, I was wondering what you think about Snyder’s new book and the way he interprets Hitler

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/hitler-holocaust-antisemitism-timothy-snyder/404260/

    Read More
  18. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    I think we get confused because we use the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’. We tend to approach them as ideas independent of the powers that own/control/manipulate them.

    According to Gottfried, the ‘left’ has won big.
    But communism lost big time. All former commie nations are now capitalist or state-capitalist with the exception of North Korea. Cuba will be vacation land for Lawyers in Love. Vietnamese love Americans and want more business.
    In the US, the rich get richer, and this has been true under Obama as under Bush and Reagan.
    If left is about equality and right is about hierarchy, it seems the right won big time. Just look at the super-rich and they are many times richer than the rich of yesterday.
    And if the right is synonmous with Western Imperialism, look how US has been kicking ass in the Middle East and North Africa and messing up country after country. And there is hardly any protest.

    During the 60s, there were tons of protests in US and elsewhere about US messing up Vietnam. But there is no such anger today. Especially after Obama became prez, even the ‘progressive’ around the world have been silent about his horrendous foreign policy. Maybe they’ll give him a second Nobel Peace Prize.
    And was MLK really about ‘leftism’? Sure, he talked a good game about ‘socialism’, but has just a politician, and his image has been usurped by all sides for their own purposes. GOP says he was ‘conservative’, homos say he would have been for ‘gay marriage’, and rich Jews probably would have given him a gambling stake in Las Vegas had he lived. Before Donald Sterling became the object of much ire, recall that he was a ‘good liberal’ because he’d donated handsomely to NAACP. NAACP was on the verge of awarding him again.

    As for the managerial state, is this necessarily a leftist idea? Bismarck was a rightist and he was for big government. So were the National Socialists. It seems leftist because anti-conservatives dominate, but is it really leftist? The bureaucratic pigs seem awful greedy about their own pay and benefits at the expense of everyone else.

    Whatever the homo agenda, I don’t see it as truly ‘leftist’. Yes, there were some prominent homo Marxists. And to the extent that homos have struggled for minority rights, one could say they were on the ‘left’. But homos are also naturally elitist, vain, narcissistic, haughty, sneering, snobby, and fancy-pants. Give them enough freedom, and they cater to the rich and famous. And today, homo power is in full service of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, fashion, TV, Walmart, and etc. And this is why the super-rich, even the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, love them. Rise of homo power is the return of neo-aristocraticism and Roman-era decadence. Difference today is that this decadence has been sold as the New Decency. If moralism is ‘rightist’, then nothing is more moralistic and judgmental than homo-worship. And if leftism is rational whereas the right is spiritual/religious/superstitious, what is more quasi-spiritual than homomania? We must love, love, revere, and seek rapture in celebration of homo angels and saints. homolujah!

    One could say the Right is about roots whereas the left is about radicalism and revolution that cuts off the roots to the past. And homocentric globalism is certainly cutting off roots to the past. So, is it leftist? Not really. Leftism is radical and rejects the past but it also has a boldly meaningful and moral plan for the future(even if that utopian dream may be misguided and crazy like communism and anarchism turned out to be). In contrast, homocentric globalism cuts off roots to the past to turn us into mindless consumers of pop culture of hyper-capitalism of vanity, narcissism, and hedonism. This isn’t true leftism. It is Chris-Crocker-ism and Black-friday-at-Walmart-ism. It’s about piggery.

    True, the so-called ‘progressives’ make some noise about the ’1% vs the 99%’ and ‘class inequality’ and etc, but they are too fixated on homo cult of vanity, ‘gay rainbow’ festivals, trashy rappers, celebrity gossip, and entertainment news to seriously think about anything. What passes for ‘leftist intellectual thought’ is Amanda Marcotte. What passes for ‘progressive’ values is Lena Dunham who is just a big fat consumer pig. Most progs get their news from stuff like Jon Stewart or some clown show. They want news as consumerist-haha entertainment. The MATRIX trilogy is the ‘new Marxism’. Of course, one of the Wacko brothers became a ‘sister’. When ‘leftism’ is about a guy cutting off his penis and dyeing his hair red, is that truly leftism? No, it’s not rightism, but it’s best called nuts(albeit without any).

    To better understand what is really going on, I think we should give some thought to the fashionable notion of ‘fluidity’. The gender freaks — I think they are up to 50 genders though maybe they can find another 500, I dunno — use that term all the time. The big meme is ‘gender is fluid’. In truth, I suppose gender could be said to be ‘fluid’ for a small percentage of people. Most people are straight, some are indisputably male homo, and some are indisputably female homo or lesbian. But there is a small number of people who are bi-sexual and tranny, and they could be said to be ‘gender fluid’. But for some reason, the homo agenda has decided that because a tiny percentage of people are ‘gender-fluid’, all of us are. And as millennials and younger kids have been brought up under Harry-Potter-ism and trivial-shallow PC, many of them have clung to this meme and claim to be ‘gender fluid’. So, if you’re a guy and maybe find some other guy handsome(even if you have no sexual desire for him), gee, maybe you’re ‘gender fluid’. Or if you’re a girl and like to use tools, gee, maybe you’re ‘gender fluid’, or part man.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

    Personally, I find this ‘gender fluid’ business ridiculous, but the idea of fluidity is useful in our understanding of power.
    I think the key aspect of what is happening is a kind of power-fluidity. Not that ideology doesn’t matter or that people are not sincere in their conviction. But as time passes, orthodoxies of ideology are less important than the metrics of power.
    If you understand the true locus of power, then it becomes rather clear that ideology follows the power than other way around. Ideologies are, after all, fluid in accordance to the needs of power. Just look at Christianity. If we go by the pure dogma of what Jesus said, most of Christian history is bogus. It was really about powerful elites manipulating Christian images and values to gain power and use power. Of course, they weren’t entirely cynical and Christian values did guide and steer their history. But more often than not, power was molding ideology than the other way around.

    This goes for communism too. The Chinese Communist Party, Vietnamese Communist Party, and Cuban government still claim to be communist. But the ideology has been molded to suit the needs of the current powers-that-be. It’s like what Deng said about black cat or white cat as long as it catches the mouse. During the Stalin-Hitler Pact, Stalin could remold communism to get along with Hitler, and Hitler remolded Nazism the same way to accommodate the alliance with Russia. (Fascism was the most honest ideology at least in the sense that it understood the fluid nature of ideas in power.) Mao who railed against the evil US decided to open a new chapter with Nixon. Meanwhile, fellow communist nation USSR was made to be the real mortal enemy of communist China even though Red China had more in common with Red Russia than with US. To understand why this happened, it is better to look at the power than at the ideology. Mao had the power and came to hate the USSR, and so, Chinese Communist ideology was remolded to make USSR the biggest evil in the world. Ideology followed power.

    So, the people who have the most power also have the power to remold the ideology into something else to suit their needs in the present.
    Look at the GOP. The Republican Party was the Party of Lincoln, the party that freed the slaves. So, how did it become the Party of the neo-Confederate White South?
    If Republicans were first and foremost committed to their founding principles, they never would have opted for the ‘southern strategy’. But what mattered most was power for the party, and so they were willing to do whatever to keep the power. And that meant winning over tons of southern whites who fear blacks and wave the Confed flag. As for the Democrats, it was a the party of big labour. But Clinton looked at global trends and figured he should opt for the globalist elite strategy. Dump labor, sign onto ‘free trade’, lock up tons of Negroes(while endearing himself to blacks by walking around with black secret service men), and reform welfare. So, Democratic Party is now the party of the super-rich.

    Today, who rules America? The Jewish elites. So, all ideologies are remolded by Jews to fit the Jewish agenda. There was a time when a lot of Jews were poor. Naturally, they saw class conflict as good for Jews since many Jews were lower-middle class, working class, lumpen-intellectual, or even poor. And there was a time when many Jews were really committed to the socialist revolution. But as commie nations turned anti-Jewish and as Jews in the free West gained far more via capitalism, the tone of Jewish leftism changed from class warfare to neo-elitism via stuff like homo-agenda. Homo-agenda is ostensibly about ‘equality’ but to the extent that it favors a group of people who love to cater to the rich and famous, it is pro-hierarchy. It is like the old aristocrats hiring homos to make art and dress and jewelry and other fancy pants stuff. As Jews came to control ‘leftism’, it had to follow the needs of Jewish power and interests.

    After all, whatever ‘leftism’ may be in its pristine theoretic state, it can be molded to be different things to different people. Power has the power to do that. Most people don’t follow principles. They follow emotions, passions, delusions, illusions, images, sounds, sensations, idolatry, and etc. It’s like movies. We know they are fake but they engage us and even deeply move us. It’s like the power of advertising. After all, most communist never read DAS KAPITAL. They were won over by propaganda that could turn the meaning of communism into just about anything. US plays the same game. Jewish media can make Russia out to be New Nazi Germany because it bans homo pride parades. And Obama makes a lot of noise about it. But the same Obama is shaking hands with the rulers of Saudi Arabia who are really intolerant of gayass stuff.

    If Palestinian-Americans were the most powerful people in the US, the prevailing ‘leftism’ would be different from the one favored by Jewish elites. Or suppose blacks were the ruling elites of the US. Their favored ‘leftism’ would be different from that of Jews or homos or Arabs or Asians or Mexicans.
    Oftentimes, leftism and rightism are merged together. Some people whose main passion is rightist may take up leftism as the best weapon. Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh were both fired up by nationalist passion and took up communism cuz Moscow was on their side. Che Guevara was more of an ideologue of principle, but even he was driven by a kind of pan-Latin neo-Bolivarian passion that was angry with Yankee for messing with Latin dominance in Latin America. Zionist Kibbutz leftism was inseparable from rightwing Jewish nationalism. North Korea and Khmer Rouge were both radically communist and fervently nationalist.

    In the end, identity trumps ideology. Identity has roots whereas ideology does not.
    Identity is about being whereas ideology is about thinking. Whatever one thinks, one’s existence comes before. After all, one has to be in order to think.
    Sensible people realize, I am, therefore I think. Be-ism trumps think-ism.

    Thoughts are unstable. You can be communist in youth, socialist in adulthood, anarchist later, fascist even later, etc. But you are still you, and that very existence of you-ness is more important that whatever thoughts may pass through your mind.
    Thoughts may chance, come and go. The only real constant in your life is that you exist, you are, you be.

    So, you-ness is more important than whatever you-think-ness. So, if you have real sense, you will realize that what is good for your very existence should trump what is good for whatever you may be thinking. Indeed, the point of thought is to offer up ways to serve you. Ideology is supposed to serve man than man is supposed to serve ideology.
    As it happens, no ideology can serve all mankind or at least all of mankind equally. Capitalism serves Jews better than blacks cuz smarter Jews are better at it. For a while, Jews found value in communism as it eradicated the old order that was once anti-Jewish in places like Russia. But as communism favors the mediocre over the smart, it came to hurt Jews, and Jews soured on communism in the long run. Communism is a form of Toohey-ism(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD). It is anti-individualist. As Jewish genius and energy are individualist, communism was bound to, in the long run, favor the masses of mediocre gentiles over the smarter Jews.
    So, Jews lost interest in communist leftism. But Jews still liked the idea of ‘leftism’ since it could portray them as the underdog fighting the topdog of rightwing ‘white privilege’. So, Matthew Weiner of MAD MEN fame says he’s part of the victim group and that Jews should not be confused with ‘white privilege’. I’m sure Weiner sees himself as being on the ‘left’. But he’s a Hollywood insider and has made a ton of money and has tons of connections. And pound for pound, Jewish privilege is much greater than so-called ‘white privilege’. So, you see how ‘fluid’ this game of power and ideology are.

    The core of power in the West is now Judeo-centric. So, what prevails is Judeology that molds both ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ to serve Jewish interests. So, Democrats are made to think that Jews are the Spartacus-like leaders in the fight against ‘evil white privilege’ even though Jews are more privileged than whites. And Republicans are made to think that Jews represent the ‘outpost of Western Civilization’ in the Middle East that is festering with Islamic extremism that would wipe out the West.
    So, ‘leftism’ is about serving the Jews, and ‘rightism’ is about serving the Jews.
    It is this fluidology that we need to pay attention to.

    Orwell has shown in ANIMAL FARM that the power can invoke ‘equality’ 24/7 and still fluidly warp and mold it to serve itself. All ideologies are subject to the law of ‘more equal than others’. Those with power shape the fluid perimeters of ideology.
    So, the ideology matters less than whoever is controlling it.
    So, everything that Bush II did was wrong according to the Liberal powers-that-be but once Obama continued with the same and even expanded the abuses, what had been ideologically condemned became ideologically acceptable. So, someone like Snowden who would have been hailed as a hero if Bush II were president became a pariah, even under Liberals. Why? Because Jews made Obama, and they protect their boy. Jews helped Bush II too, but Jews don’t feel as dominant in the GOP as in the Democratic Party. No candidate was as totally Jewish-made as Obama was. And Jews weren’t gonna let someone sully their golden mulatto boy. Also, Snowden sought asylum in Russia, a nation that Jews hate the most. So, Jewish-run media could not support him as dissident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    'Leftism' is never anything what most individual self-professed 'leftists' choose to believe.

    Rather, there is a power center that incubates certain memes of fashionable 'leftism' and makes them the favored, preferred, and relevant 'leftist issue' of the time.

    It's like 'rape culture' is about making white college see white college boys as 'rapists'.

    It's like 'marriage equality' and its associated images are for making homomania about 70% of what 'leftism' is about.

    The powers-that-be have perfected a way of orchestrating what is permissible and isn't permissible in 'leftism'.

    To understand the true nature of this 'leftism', one needs to ask who are the most powerful people on the so-called 'left' and why do these elites favor certain memes and themes over others? How does it serve their own interests that are more about identity than ideology?

    Same goes for 'rightism'. Via Talk Radio, so many so-called 'cuckservatives' have been fooled into thinking that the biggest threat to the US is the looming Sharia-state.

    Is this a serious country?

  19. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    I think we get confused because we use the terms 'right' and 'left'. We tend to approach them as ideas independent of the powers that own/control/manipulate them.

    According to Gottfried, the 'left' has won big.
    But communism lost big time. All former commie nations are now capitalist or state-capitalist with the exception of North Korea. Cuba will be vacation land for Lawyers in Love. Vietnamese love Americans and want more business.
    In the US, the rich get richer, and this has been true under Obama as under Bush and Reagan.
    If left is about equality and right is about hierarchy, it seems the right won big time. Just look at the super-rich and they are many times richer than the rich of yesterday.
    And if the right is synonmous with Western Imperialism, look how US has been kicking ass in the Middle East and North Africa and messing up country after country. And there is hardly any protest.

    During the 60s, there were tons of protests in US and elsewhere about US messing up Vietnam. But there is no such anger today. Especially after Obama became prez, even the 'progressive' around the world have been silent about his horrendous foreign policy. Maybe they'll give him a second Nobel Peace Prize.
    And was MLK really about 'leftism'? Sure, he talked a good game about 'socialism', but has just a politician, and his image has been usurped by all sides for their own purposes. GOP says he was 'conservative', homos say he would have been for 'gay marriage', and rich Jews probably would have given him a gambling stake in Las Vegas had he lived. Before Donald Sterling became the object of much ire, recall that he was a 'good liberal' because he'd donated handsomely to NAACP. NAACP was on the verge of awarding him again.

    As for the managerial state, is this necessarily a leftist idea? Bismarck was a rightist and he was for big government. So were the National Socialists. It seems leftist because anti-conservatives dominate, but is it really leftist? The bureaucratic pigs seem awful greedy about their own pay and benefits at the expense of everyone else.

    Whatever the homo agenda, I don't see it as truly 'leftist'. Yes, there were some prominent homo Marxists. And to the extent that homos have struggled for minority rights, one could say they were on the 'left'. But homos are also naturally elitist, vain, narcissistic, haughty, sneering, snobby, and fancy-pants. Give them enough freedom, and they cater to the rich and famous. And today, homo power is in full service of Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, fashion, TV, Walmart, and etc. And this is why the super-rich, even the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, love them. Rise of homo power is the return of neo-aristocraticism and Roman-era decadence. Difference today is that this decadence has been sold as the New Decency. If moralism is 'rightist', then nothing is more moralistic and judgmental than homo-worship. And if leftism is rational whereas the right is spiritual/religious/superstitious, what is more quasi-spiritual than homomania? We must love, love, revere, and seek rapture in celebration of homo angels and saints. homolujah!

    One could say the Right is about roots whereas the left is about radicalism and revolution that cuts off the roots to the past. And homocentric globalism is certainly cutting off roots to the past. So, is it leftist? Not really. Leftism is radical and rejects the past but it also has a boldly meaningful and moral plan for the future(even if that utopian dream may be misguided and crazy like communism and anarchism turned out to be). In contrast, homocentric globalism cuts off roots to the past to turn us into mindless consumers of pop culture of hyper-capitalism of vanity, narcissism, and hedonism. This isn't true leftism. It is Chris-Crocker-ism and Black-friday-at-Walmart-ism. It's about piggery.

    True, the so-called 'progressives' make some noise about the '1% vs the 99%' and 'class inequality' and etc, but they are too fixated on homo cult of vanity, 'gay rainbow' festivals, trashy rappers, celebrity gossip, and entertainment news to seriously think about anything. What passes for 'leftist intellectual thought' is Amanda Marcotte. What passes for 'progressive' values is Lena Dunham who is just a big fat consumer pig. Most progs get their news from stuff like Jon Stewart or some clown show. They want news as consumerist-haha entertainment. The MATRIX trilogy is the 'new Marxism'. Of course, one of the Wacko brothers became a 'sister'. When 'leftism' is about a guy cutting off his penis and dyeing his hair red, is that truly leftism? No, it's not rightism, but it's best called nuts(albeit without any).

    To better understand what is really going on, I think we should give some thought to the fashionable notion of 'fluidity'. The gender freaks --- I think they are up to 50 genders though maybe they can find another 500, I dunno --- use that term all the time. The big meme is 'gender is fluid'. In truth, I suppose gender could be said to be 'fluid' for a small percentage of people. Most people are straight, some are indisputably male homo, and some are indisputably female homo or lesbian. But there is a small number of people who are bi-sexual and tranny, and they could be said to be 'gender fluid'. But for some reason, the homo agenda has decided that because a tiny percentage of people are 'gender-fluid', all of us are. And as millennials and younger kids have been brought up under Harry-Potter-ism and trivial-shallow PC, many of them have clung to this meme and claim to be 'gender fluid'. So, if you're a guy and maybe find some other guy handsome(even if you have no sexual desire for him), gee, maybe you're 'gender fluid'. Or if you're a girl and like to use tools, gee, maybe you're 'gender fluid', or part man.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

    Personally, I find this 'gender fluid' business ridiculous, but the idea of fluidity is useful in our understanding of power.
    I think the key aspect of what is happening is a kind of power-fluidity. Not that ideology doesn't matter or that people are not sincere in their conviction. But as time passes, orthodoxies of ideology are less important than the metrics of power.
    If you understand the true locus of power, then it becomes rather clear that ideology follows the power than other way around. Ideologies are, after all, fluid in accordance to the needs of power. Just look at Christianity. If we go by the pure dogma of what Jesus said, most of Christian history is bogus. It was really about powerful elites manipulating Christian images and values to gain power and use power. Of course, they weren't entirely cynical and Christian values did guide and steer their history. But more often than not, power was molding ideology than the other way around.

    This goes for communism too. The Chinese Communist Party, Vietnamese Communist Party, and Cuban government still claim to be communist. But the ideology has been molded to suit the needs of the current powers-that-be. It's like what Deng said about black cat or white cat as long as it catches the mouse. During the Stalin-Hitler Pact, Stalin could remold communism to get along with Hitler, and Hitler remolded Nazism the same way to accommodate the alliance with Russia. (Fascism was the most honest ideology at least in the sense that it understood the fluid nature of ideas in power.) Mao who railed against the evil US decided to open a new chapter with Nixon. Meanwhile, fellow communist nation USSR was made to be the real mortal enemy of communist China even though Red China had more in common with Red Russia than with US. To understand why this happened, it is better to look at the power than at the ideology. Mao had the power and came to hate the USSR, and so, Chinese Communist ideology was remolded to make USSR the biggest evil in the world. Ideology followed power.

    So, the people who have the most power also have the power to remold the ideology into something else to suit their needs in the present.
    Look at the GOP. The Republican Party was the Party of Lincoln, the party that freed the slaves. So, how did it become the Party of the neo-Confederate White South?
    If Republicans were first and foremost committed to their founding principles, they never would have opted for the 'southern strategy'. But what mattered most was power for the party, and so they were willing to do whatever to keep the power. And that meant winning over tons of southern whites who fear blacks and wave the Confed flag. As for the Democrats, it was a the party of big labour. But Clinton looked at global trends and figured he should opt for the globalist elite strategy. Dump labor, sign onto 'free trade', lock up tons of Negroes(while endearing himself to blacks by walking around with black secret service men), and reform welfare. So, Democratic Party is now the party of the super-rich.

    Today, who rules America? The Jewish elites. So, all ideologies are remolded by Jews to fit the Jewish agenda. There was a time when a lot of Jews were poor. Naturally, they saw class conflict as good for Jews since many Jews were lower-middle class, working class, lumpen-intellectual, or even poor. And there was a time when many Jews were really committed to the socialist revolution. But as commie nations turned anti-Jewish and as Jews in the free West gained far more via capitalism, the tone of Jewish leftism changed from class warfare to neo-elitism via stuff like homo-agenda. Homo-agenda is ostensibly about 'equality' but to the extent that it favors a group of people who love to cater to the rich and famous, it is pro-hierarchy. It is like the old aristocrats hiring homos to make art and dress and jewelry and other fancy pants stuff. As Jews came to control 'leftism', it had to follow the needs of Jewish power and interests.

    After all, whatever 'leftism' may be in its pristine theoretic state, it can be molded to be different things to different people. Power has the power to do that. Most people don't follow principles. They follow emotions, passions, delusions, illusions, images, sounds, sensations, idolatry, and etc. It's like movies. We know they are fake but they engage us and even deeply move us. It's like the power of advertising. After all, most communist never read DAS KAPITAL. They were won over by propaganda that could turn the meaning of communism into just about anything. US plays the same game. Jewish media can make Russia out to be New Nazi Germany because it bans homo pride parades. And Obama makes a lot of noise about it. But the same Obama is shaking hands with the rulers of Saudi Arabia who are really intolerant of gayass stuff.

    If Palestinian-Americans were the most powerful people in the US, the prevailing 'leftism' would be different from the one favored by Jewish elites. Or suppose blacks were the ruling elites of the US. Their favored 'leftism' would be different from that of Jews or homos or Arabs or Asians or Mexicans.
    Oftentimes, leftism and rightism are merged together. Some people whose main passion is rightist may take up leftism as the best weapon. Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh were both fired up by nationalist passion and took up communism cuz Moscow was on their side. Che Guevara was more of an ideologue of principle, but even he was driven by a kind of pan-Latin neo-Bolivarian passion that was angry with Yankee for messing with Latin dominance in Latin America. Zionist Kibbutz leftism was inseparable from rightwing Jewish nationalism. North Korea and Khmer Rouge were both radically communist and fervently nationalist.

    In the end, identity trumps ideology. Identity has roots whereas ideology does not.
    Identity is about being whereas ideology is about thinking. Whatever one thinks, one's existence comes before. After all, one has to be in order to think.
    Sensible people realize, I am, therefore I think. Be-ism trumps think-ism.

    Thoughts are unstable. You can be communist in youth, socialist in adulthood, anarchist later, fascist even later, etc. But you are still you, and that very existence of you-ness is more important that whatever thoughts may pass through your mind.
    Thoughts may chance, come and go. The only real constant in your life is that you exist, you are, you be.

    So, you-ness is more important than whatever you-think-ness. So, if you have real sense, you will realize that what is good for your very existence should trump what is good for whatever you may be thinking. Indeed, the point of thought is to offer up ways to serve you. Ideology is supposed to serve man than man is supposed to serve ideology.
    As it happens, no ideology can serve all mankind or at least all of mankind equally. Capitalism serves Jews better than blacks cuz smarter Jews are better at it. For a while, Jews found value in communism as it eradicated the old order that was once anti-Jewish in places like Russia. But as communism favors the mediocre over the smart, it came to hurt Jews, and Jews soured on communism in the long run. Communism is a form of Toohey-ism(of THE FOUNTAINHEAD). It is anti-individualist. As Jewish genius and energy are individualist, communism was bound to, in the long run, favor the masses of mediocre gentiles over the smarter Jews.
    So, Jews lost interest in communist leftism. But Jews still liked the idea of 'leftism' since it could portray them as the underdog fighting the topdog of rightwing 'white privilege'. So, Matthew Weiner of MAD MEN fame says he's part of the victim group and that Jews should not be confused with 'white privilege'. I'm sure Weiner sees himself as being on the 'left'. But he's a Hollywood insider and has made a ton of money and has tons of connections. And pound for pound, Jewish privilege is much greater than so-called 'white privilege'. So, you see how 'fluid' this game of power and ideology are.

    The core of power in the West is now Judeo-centric. So, what prevails is Judeology that molds both 'leftism' and 'rightism' to serve Jewish interests. So, Democrats are made to think that Jews are the Spartacus-like leaders in the fight against 'evil white privilege' even though Jews are more privileged than whites. And Republicans are made to think that Jews represent the 'outpost of Western Civilization' in the Middle East that is festering with Islamic extremism that would wipe out the West.
    So, 'leftism' is about serving the Jews, and 'rightism' is about serving the Jews.
    It is this fluidology that we need to pay attention to.

    Orwell has shown in ANIMAL FARM that the power can invoke 'equality' 24/7 and still fluidly warp and mold it to serve itself. All ideologies are subject to the law of 'more equal than others'. Those with power shape the fluid perimeters of ideology.
    So, the ideology matters less than whoever is controlling it.
    So, everything that Bush II did was wrong according to the Liberal powers-that-be but once Obama continued with the same and even expanded the abuses, what had been ideologically condemned became ideologically acceptable. So, someone like Snowden who would have been hailed as a hero if Bush II were president became a pariah, even under Liberals. Why? Because Jews made Obama, and they protect their boy. Jews helped Bush II too, but Jews don't feel as dominant in the GOP as in the Democratic Party. No candidate was as totally Jewish-made as Obama was. And Jews weren't gonna let someone sully their golden mulatto boy. Also, Snowden sought asylum in Russia, a nation that Jews hate the most. So, Jewish-run media could not support him as dissident.

    ‘Leftism’ is never anything what most individual self-professed ‘leftists’ choose to believe.

    Rather, there is a power center that incubates certain memes of fashionable ‘leftism’ and makes them the favored, preferred, and relevant ‘leftist issue’ of the time.

    It’s like ‘rape culture’ is about making white college see white college boys as ‘rapists’.

    It’s like ‘marriage equality’ and its associated images are for making homomania about 70% of what ‘leftism’ is about.

    The powers-that-be have perfected a way of orchestrating what is permissible and isn’t permissible in ‘leftism’.

    To understand the true nature of this ‘leftism’, one needs to ask who are the most powerful people on the so-called ‘left’ and why do these elites favor certain memes and themes over others? How does it serve their own interests that are more about identity than ideology?

    Same goes for ‘rightism’. Via Talk Radio, so many so-called ‘cuckservatives’ have been fooled into thinking that the biggest threat to the US is the looming Sharia-state.

    Is this a serious country?

    Read More
  20. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Costa Gavras’ THE CONFESSION is out on Criterion DVD, and it’s well-worth seeking out. It goes to show how leftist film-making had once been more intelligent than it is today. Of course, Gavras’ films are slanted and not ‘fair’ or objective. But they are food for thought.

    I like THE CONFESSION and STATE OF SIEGE especially.

    Anyway, THE CONFESSION illustrates the fluidity of power. There was a kind of paradox at the core of Stalinism. It was an iron dogma, an orthodoxy. Those who deviated from it or were suspected of having deviated from it could be prosecuted, tortured, and executed.
    But precisely because it was such an iron dogma, it was also very fluid ideologically. Because the dynamics of iron dogma revolves around absolute power/control, those with the power could stretch the dogma to mean just about anything. So, the iron dogma becomes a rubbery dogma.
    It’s like Stretch Armstrong. It looks so hard and tough but can be stretched anyway.

    And in a way, this was what was most frightening about Stalinism. Not so much that it was an inflexible iron dogma but that it was also an infinitely stretchable and warp-able rubbery ideology.
    THE CONFESSION powerfully depicts the nature of this beast.
    It is not about rightists vs leftists. It is about leftists vs leftists, about people who share the same ideology. It is about Stalinists prosecuting/persecuting other Stalinists. How? They stretch new meanings out of leftism to accuse the charged as Titoists, Trotskists, anarchists, and etc etc etc.
    So, the principles of ideology matters less than who holds the power to stretch the ideology in order to accuse others of ‘deviation’, ‘treason’, ‘espionage’, ‘sabotage’, ‘subversion’, etc.

    Every leftist nation did this. Just as Stalinists were destroying other communists — even fellow Stalinists — by this method, Tito was using his ‘iron-rubber dogma’ to purge leftists he didn’t trust.

    So, the ‘left’ vs ‘right’ matters less than who has the power to shape the meaning and agenda of the ‘left’ or ‘right’ at the moment. This doesn’t mean that ‘leftists’ and ‘rightists’ don’t believe what they do. Most people are idiots and sincerely believe all the crap fed to their minds by teachers, celebrities, media people, and etc. who merely toe the official line. They are minions and running dogs who bark accordingly. But they do so, even if unwittingly, at the behest of those who control their minds. At one time, to be a ‘leftist’ meant to purge decadent bourgeois homos. Today, to be ‘leftist’ means to wave the homo flag and chant slogans in worship of fruitkins. (It is amazing to come across the number of brainless ‘leftist’ minions who think they are being so ‘different’ and ‘cutting edge’ by supporting the homo agenda when they are only doing so because Jews of Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood promoted, funded, and pushed the homo agenda as something that is good for Jewish elite power.)
    The question should be, “who has the power to change the meaning of ‘leftism’ this way and for what purpose?” We know Jews are the ruling elites, and I believe Jews push the homo agenda because they see it as good for Jewish powers. So, behind all the smoke and mirrors of ‘leftism’ is the core power of Jewish dominance. It’s like the gas planets. They are covered with all those gas but at the center is core of liquid and solid matter, the center of the gravity that holds the gas together.

    Most of ideology is a form of tributarism. Those with the real power rig and program the themes and rules of the said ideology so that it will make people pay tribute to those with the power.

    Same goes for ‘conservatism’. It’s about who has the power to define it and shape it. So, we are told that people like Pat Buchanan are not ‘real conservatives’ since ‘real conservatism’ is about worshiping Bibi Netanyahu, freaking out over Sharia Law in Kansas, low taxes on the rich, and open borders because, as a ‘real conservative’ like Newt Gingrich tell us, ‘diversity is our strength’.
    Behind the smokescreen, it is just ‘cuckservatives’ serving Jewish elite power that only tolerates white race traitors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Priss, you've raised a number of good points here. I won't respond to them all, but I strongly agree with most of them.


    ... it is better to look at the power than at the ideology.
     
    Always. Ideology is in your head; power is real. In a bygone age, societies relied on religion to tame and control the masses. With the decline of religion, they have had to gradually shift away from theology to ideology. But down deep, it's basically the same as religion. Ideology is just theology for secular materialists. Likewise, in olden days, those who were not inclined to think much needed symbols with which they could identify, so most religions relied on myths, legends or even concrete symbols--such as statues or icons--to appeal to the stupid masses, who are more inclined to emote than think. Nowadays, we have media 'icons' and 'heroes' (usually pop-stars or athletes) for the masses.

    Human nature never changes. Our civilization has merely experienced another changing of the palace guard.
  21. @Priss Factor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4EH7H0ZYY

    Costa Gavras' THE CONFESSION is out on Criterion DVD, and it's well-worth seeking out. It goes to show how leftist film-making had once been more intelligent than it is today. Of course, Gavras' films are slanted and not 'fair' or objective. But they are food for thought.

    I like THE CONFESSION and STATE OF SIEGE especially.

    Anyway, THE CONFESSION illustrates the fluidity of power. There was a kind of paradox at the core of Stalinism. It was an iron dogma, an orthodoxy. Those who deviated from it or were suspected of having deviated from it could be prosecuted, tortured, and executed.
    But precisely because it was such an iron dogma, it was also very fluid ideologically. Because the dynamics of iron dogma revolves around absolute power/control, those with the power could stretch the dogma to mean just about anything. So, the iron dogma becomes a rubbery dogma.
    It's like Stretch Armstrong. It looks so hard and tough but can be stretched anyway.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrLEyosv5c

    And in a way, this was what was most frightening about Stalinism. Not so much that it was an inflexible iron dogma but that it was also an infinitely stretchable and warp-able rubbery ideology.
    THE CONFESSION powerfully depicts the nature of this beast.
    It is not about rightists vs leftists. It is about leftists vs leftists, about people who share the same ideology. It is about Stalinists prosecuting/persecuting other Stalinists. How? They stretch new meanings out of leftism to accuse the charged as Titoists, Trotskists, anarchists, and etc etc etc.
    So, the principles of ideology matters less than who holds the power to stretch the ideology in order to accuse others of 'deviation', 'treason', 'espionage', 'sabotage', 'subversion', etc.

    Every leftist nation did this. Just as Stalinists were destroying other communists -- even fellow Stalinists -- by this method, Tito was using his 'iron-rubber dogma' to purge leftists he didn't trust.

    So, the 'left' vs 'right' matters less than who has the power to shape the meaning and agenda of the 'left' or 'right' at the moment. This doesn't mean that 'leftists' and 'rightists' don't believe what they do. Most people are idiots and sincerely believe all the crap fed to their minds by teachers, celebrities, media people, and etc. who merely toe the official line. They are minions and running dogs who bark accordingly. But they do so, even if unwittingly, at the behest of those who control their minds. At one time, to be a 'leftist' meant to purge decadent bourgeois homos. Today, to be 'leftist' means to wave the homo flag and chant slogans in worship of fruitkins. (It is amazing to come across the number of brainless 'leftist' minions who think they are being so 'different' and 'cutting edge' by supporting the homo agenda when they are only doing so because Jews of Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood promoted, funded, and pushed the homo agenda as something that is good for Jewish elite power.)
    The question should be, "who has the power to change the meaning of 'leftism' this way and for what purpose?" We know Jews are the ruling elites, and I believe Jews push the homo agenda because they see it as good for Jewish powers. So, behind all the smoke and mirrors of 'leftism' is the core power of Jewish dominance. It's like the gas planets. They are covered with all those gas but at the center is core of liquid and solid matter, the center of the gravity that holds the gas together.

    Most of ideology is a form of tributarism. Those with the real power rig and program the themes and rules of the said ideology so that it will make people pay tribute to those with the power.

    Same goes for 'conservatism'. It's about who has the power to define it and shape it. So, we are told that people like Pat Buchanan are not 'real conservatives' since 'real conservatism' is about worshiping Bibi Netanyahu, freaking out over Sharia Law in Kansas, low taxes on the rich, and open borders because, as a 'real conservative' like Newt Gingrich tell us, 'diversity is our strength'.
    Behind the smokescreen, it is just 'cuckservatives' serving Jewish elite power that only tolerates white race traitors.

    Priss, you’ve raised a number of good points here. I won’t respond to them all, but I strongly agree with most of them.

    … it is better to look at the power than at the ideology.

    Always. Ideology is in your head; power is real. In a bygone age, societies relied on religion to tame and control the masses. With the decline of religion, they have had to gradually shift away from theology to ideology. But down deep, it’s basically the same as religion. Ideology is just theology for secular materialists. Likewise, in olden days, those who were not inclined to think much needed symbols with which they could identify, so most religions relied on myths, legends or even concrete symbols–such as statues or icons–to appeal to the stupid masses, who are more inclined to emote than think. Nowadays, we have media ‘icons’ and ‘heroes’ (usually pop-stars or athletes) for the masses.

    Human nature never changes. Our civilization has merely experienced another changing of the palace guard.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS