As for the original banner itself—loaded with all the mistakes and bad karma of the movement, and an easy target for our enemies—it is now more of hindrance than a help. It has entered Normiespace and the offices of Big Tech merely as a reason to avoid us and not listen to our invincible arguments or engage with our unbeatable ideas. It has become nothing more than a ticket to deplatforming. I therefore choose to toss it aside and to adhere to the true spiritual banner of the movement—the quest for truth, honour, morality, and life. For this purpose, I have chosen to rename this site Affirmative Right and to redefine what we do here with a set of principles designed to avoid the mistakes of the past (more on that later).
Will changing the label to 'affirmative' do the trick? What if Andrew Anglin and others take up that banner as well? After all, chameleon Anglin initially attacked the Alt Right but later labeled himself as such(and even trolled that he's with the GOP and Trump).
One problem with Colin Liddell and others like him(expatriates) is they are too far removed from ground zero of The Action to lodge legitimate complaints. Many Alt Right figures are in Hungary, Georgia, Ukraine, India, Japan, Philippines, or some other part of the world. Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch got to define the Alt Right because they are in the US. As such, they could organize where The Action is. If Liddell were in the US or EU(two areas most crucial to the fate of the white race), he could have led a counter-movement to define the Alt Right in his manner. But, like too many expatriates, all he can offer are words and criticism. Granted, many radical leaders throughout history spent many years in exile. Vladimir Lenin moved around Western Europe as he was regarded as public enemy #1 in Russia. Still, he eventually returned to lead the movement IN Russia.
Maybe Affirmative Right blog does some good work, but words alone cannot define a movement. If Liddell really wants to define the future of the alternative-affirmative movement, he has to do more than talk or write. He has to form an organization and lead people. I don't see him being up for the job. And Andy Nowicki is more writer-novelist-critic by temperament than a man of action. In contrast, Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch did bring people together and did organize a movement. Now, I agree with many of Liddell's criticisms of them. When Spencer ran Alternative Right website with Alex Kurtagic as his main henchman, I posted many comments warning about the dangers of the Alt Right getting too cozy with Neo-Nazi types. And there is no doubt that Kurtagic has the outlook(and looks) of Heinrich Himmler.
Richard Spencer is a spent force. (He should be called Richard Spender.) With his looks and charm, he could have done much for the movement. And I'll give him credit where it's due. He could have had a plush job in Conservatism Inc. if he'd played along and went by the script like most whores in the GOP. He did not and instead staked out a rather courageous path for himself. Still, there is smart courage and dumb courage. Also, just because you're anti-stupid doesn't mean you're smart or wise. One form of stupidity can be against another form of stupidity. And Spencer is ultimately a stupid person whose ideology is composed of Darth-Vaderian Nietzscheanism and James-Bondian Tomfoolery. He loves to clench his fist and talk about power and struggle, and blah blah, but he's really a spoiled brat who thinks everyone should make everything 'fun' for him. When the Power effectively shut down his college tour, he sniffled that it wasn't panning out. Gee whiz, he thought it would be 'fun'. What did he expect from the repercussions of a radical movement that really threatens the Power? The Power is just gonna sit back and roll out the red carpet for Spencer to have 'fun' with? Is that how Jews treat Palestinians? It sure ain't fun for Palestinians there and here(whose BDS movement has effectively been criminalized by Jewish Power). How childish and naive can one get? Spencer is all talk and no understanding of the Power even as he yammers endlessly about power, power, power. He needs to study Zionist suppression of Palestinians than watch 007 movies to understand how power works. Or at least watch THE GODFATHER and NO WAY OUT. He's always been yakking about how it is the Power that really matters, and yet he is surprised that the ruling power in the West used dirty tricks to shut him down? The student of Power didn't see it coming? He sudden fame really got to him. His 15 min of fame owed completely to Hillary and Mass Media's attempt to tie Trump to the 'toxic' Alt Right, but Spencer began to see himself as a self-made man than as a media creation and tool. (And as if to prove Hillary and the media correct AFTER THE ELECTION, Spencer steered the Alt Right into a genuinely toxic direction.)
Also, his narcissism is so stupid(and now stale) that he's turning into a laughing stock. He goes on and on about how the media just couldn't get enough of Spencer because he's so good-looking, brilliant, and awesome. Oh, he's the Don Juan of the movement, the man they love to hate to love, and they can't keep their hands off him. Well? When the Power finally decides he's a menace, the Power shut him off, and that's been that. So, he wasn't so irresistible after all. He's more Don Quixote than Don Juan. (Never mind that the media also interviewed 'albino' Anglin and fat Matthew Heimbach a good number of times.) But even worse is that Spencer's future vision is hardly better than that of Neocons and Zionist-supremacists. If Jews feel that they should rule the world, the only difference with Spencer is that he feels that his Faustian tribe should rule the world with new rounds of imperialist ventures. (At least old imperialism could be rationalized on the prevalence of different sets of values, curiosity about the world, sense of adventure & discovery, and pioneering spirit. But what's the point of imperialism at a time where every corner of the world has been explored and mapped? Also, a world where any nation can offer stiff resistance to invasive imperialism(as in Iraq and Syria)? Imagine the Brits trying to invade China or India today. Instead of countering Jewish-Zionist globalist supremacism with the ideal of universal nationalism, Spencer's agenda is to rule the world with white supremacy. It is all the more ridiculous when Spencer can't even order a cup of coffee in a diner and keep a membership at a health club. When white people are on the verge of losing their homelands, Spencer-the-clown's silly little mind is filled with Kiplingian fantasies(of conquering the STARS too -- Let's rule over Ewoks and defeat the Klingons). In any struggle, the weaker power must seek moral advantage over the stronger power that has the material advantage. If you allow the stronger power to have both moral and material advantage, your side is cooked. But how can there be any viable moral argument from the Spencerian Alt Right when its main message is "Ultimately, we want to conquer and rule the world with Faustian-Nietzschean-Bondian-Vaderian white supremacy?" Spencer is too stupid to lead anything. At best, he's a decent commentator on a host of Beltway topics.
On the matter of Andrew Anglin, 4Chan Trolls, The Right Stuff(TRS), and others like them, Liddell's complaints are somewhat misguided. The real problem was taking people like Anglin seriously, an error committed by Liddell's site as well(even if in condemnation than praise). There is NO POINT in taking Daily Stormer seriously or engaging with their 'ideas' and proposals like 'white sharia'. Also, it doesn't matter if Anglin is or isn't a Fed-asset AS LONG AS Alt Right or Aff-Right people keep him at arm's length. There are two ways to fight the power. One way is the moral and serious way. But there is also the other way: The irreverent, pestering, and outrageous way of the jester. The trick is to keep the two sides separate. Jews used many ways to undermine White Gentile domination of society and culture. They made serious Holocaust movies & documentaries. They built museums and published many scholarly books. But the other way was also effective. Jewish nasties, comedians, pranksters, subversives, and etc. were masters in mocking Jesus, spreading porn, indulging in vulgarity, and shitting on every sacred cow in the West. Jews made both SCHINDLER'S LIST and CADDYSHACK. Jews host both Holocaust conferences and Porn conventions. The trick, however, is not to mix the two. We don't see the director of the Holocaust Museum having serious conversations with a Jewish porn-oligarch. Now, behind the scenes, it's very likely that Jews of all kinds see eye to eye. It turns out ADL had ties to Jewish mafia since the beginning. But at least for public consumption, Jews keep seriousness over here and clownishiness over there. I don't think the Holocaust Museum will be inviting Howard Stern any time soon. So, as long as the Alt Right keeps the Nazi-larping trolls in their own sphere, it's not a problem. Even though much of the trolling and 'shit-posting' have been offensive, they've also been effective in spreading irreverence of sacred cows of sacred Jews, magic Negroes, holy homos, and globalism. They've also been effective at exposing hypocrisies of the Power. That is the key, the use of outrage antics and black humor to make people laugh at Jewish power and its bogus pieties.
The problem arose when Spencer decided to have a SERIOUS discussion with Andrew Anglin. Now, one can have a conversation with anyone -- Bill Buckley invited all manner of guests on FIRING LINE -- , but Anglin is NOT someone you can have a serious discussion with about the future of the white race. He's too much of a clown, idiot, and degenerate. His stuff has to be kept in the jokesphere. You can't mix oil and water. The Radical Left in the 60s found out the hard way when its serious wing joined with the clownish wing represented by the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the Yippies whose priority was gaining notoriety as attention-whores. The Yippie shtick of running Pigasus(an actual pig) as political candidate was funny, but when these clowns were allowed to be part of the Leftist movement itself, everything began to turn into a shit-show, indeed something like the Gong Show. Soon, radical leftism spiraled out of control into a circus and poisoned the Democratic Party in the 1972 election against Richard Nixon.
Liddell is right that Enoch and Spencer were foolish to form a direct contact with Anglin and the Daily Stormer crew, but his site was, in a way, guilty of the same thing by taking Anglin and DS seriously even in opposition and condemnation. Whether pro- or con-, one should never take that stuff seriously. Anyone who's been to Daily Stormer knows the site is criticism-proof because it's too absurd. As Spencer often likes to say of things, "It is what it is." Debating DS is like taking Hustler Humor seriously. Of course, courting DS is even worse, but denouncing it also gives DS far more credit than it deserves. Anyway, the point is even nasty Nazi-larping trolls have some value to the movement AS LONG AS the movement doesn't get near them. Trolls spread irreverence of sacred cows and premises underlying the Power. It's like Jews will use even Stormy Daniels against Trump. 'Serious' Jews will not invite her to their conferences and gatherings or take her seriously as a person, but they will let people like her vent their spleen against Trump and whomever Jews hate. So, we should regard Daily Stormer as Stormy Daniels of Counter-Power politics. A porn-bomb that can make a mockery of PC and the Power. Just be sure not to take the bomb in your own hand. Let Anglin and other clowns toss them. We can just watch and enjoy with plausible deniability since WE don't officially condone such things. The problem with Spencer and Enoch is they took the stormer-bomb in their own hands. It's like Jews don't condone what Kathy Griffin did with a decapitated rubber-Trump head and publicly even disavow it, but they don't mind OTHERS doing pulling such stunts. In opposition to Trump, Jews employ both the respectable gavel and the jokey poker.
Mike Enoch is the most interesting figure in all this. Whereas Daily Stormer is mostly retarded, The Right Stuff has presented something close to first-rate satire and insightful commentary. But because its satire is edgy and abrasive, it too would be problematic if it became an ACTIVE WING of the movement. As an independent voice cheering on the movement, it can do much good. But as a part of the movement, it can too easily be highlighted by the enemy as 'nazi' stuff. Again, oil and water doesn't mix in politics, especially for a movement with huge disadvantages in media and money. For such a nascent movement, good image is crucial, and TRS is counter-productive as a movement player. It's one thing for TRS guys to make Nazi jokes in their racy podcasts. But it was quite another thing for Mike Enoch to pull a Heil stunt at the NPI conference(after Trump's victory) when the whole world was watching. There was no way the Mass Media were going to cover that as 'larping' or 'joking'. Also, even if Enoch meant it as a prank, there were some real morons there who took it seriously and joined in the salute. Still, DS and TRS aren't problematic AS LONG AS they stay in their own space and do their own thing. To be irreverent and outrageous against sacred cows, one needs more freedom and vulgarity than serious people in the movement. But serious people need plausible deniability from TRS and especially DS because some of their stuff are really over-the-top. That said, just like all religions were built on both iconography(affirmative erection of holy cows) and iconoclasm(mocking desecration of false gods), the Movement will need not just a serious & respectable arm but dirty fingers to pull down the pants of the Power and grab its nuts.
Finally, maybe what is more necessary than changing the adjective -- 'alternative' to 'affirmative' -- is changing the noun. Why stick with only the 'right'? This left vs right dichotomy has been useless since the end of the Cold War(and fall of communism) and the emergence of the Convergence between 'Fiscal Conservatism'(more money for the globalist rich) and 'Social Liberalism'(cultural decadence promoted by capitalists as the New Norm). Indeed, even regarding the Cold War as a right vs left conflict was problematic as communists nations tended to be more nationalist and culturally conservative than capitalist nations of the West. But because of the egalitarian economic ethos of the Soviet Empire(that seemed awesome in reach and power), people went along with the narrative of 'right-wing' capitalists vs 'left-wing' communists. And because the rich class feared economic leftism, it formed an alliance with social conservatives and nationalists. But in truth, the rich everywhere tend to mainly care about more riches and more self-indulgence. For this reason, they secretly despised social conservatism that said NO to excessive decadence. And they felt restrained by nationalism that said capitalists should prioritize doing what is good for the nation as a whole(like hiring native workers and paying them a decent wage with benefits); nationalism was less profitable than globalism. Because of the threat of worldwide communism, the capitalists went along with social conservatives and nationalists. After all, if American capitalists had treated the American working masses during the Cold War the way they treat working people today, many American proles may have demanded either fascism or communism. Why would the American working classes have tolerated and even supported the capitalists IF the latter had just to shipped jobs overseas, lowered wages, and brought over tons of foreigners to replace native workers? But with the end of the Cold War and the transformation of China from a Maoist to a Market economy, American capitalists had a golden opportunity to enrich themselves with Free Trade and to indulge themselves with fun decadence. The big losers were not only social conservatives and the working class but the True Left and Classic Left that had prioritized the needs of national workers and the importance of speaking Truth to Power. But the Democratic Party went with Free Trade under Clinton, and Big Business made a pact with PC because the 'new leftism'(a bogus variety) emphasized globo-homo-mania that, if anything, was great for the rich because, after all, homos are the most vain and narcissistic people on Earth who love catering to the powerful and privileged. Washington DC is 10% homo, and many of these 'gays' are in the Deep State cooking up new Wars for Israel, new Fruit-Crusades to turn the world pink, and new economic policies to make the super-rich in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood even richer. Calling someone like Rachel Maddow a 'leftist' is to defame true leftism and to give her ilk too much credit. They are not about equality or working people. They are about elitism, hierarchy, Jewish tribal supremacism, globo-homo power grab, and censorship of little people who dare to speak truth to power.
Indeed, we in the 'dissident right' are more leftist than those freaks. Calling such globalist tribal-oligarchs and their commissars a bunch of 'leftists' obfuscates the fact that they are really a bunch of supremacists who don't give a shit about the people. Because leftism has long been associated with much good(as well as bad, like discredited communism) -- struggles for workers, more freedom and liberty, equality under the law, and etc --, it only lends credence to our enemies by calling them the 'left'. Tucker Carlson calls Rachel Maddow a 'leftist', but in fact, his positions are now closer to the True Left and Classic Left than Maddow's. We need to remember that the leftism of the French Revolution forged a new politics where the national elites were compelled to identify first and foremost with the national masses. (Current globalism is neo-aristocracism whereby elites of the world mainly identify with one another than with their own national folks who are to be replaced by Diversity.) Nationalism is leftism as well as rightism. It is about Socialism of identity and interests between national elites and national masses. It is also about the tribalism of shared history, blood, and culture. Even though National Socialism turned evil upon lurching into imperialist mode with wars and genocide, its core nationalist and socialist policy was sound. Indeed, Zionism has been, from the beginning, a national-socialist ideology. It was a means to bring together Jewish rightism(reverence of blood, history, and culture) with Jewish leftism(the need for the elites to be mindful of the people as fellow brothers and sisters than as mere subjects). The reason why Jews hate left-rightism with such virulence among goyim is that they want to keep that great secret to themselves only. It's like Jews in Israel hate the idea of Iran having the Bomb because they so dearly want the Bomb for themselves. What Jews want most for themselves, they most vociferously deny to others. Jews love free speech but not for thee. Jews love Israelis owning guns but not for thee. Jews love nuclear weapons but not for thee. One thing for sure, just like National Socialism turned evil by going imperialist, Zionism too is a moral failure because it went from nationalism(defense of Jewish homeland) to imperialism(use white goyim to wage endless Wars for Israel).
Problem is Middle America is exactly what it is: Middle America. The Middle doesn't decide policy. The Top does. Top America has the power and apparatus to rule. It's like the mind controls the body. The middle body, or torso, doesn't control the mind. Sure, if the torso is in pain, it sends signals to the mind to do something about it. When Top America was white, the brain centers had nerve connections to Middle America, the midsection of America. But Top America is now Jewish, and its nerve connections are with fellow Jews around the world and in Israel. Jewish brain centers sense little of the pain felt by Middle White America. When Middle(and Lower) White America sends signals to the Top about its pains and problems, the Top America says, "Here, take these pain-killing opioids and just die off to increase profits for Big Pharma. Die sooner than later because your ilk need to be replaced by non-whites who collaborate with Jewish Elites who let them in."
Even in the Top or Upper America, most people only wield or serve power. They don't get to decide or shape the direction of power. Military generals, even at uppermost ranks, don't choose which wars to fight or which nations to destroy. They are just in it for status and prestige. They do as told by people above them. The President is supposed to be Commander-in-Chief, but, based on a honest assessment of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump, it's obvious that the president is hemmed in by all sides by a greater power of Deep State networking dominated by the ethno-monopoly of Jewish Power. Congress is a parliament of whores that serves its donors than represents the people who elected its members. Jewish donations to Dems is 50 to 60%. Jewish donations to GOP is 25%. That ought to tell us who owns Congress. As Jews also control the media, they can use disinformation and propaganda to attack and smear politicians they don't like. Needless to say, all politicians are deathly afraid of AIPAC and big media. Also, as Jews and their cuck-puppets control top law firms and the courts, they can choose whom to go after. As every businessman, 'leader', or politician is corrupt and has skeletons in his closet, anyone can be brought down by Jewish Power, especially with its vast apparatus of collecting dirt on anyone for blackmail or prosecution. Notice how the Power went after Blagojevich but protected Obama, just another corrupt puppy. Jews are angry with Trump because his success owed much to Jewish protection in NY. Dig into Trump's past, and his dirt is inseparable from all the Jewish dirt in NY. Trump sure didn't work with David Duke or KKK to fleece so many people and pull all sorts of dirty tricks. Even the 'Russians' he had relations with in the past were Jews. So, when he spoke of America First and ran on Populism, Jewish rage knew no bounds and was determined to Truman-Show him from all sides: Keep him stuck in the Deep State Bubble. Trump-Man-Show is Truman Show as real-reality-TV.
Furthermore, Jews control media and academia; therefore, most elites in Deep State have been indoctrinated with Judeo-centric worldview, cult of 'white guilt', Magic Negro revelry(designed to turn whites into moral and sexual cucks), and globohomo neo-religion. While most people in Deep State are higher IQ, they lack individuality and integrity. They are mainly about status, prestige, and the pride of being part of the 'best and brightest'. Their priority is to say and do anything to belong to the Club. So, they just play along with the dominant Script that has already been written for them. Granted, there is sometimes an agenda-lag between the shapers of power and wielders of power. We saw this with the matter of 'gays in military'. As the US military had been against homosexuality for so long, the wielders of power in the military resisted the new pro-homo decree from above. But over time, the wielders of power eventually caught up to the demands of the shapers of power who have control of Narrative and Iconography that decide the collective values and passions of a people. Today, the wielders of power in the military are the most fervent pushers of globohomo-mania and invoke it with pride as a moral pillar of US hegemony: US must rule because it is 'most evolved' in globo-homo worship and tranny men competing in women's sports. (In New America, women should get blown up in combat, babies should be killed even at the point of birth, and men-with-wigs should beat up women in sports.)
Middle America only has voting power. The real power is decided by Top America. Upper America or Uppermost America controls the media, law firms, courts, finance, entertainment, intelligence services, organized crime(that works with powerful people), Pentagon, academia, and etc. They are the ones in the corridors of power, the backrooms where deals happen, the news centers & propaganda wings, the law courts, and etc. And these people feel contempt for dumb and mediocre Middle America, all the more so because goy-despising Jews are at the very top and because the new ideology is Diversity. Middle America is seen as 'too white', in need of enrichment by non-white foreigners as New Americans. Indeed, the US doesn't even deserve to build walls to keep out Caravan illegals who are blatantly trespassing into the US. These massive movements of Caravandals cannot be spontaneous. Such huge movements of peoples have to be organized and coordinated, just like the mass demographic invasions of EU from Middle East and Africa. Jewish Globalists could well be behind it, and it is a powerful way to demonstrate Who-has-the-real-power to Trump and his naive supporters. Globalists organize 'caravans' of illegals to storm America from the outside, and Jewish globalists on the inside use their control of courts, media, and cuck-politicians to tie Trump's hands from doing anything about it. It's as if Jews pulled down Trump's pants and snapped a mousetrap on his penis for all the world to see... yet, the ONLY thing he can do is sign the anti-wall bill, impotently declare emergency(that won't do anything as it will be blocked by an army of Jewish lawyers and goy cucks), and sing more hosannas to Israel. Jews are laughing at him and his followers who, no matter how insulted and humiliated, still praise Jews and Israel. Jews prize Diversity as a wedge to divide America so that goyim of many colors won't be able to unite against Jewish globo-homo power.
The failure of American Conservatives is partly due to insufficient interest in ideas, arts, culture, and world affairs. Such lack of curiosity meant Conservatives had little chance of taking over elite centers of information, social sciences, arts, entertainment, and etc. While many conservatives did succeed in engineering and business, the problem is such fields are essentially non-ideological or non-higher-inspirational. Business is about aspiration, and it's good to have lots of money. But meaning doesn't come from money itself but from the 'higher' purpose it serves. This is why Bill Gates tries to win respect and admiration by pouring billions into his 'save the world' projects. Where does Bill Gates get his ideas and values? Media and Academia. Finance is about making money, and engineering is about building and running things. They are value-free. People seek values from ideas and idols, from history books, movies, TV shows, narratives, and etc. As Jews and Liberals have shown far more interest in such fields, they came to control the ideas and idols.
Francis Fukuyama spoke of the End of History(meaning End of History of Ideas), what with Liberal Democracy being the ultimate goal and universal good for all mankind for all time. Jews didn't exactly see it that way. If Fukuyama focused on the blank slate of liberal democracy itself as the ultimate good, Jews concentrated on what they could write on the slate to turn liberal democracy into a tribal oligarchy. After all, EVEN IF liberal democracy may be the best form of governance, the fact remains that it is generic & bland, lacking a will and drive of its own. Jews thought less in terms of 'triumph of liberal democracy' than of 'triumph of Jewish Power by means of liberal democracy'(even if Jews had to resort to illiberal means like PC to suppress liberal principles and values, such as free speech, freedom of conscience, and equal justice; I wonder if Fukuyama thinks the Anti-BDS law passed by the Senate is in tune with Liberal Democracy? So much for equal justice and freedom of conscience. Also, if the US is really a liberal democracy, how come Fukuyama and other academics are SO AFRAID and TIMID about broaching the topic of Jewish Power and Zionist imperialism over West Bank? Or about what Jewish Power did to Russia economically in the 1990s? Fukuyama talks a lot of shi* about big bad Putin and how corrupt the Russians are, but he's utterly silent about Jewish role in the Shock Doctrine.) Jews were less interested in the End of History(of ideas) than in the End of Iconography and 'Narrativity' or 'Iconarrativity'. Jews understood that the groups favored by the 'Narrativity' and Iconography would get to dominate and control Liberal Democracy. Even in a liberal democracy, some people are bound to be more equal than others. Why would they be 'more equal'? Because they are favored by the prevailing narrative and official iconography. Who controls the narrative? The academia that feeds ideas and histories to the media. Who controls the iconography? The media and entertainment. So, Jews were less interested in the End of History than in how they could 'end'(or finalize or complete) the Iconography and Narrative(or Iconarrative) in their favor so that they could gain permanent power. Both Christianity and Islam sought to 'end' the 'Iconarrativity' for all future history. Christianity said the Final Truth for all time was revealed by Jesus. So, across the centuries, Christian powers patronized artists to create Christian icons extolling Jesus' divinity and memorializing His Crucifixion. The West did this generation after generation over 1500 yrs. And the Gospels were read and preached endlessly as the Final Revelation for mankind(that is unless Jesus decides to return). Muslims did the same with Muhammad, though in some ways, Islam was less effective because it presented a Final Narrative but no Iconography. As Muhammad as the Final Prophet could not be represented as an icon(such would have been wicked idolatry), there was only the Word of the Prophet and the Wail of the faithful. Christianity was a picture book with both words and pictures. Islam was just a book of words, mostly narrative and far less iconography.
Anyway, Jews decided to define the End of Iconarrativity in the Liberal Democratic world order. The favored icons came to be the Holy Three: Jews, Homos, and Negroes. The reasons are obvious. Jews chose themselves of course. Jews chose Negroes because Negroes are profitable to Jews in sports, entertainment, and sex industry. Also, Jews know that Negroes are the most potent force against whites. Why this need to browbeat and tame whites? Jews know that their supremacy depends on white submission to Jews. To make whites submit, they must be made to feel guilty and inferior. By invoking black slavery, Jews play on 'white guilt', thus paralyzing white pride and autonomy. And by promoting black prowess in sports, music, and sex, Jews turn white males into cucky-wuck wussies and turn white women into jungle feverish whores. No other race is as effective in undermining white pride and unity. Take American Indians. Due to the 'genocide' of the red man, whites could be baited with guilt about what they did to Indians, not least because genocide is worse than slavery. But because Indians are not a huge factor in sports, sex, and music, they are not effective as a weapon against white male pride and white women's loyalty to white men. So many white girls are now hooked to imitating blacks, 'twerking', worshiping black athletes, and creating sons who look and act like Colin Kaepernick. As for homos, Jews chose them because both groups have something in common as high-achieving, neurotic, and arrogant elite minorities. Also, both are obsessed with entertainment, arts and ideas, gossip, and game of power. Jews have chutzpah, and homos have aristo flair. Also, as homos are flamboyant and fun-fun-fun, Jews know homo idolatry adds color and fanfare to globalism: The homo-rainbow and endless displays of homo and tranny exhibitionism. Jews also see Homo-Worship as useful weapon against Christianity and inverting traditional & normal goy values. And as every nation has its share of homos, Jews figure on recruiting and training queers in every nation as their useful toadies and allies. Also, by hyping the 'plight' of homos, the globo-homo empire morally justifies itself as a promoter of 'human rights'. Why do we need a new cold war with Russia? Uh... it doesn't have massive homo 'pride' parades. (As for Christian bakers who've had their lives destroyed because they won't make 'gay' wedding cakes? They don't count because the End of Iconarrativity trumps the End of History, or Homo Supremacism trumps freedom of conscience for bakers who refuse to participate in something vile and immoral because, after all, 'gay marriage' desecrates true marriage by associating marriage with homo fecal-penetration and tranny-penis-cutting.) US may be a 'liberal democracy' but one that worships a certain Iconarrativity that consecrates Jews, Negroes, and Homos as the holiest peoples. The globo-homo trinity of Jews, Negroes, and Homos is designed to be permanent. It doesn't matter what Jews, blacks, and homos do from now on. Jews are forever the Holy Holocaust People, Blacks are forever the Tragic Slavery People, and Homos are forever the Angelic Saints sprinkling 'rainbow' magic on us. Consider how Jews today act like Judeo-Nazis and have gone out of their way to confirm just about every 'antisemitic' trope and then some, but we are supposed to think of all Jews as Anne-Franks-Forever. The End of Iconarrativity demands it. https://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/2/8/in-these-very-moments-the-protocols-are-being-rewritten Or consider all the black violence, thuggery, and nastiness. But we are supposed to see black reality forever through the narrative prism of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD. Jussie Smollett was trying to pull a Mockingbird in the age of Gangsta Rap and out-of-control black thuggery. This is why we can't talk honestly about Jewish power and corruption. This is why we can't have a honest discussion about black crime and violence. This is why we must pretend homos are holy victims when, in fact, HIV was the result of massive homo-fecal-penetration among obsessive fruitcakes ramming any pair of buns in sight. The End of Iconarrativity(as devised by Jews) fixed Jews, blacks, and homos as noble, holy, and magical for all time. They are like 'made men' in the Mafia.
If Middle America wants to bring down Uppermost America, it must surgically perform brain surgery and expose what's inside and how it works to control the world. It must do a Hannibal Lecter on the nerve center of Top America. Indeed, this was why Upper America took out Alex Jones. Granted, Jones was a sloppy surgeon and often a quack, but his scalpel did sometimes touch on the nerves of the globo-homo elites.
We must explode the Myth of American Liberal Democracy. While Fukuyama may have been right that the end of the Cold War was a triumph of liberal democracy over communism, he foolishly assumed that Idea or Ideal would determine the future. No, the fact is ideas are always shaped by individuals and identities. Why did Khrushchevism deviate from Stalinism? Why did Maoism deviate from Sovietism? Why did Castroism deviate from European communism? All were Marxist-Leninist but varied greatly according to individuals and identities involved. Indeed, notice what Dengism did to Maoism, and what Gorbachevism did to Brezhnevism. All these people were trained in communism as the End of History, but they still managed to reshape the ideology in profoundly different ways. This is even truer of Liberal Democracy. At least communism had a core set of tenets and dogma, which made deviation and heresy difficult except at the very top. In contrast, Liberal Democracy is generic and bland as a idea. It just ensures there shall be freedom of competition under the rule of law. But what happens when a particular group is so successful that it comes to control and corrupt the rule of law? That's been the outcome of Liberal Democracy since the end of the Cold War. Jews outpaced everyone else in the competition and gained dominant positions in media, academia, high tech, finance, law firms, law courts, vice industries like gambling, and deep state. Furthermore, Jews knew that the best way to secure their power for the long haul was to shield Jewishness from criticism. But how could this be done in a Liberal Democracy that is all about free speech and honest discussion of power? After all, isn't liberal democracy all about the freedom of conscience to speak truth to power, esp to the uppermost power? This is where the End of Narrative and Iconography became so crucial for the Jews. Unless Jews could close and seal(or 'terminalize') the Iconarrativity to fix Jews as permanently holy, perceptions about Jews could go from positive to negative depending on future Jewish behavior and/or historical revisions of Jewish-Goy relations. Without the End of Iconarrativity, new icons and narratives could emerge to challenge and topple the favored iconarrative status of Jews, e.g. Palestinians as the new holy victim group and Jews as the new supremacist group corrupted by excess wealth and power. As people are quasi-spiritual(even in a modern secular liberal democracy) and hunger for sacred cows of some kind, Jews used academia, media, and the state to 'sacralize' Jews as the holy holocaust people, the Anne Frank people, the Schindler's List people FOR ALL TIME. Holocaust Movies now constitute a genre of its own, like Biblical movies of old. Also, the Jewish End of Iconarrativity has fixed Israel as not just another foreign nation but the 'greatest ally of the US' forever and ever and ever(like Jack Torrance in THE SHINING has been made to feel a special connection to the Overlook Hotel forever and ever and ever by the evil ghosts). What the Soviet-Chinese commie cabal did to Frank Sinatra and his men in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, Jewish power has done to US goy elites and masses who so mindlessly spout "Israel is the best, kindest, most wonderful, most holy, most super, most everything awesome under the sun, and the greatest ally of the US forever and ever."
Jews also used cuck-churches to spread the notion that it is God Himself who wills Americans to support Zionist bashing of subhuman Palestinians. So, criticism of Israel isn't merely political dissent but downright spiritual heresy. Of course, Jews exploit the stupidity of Evangelicals who are both pigheaded in their militancy and sappy in their sentimentality. Since Jewish power became the biggest power but also one that no one must criticize, it grew ever more corrupt. Indeed, it isn't far-fetched to say the US is currently a Jewish gangster-fascist state(as opposed to a sane humanist-fascist state). Just like the so-called MSM obsesses more about fictional 'hate crimes' against 'innocent' blacks than about all the black-on-white crime and violence, it is more outraged by the slightest criticism of Jewish Power than by all the Jewish-supremacist hatreds against whites, Christians, Palestinians, Iranians, Libyans, Russians, and etc. Also, Jews claim to be against 'Islamophobia' but conveniently overlook the fact that it was all these Wars for Israel that have destroyed the lives of countless Muslims.
Now, Jews managed to pull this off with their control of ideology but there was another key factor. The problem with ideology is it comes with core tenets and principles that obey a certain logic. It can be a double-edged sword for those who wield it. Ideology is a thought-system, and as such, discrepancy or hypocrisy between what is said and what is done is often apparent. Jeremy Corbyn is a leftist ideologue, and as such, tries to be fair to both Jews and Palestinians on IDEOLOGICAL grounds. After all, if leftist logic is about opposing supremacism and favoring equal dignity for all, then the UK should not be supporting the Zionist-imperialist project in West Bank. While ideology is often abused, it comes with a rulebook, and it isn't difficult to discern the contradictions between what the power says and what it does. This is why Jewish Power understands that ideology alone isn't enough to guard their power. (The reason why Jews were more effective in persuading Protestants than Catholics is because the former, having forsaken the 'idolatry' of the Catholic Church, came to be defined more by words and credo of faith than by rituals, symbols, and icons. Therefore, Jews could point to the logical flaws in what the Protestants preached and what they actually practiced. In contrast, as Catholicism was heavily laden with iconography and ritualism, it was more impervious to logical arguments. You can't argue against wine, wafer, and holy water. Jews figured, "Use protestantist logic against goyim, use catholicist iconography to shield Jewish power.) This is why Jews mastered the art of advertising and used its methodology in all their endeavors and projects. Thus, Ad-driven-ideology or 'Adeology' became the primary means by which Jews promoted themselves and gained control over others. If Jews had mainly emphasized the ideology of anti-supremacism(to invalidate white or goy supremacism) but then also pressured white folks to support Zionist imperialism over Palestinians, people will come to think more like Philip Giraldi or Ron Paul who find troublesome moral inconsistency in what Jews preach and what they practice. After all, why does the US claim to stand for egalitarian principles but then support the blatant Jewish supremacism over West Bank and wage all these insane Wars for Israel? Also, if sanctity of Jewishness is premised on having been victimized by evil Nazism, why are Jewish globalists allied with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Ideology has its dangers as an intellectual straitjacket, but it still works according to a certain set of rules and logic. In contrast, advertising bypasses logic and reason. It works instantly or immediately, mainly via the subliminal power of association. After all, most ads are just pictures in magazines or short commercials on TV(some lasting 15 sec or less). If ads are so simple and short, why are they so damned effective in swaying millions, even billions, of people? Because of the psychological power of association. It's like the Albert Brooks as the ad guy in LOST IN AMERICA yammering about how Christmas can be associated with Las Vegas. His pitch came to fruition --reality now imitates jokes like life used to imitate art -- in America, but then, Christmas was long ago associated with crass materialism by the power of advertising.
The scene in LOST IN AMERICA is silly, but it conveys a real truth about the power of Advertising-as-Ideology or Advertising-over-ideology, or 'Adeology'. The human mind naturally seeks patterns, rhymes, parallels, associations. Why do so many people purchase certain products? Are all those shampoos really all that good? Or is it because the commercial associates the products with beautiful people and celebrities? Why should people buy a certain brand of cereal or pair of shoes? For many people, the main appeal is the product's association with some famous person or athlete. Now, Air Jordans aren't going to improve anyone's athletic skills, let alone turn him into a Michael Jordan, but kids who wear that stuff feel associated with Michael Jordan, as if there is a meeting of spirits through shoe-wear. Or consider how Americans came to associate gambling with moral redemption. By doling out casinos to Indian Reservations as a form of 'reparation', the ugly vice became associated with redressing historical tragedies. Thus morally laundered, gambling could be promoted in all 50 states as a virtue industry than a vice industry. So many Americans have come to support Israel mindlessly because of the power of Zionist 'Adeology'. At AIPAC conferences, giant screens blare with images juxtaposing the US flag with the Israel flag. And the speeches say little about real politics or history and instead run like Ad campaigns with slogans and jingles formulated to be soundbites quoted by the compliant MSM. "Israel is America's closest ally", "Israel is America's greatest ally", "America stands with Israel", etc. People who come under the spell of such barrage no longer need to think. For them, Zionism works like the greatest soap commercial. Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays understood the power of advertising as the neo-iconography of the post-religious age. For most of traditionalist history, the dominant images or ideas were associated with eternal themes or mighty rulers. In European history from 500 to 1900, the most dominant(and recurring) images were those of Jesus and other Christian icons. In the Muslim world, the dominant images were Islamic symbols. In the Hindu world, it was Hindu images and symbolism. But with the rise of consumerism, the dominant images became consumer products and entertainment, a fact all-too-well understood by Andy Warhol. Since products-as-products are a bit boring, advertising associated products with famous stars, glamorous celebrities, or gorgeous fashion models. And in time, even TV shows and movies were like extended commercials with fancy cars, dress, products, and glam lifestyles. Advertising Companies gained the top power, possibly even over Hollywood, as the main idol-and-icon-generators. It's like people pay just as much attention to Superbowl commercials as to the Superbowl game itself. Indeed, after the game is over, there is more discussion of the ads than of the game that is over and done with.
Anyway, naturally The Power is going to use 'Adeology' to favor its own agenda. Notice the sheer paucity of Palestinian narrative or iconography in the media. Last year was the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms, but there was virtually no mention of the term in the media and government. (If any politician in Congress had requested a moment of silence to commemorate the tragedy, he would have been lynched and destroyed by the entire Jewish Power Complex.) In contrast, politicians, media people, and etc. have spouted off a million times about not only Israel but Israel-as-America's-greatest-ally. Americans never see an image of the US flag juxtaposed with the Palestinian flag, but we've all seen countless images of the Israel flag associated with US flag. Humans take pride in being creatures of reason(unlike stupid animals), but most times, we sense reality by instant-associations than by logical reason. If this weren't true, commercials would have little impact on us. Advertising has tremendous sway over us because our minds are essentially Pavlovian. (Indeed, even when we know commercials are mostly BS on the rational level, we are affected by them on the subliminal and sensual level.) Just like dogs can be made to associate bells with food even though bells and food have no direct relation, our minds can be made to associate anything with anything. They can be made to associate the vice of gambling with the virtue of historical redress. They can be made to associate Zionism with the Holocaust. Even though Zionism predated WWII by 70 yrs and even though Israel was created AFTER World War II in which Evil Nazi Germany was totally crushed, we've been led to believe Israel was an existential necessity to save Jews from the Holocaust. Associate Israel with the Holocaust enough times, and people begin to believe the two are inseparably linked. But it's a bogus association because, if Jews really needed a safe space after the horrors of WWII, Palestine was a rather odd place for a Jewish homeland as Jews would be surrounded by tons of enraged Arabs. Also, if the lesson of the Holocaust is that racial supreamcism is bad, how does it justify Zionism's ideology of Jews uber Palestinians? But the associative power of 'Adeology' distracts us from moral logic and historical reason. Just repeat, "Israel is America's greatest ally" while staring at an image of the US flag and the Israel flag melding into one. Even a cursory glance at the news media makes it clear as day that they're hardly distinguishable from advertising. Media are owned by super-rich people who invest huge sums in certain politicians, agendas, or movements. Why would they undermine their own investments in business, politics, and society by allowing the media to be rational, fair, and impartial in their pursuit of truth? Carlos Slim didn't invest in NYT to have it counter his agenda. Jeff Bezos didn't buy Washington Post to have it rail against him and Amazon. Jews didn't spend billions on media ownership to spread news and views that might undermine the Jewish supremacist project. George Soros doesn't fund all these 'universities' to foster free thought that might conclude that Soros is a son of a bitch and globalism sucks. So, most of media work just like advertising. Media carefully vet the kind of reporters who will be good dogs. Indeed, the conditioning happens from grade-school to college as the Media-and-Academia-Combine(controlled by Jews) target kids for indoctrination and 'idolatration' from the youngest age possible. Most of MSM is just propaganda or Ad-wars for the Deep State that takes its orders from Jewish Power. Mass Media are Jewish-controlled industry colluding with Deep State operatives who are mostly either Jewish or goy-puppets of Jews. Jewish Power is about network tyranny. There is no single Jew who is all-powerful like Stalin or Mao. Even super-rich Jews like Bloomberg and Adelson, on their own, could do only so much. But Jewish power is vast and networked in elite institutions and industries, and Jews have developed an instinctive tribal-supremacist hive-mindset that allows for synchronized coordination even without communication. For example, if a politician condemns the US involvement in Syria, so many Jews in media, academia, state, law firms, Hollywood, and etc, all think and feel alike: Syria is ally of Iran, enemy of Israel. For Israel's interests, Syria must be ruined. Anyone defending Syria must be destroyed. Even without talking with one another, most Jews instantly know what-is-up and what-must-be-done. So, instantly, the Jewish hive-action kicks into gear in all sectors to attack the defender of Syria. Now, Jews will not come out and admit this is how they feel and why they do what they do, but they all KNOW. They (((know))), and based on that hive-mind knowledge, they read from The Script to push the Jewish supremacist agenda. Of course, for general consumption(by us goy dummies), Jews in media, academia, state, and etc. will repeat the same talking points about 'Assad murders his own people', 'Assad uses gas', 'Assad is puppet of Putin', and 'Syria is a threat to Israel'(even though it's Israel that has been violating Syrian air space and dropping tons of bombs). But deep down inside, Jews know it's all about securing Jewish supremacism in the Middle East.
Now, returning to the problem of Middle America, one of its essential tasks must be the development of the Middle Mind. In a normal political order, the Middle usually goes about their daily routines and elects leaders to represent them and do the Big Stuff. They leave the policies and planning to the elites and elected officials. And the US used to have a functional elite system when white politicians paid heed to white voters(though, to be sure, politicians were always whores of oligarchs and moneymen; but then, white oligarchs of the past felt greater affinity with others of their race). Today, capitalist oligarchs are globo-homo freaks whose main attachment is to the class of super-achievers and super-rich all around the world. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are closer and feel cozier with billionaires and fancy elites around the world than with the lower members of their own race. People have forgotten that white race-ism did wonders for peoples all around the world, though often unintentionally. Race-ism forced white elites to favor their own folks over non-white elites. So, the British Empire was about the British elites favoring poor whites and working class whites as fellow countrymen than favoring non-white elites. Traditional British were obsessed with class, but they still favored race-ism over class-ism. Race-ism forced white elites to represent, defend, and feel loyal to their own racial kin and folks. It forced a certain socialism as noblesse oblige on the white elites. This had a great impact on non-whites as well. Non-white elites were tempted to dump most of their own kind(as the masses of any society are 'losers' and 'dummies') and cozy up to white elites. So many Hindu and Chinese elites were more than willing to collaborate with European imperialism and dilly-dally with white elites. But when push came to shove, European imperialist elites favored race-ism over class-ism. British elites favored British masses over non-white elites, and French elites favored French masses over non-white elites. This 'insult' and slight had an ennobling effect on non-white elites. Snubbed by race-ist white elites, they also took up the banner of nationalist race-ism and championed their own peoples against the white imperialist elites. This led to the great anti-imperialist and pro-nationalist Third World movements. White elites were with white masses, and non-white elites were with their own masses. Thus, the world politics came to be about the masses looking up to their own elites as national defenders and champions. Like how the Vietnamese came to regard Ho Chi Minh, how the Indians came to regard Gandhi, and how Cubans came to regard Castro. (If the British elites hadn't discriminated against men like Gandhi, the latter would have become a bunch of Fareed Zakarias and Francis Fukuyamas, deracinated and traitorous Servitors of Empire. Zakaria cheers for US destruction of Syria, and Fukuyama is George Soros' boy who pushes population replacement for Hungary and Japan[though never for Israel].) The form of poly-nationalism or universal nationalism that came to prominence after WWII seemed to work just fine, but Jews came to resent it as they became the imperial elites of the US as the lone superpower. Jews loved nationalism for Israel where Jewish elites and Jewish masses were bound by history, culture, and blood. But goy nationalism was bad for the Jewish supremacist project because goy nationalism means that the primary obligation of goy elites is to their goy masses, e.g. Hungarian elites for Hungarian masses, Russian elites for Russian masses, Chinese elites for Chinese masses, white Christian American elites for white Christian American masses. This was frustrating for Jewish supremacism because it depends on goy elites serving Jewish hegemonists than representing and defending goy masses. So, Jews spread the notion that nationalism, at least among goyim, is 'far right', 'xenophobic', 'neo-nazi', 'racist', and 'exclusionary'. And Jews said all nations(except Israel) must embrace Diversity as the ultimate ideal. After all, Diversity could be used by Jews to drive a wedge between native goy elites and native goy masses. If goy elites must uphold Diversity above all, then they must prioritize the demands of foreign immigrant-invaders and minorities than the needs of their own folk. And it means that the native masses who decry Diversity and Replacement-Immigration should be denounced as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. Once the goy elites have been decoupled from their goy masses, they could be used to serve the interest of Jewish super-elites. In some ways, this arrangement was appealing to white elites as well because it's more fun for elites(of any kind) to favor other elites than care about their own people. Elite-to-elite network is a community of winners. In contrast, race-ist nationalism means winners must also be concerned with losers of their own kind. Zionism is about Jewish-Israeli elites being primarily bound to Israeli-Jewish people, whereas the Irish and Swedish national policies are now about the elites being most loyal to globo-homo hegemony, snubbing & excoriating their national folk over the slightest hint of 'racism' and 'xenophobia', and rolling out the red carpet to endless tides of immigrant-invaders who holler, "Where da white women at?" One of the reason why Jewish globalists were eager to end communism in the Soviet Union was the system was about winners taking care of losers. Communism was a bad system and ineffective, but it did bind the Soviet elites to Soviet masses. But with communism gone, the Soviet elites could unchain themselves from the masses and scheme with Jewish globalists to make some serious dough for themselves. Of course, Jews would take the lion share of the wealth, but there was plenty to go around for the ex-Soviet goy elites who decided to roll the dice with the globalists.
Though it may seem counter-intuitive, globalism is dangerous to all peoples precisely because it is anti-race-ist. Unlike old Western Imperialism that was race-ist and upheld the unity of white elites and white masses, globalism is about white elites handing the white masses the divorce paper(a kind of no-fault divorce) to sever ties of contract and, instead, joining the swinging-set with globo-elites all around the world. Since Western globalist elitism no longer discriminates against non-white elites, even non-white elites are abandoning their own race-ist nationalism and scrambling to join the globo-homo Elysium World of winners-to-winners networking. Nicer for rich Hindu families to raise their kids to join Elysium of winners than devote their lives to improving the lot of so many Hindu losers who still shit outdoors. And naturally, Jews have promoted globo-homo or Homomania as the ideology and 'idology' of the New World Order becasue (1) Jews prize homos as fellow elite minorities (2) homos are naturally aristo in style and attitude (2) homomania de-moralizes and de-culturalizes peoples and nations and promotes fads and fashions of 'Adeology' controlled by Jews. Needless to say, Israel gets passover privilege from globalist denunciation of nationalism and race-ism as pathology and disease. Mono-Nationalism of Zionism says Jews and only Jews are deserving of nationalism, racial identity, and unity-solidarity of elites and folks. When Jews touch nationalism, it's pure gold. When goyim touch nationalism, it is lead poisoning... so says the twisted Jewish Logic that is for Jewish Mono-nationalism and against Poly-nationalism of goy peoples.
In a sane nation, the elites would try to moralize the populace because a moral, decent, and virtuous people are best for society. But Jews don't see goy populace as kinfolk worthy of care and concern. If anything, Jews see goy mass morality as a threat to Jewish power that is now awash in financial crookedness, vice industries, profits via pornification of mainstream culture, senseless Wars for Israel, and big pharma drug-peddling. An 'immoralized' people are less likely to be morally outraged by the filth and foulness of corrupt elites. So, Jews turned Disney into a slut-factory. (But because Disney began as a Family Entertainment Industry, its recent slut-promotion and homo-tranny propaganda are associated with 'Family Values'. More Adeology in action.) Jews promoted homomania as neo-christianity, to the point where so many Western churches now worship 'rainbow'-homo over God and Jesus. Jewish power bitches about 'hate speech'(as defined by Jewish haters who never berate Israel for its crimes) but does NOTHING about how hardcore porn is now readily accessible to young kids. There is promotion of tattoos, piercing, and sexual perversions of all kind, like 'pegging' a man by a woman with a dildo strap-on. We have news articles saying that straight men(!!) should experiment in 'gay' sex and take it up the arse. Jewish power de-moralized Americans of true morality and re-moralized them with fake morals, such as 'empowerment via slut pride', celebration of 'gay pride', promotion of trannies as 'real women', New Cold War against Russia that wants peace, endless 'hate hoaxes' concocted to promote anti-white defamation as fight-against-bigotry, stupid nonsense about 'white privilege' to distract people from Jewish privilege, 'gay marriage', and other forms of insanity. Jews would have us believe the New Normal constitutes 'universal values', but it is actually 'inversal values' as it's premised on inverting all the time-tested forms of virtue, integrity, morality, sanity, and normality.
Middle America must develop its own mind because Upper America has called for divorce. When a man says "I divorce you" and departs, the woman must no longer expect to be taken care of by him, especially if the law say he doesn't have to give her anything. In the movie UNMARRIED WOMAN, Jill Clayburgh finally comes to take care of herself after her husband dumped her. In TWICE IN A LIFETIME, the jilted wife learns to land on her own feet after her hubber dumps her. The big fat truth of American Politics is that the white elites divorced the white middle. White Middle must learn to think for itself and fend for itself and say FU to the elites. And remember, it was the white elites that rejected the white masses, not the other way around. The problem of Middle America is it is still under the impression that there is a marriage contract between itself and white elites. It will do better to break free of this delusion.
Upper White America is now just a mistress of Jewish supremacist globalist pimp, and it prefers to dilly-dally with non-white elites around the world who have also filed divorce papers to cut ties with their own national folks. Even Japanese political and business elites are giving up on their own people and preparing Japan to become another Brazil. Closer to home, look at the white elites of Canada and Australia. They will gladly dump on their own national folks and go shmoozing with Jewish elites, Chinese elites, and Hindu elites. Australian white elites will gladly sell entire swaths of national territory to Chinese and Hindu tycoons. White Canadian elites sneer at white masses and offer entire areas of their cities to Hindu, Chinese, and Muslim oligarchs and rich folks. Most sadly, even much of Middle America, Middle Canada, and Middle Australia(and Middle Britain of course) have been sold on globalism because everyone from top to bottom has been brainwashed with mantras of Diversity, magic of Great Negro, wonders of Holy Jew(and universal obligatory worship of holy holocaust), and globo-homo fanfare. For most people, pop culture and advertising are their only culture. And virtually everyone who attends college is brainwashed into rejecting race-ism(except for Jews), nationalism, and true moralism. They come to believe Diversity is the highest good(even though diversity is the product of imperialism), race-mixing is the panacea of all problems(even though race-mixing has usually been the product of invasion & rape and interracism is predicated on racial superiority-inferiority, e.g. white women should go with black men who are superior to white dorks in muscle, vocality, and dong size). Look at Ireland. Once proudly nationalist, 70% of its people voted to pass 'gay marriage', and the idiot masses are so enamored to have some hindu homo as prime minister.
Of course, the white cucky-wuck elites prefer the new arrangement because the fading of nationalism and race-ism means that the native masses can no longer press upon the national elites to work for the common national good. Indeed, the very notion of shared national interest went out the window in New Ireland that is defined by More Diversity than by national identity and solidarity. So, what are Ireland and Irish interests under the globo-homo regimen where Ireland is now all about taking in tons of Africans, Muslims, and Hindus as the New Irish? It means the end of real Ireland and Irish people. Of course, Irish elites will have a grand time selling their nation down the river because they can capitalize on dilly-dallying with globalist elites of all races and colors. Winner-to-winner peer-networking. Irish have a contradictory mindset because they were both the most committed resisters against Anglo-Imperialism as well as its greatest collaborators. Even as the Irish sought to free Ireland from British Rule, the Irish followed the Anglos all over the world to colonize the New World, Asia, Africa, and etc. Today, UK and Ireland are almost indistinguishable in that both are under the globo-homo hegemony of the Empire of Judea. As such, their fates are now virtually identical and intertwined: Worship Jews, Negroes, and Homos. Open Borders and destruction of native identity. That said, the Irish worship the Jews so much that they've become, paradoxically enough, anti-Zionist(a development also evident in the British Labour Party). Irish politics and British Labour worship Jews as the Holy Holocaust people and have swallowed Jewish-led globohomo pro-diversity propaganda so totally that they are appalled by Jews acting like New Nazis in West Bank and Gaza. Jews are pulling their hair over this because they've steered themselves into a trap of their own making. After all, the position of Ireland and Labour Party is the logical conclusion of Jewish globo-homo ideology of diversity-mongering. Perhaps, the Irish and Labour Party need more doses of 'Adeology' than ideology so that they will think less about the issues and just get all teary-eyed with mantras of "Israel is our greatest ally".
Anyway, how does Middle America develop a mind of its own? Via the internet, the dispersed world of Middle America must create networks across cities, suburbs, small towns. Across all 50 states. Middle America must drop the complacent habit of letting OTHERS do the thinking for it. It must learn to think and talk for itself. Alt Right had a chance to play this role, but idiots like Richard Spencer blew it with egomania and flirting with trashy 14/88 garbage. In the past, Middle America relied on figures like Rush Limbaugh to be its spokesman, but as Big Media are concentrated in few hands, most of the talking points came to be about 'lower taxes', silly sentimentality about Reagan, 'Israel, Israel, Israel', and etc. Rush Limbaugh was a huge champion of 'free trade' and globo-capitalism. He extolled winners and berated 'losers'. This 'voice of Middle America and its fruited plains' lionized super-capitalists as champions of freedom and liberty. Fast forward to today, and we now know these super-oligarchs are anti-nationalist, anti-conservative, anti-white-solidarity, and anti-freedom. It's been none other than the super-capitalists who deplatformed people, deny payment services and even banking to dissidents, and used big media to spread homomania. They use law firms to shut down free speech and go after virtuous bakers who refused to bake 'gay wedding' cakes. Also, as the 'voices of Middle America' on Talk Radio make their money from commercials paid for by globohomo super-capitalists, they don't even dare to speak truth to Homo power or Jewish power. They're a bunch of pathetic cucks.
Now, if Middle America had all the time in the world, it should work patiently to study hard and work itself into elite domains, just like the 60s radicals did in the 'long march through the institutions'. But there is no time for this. Demographics are changing too fast. So, Middle America must make its voices heard from where it is, the Middle. This would have been impossible in the past, but with the right tools and organization an authentic Middle American voice can be created via the internet. A media network that links all places, from biggest cities to smallest towns. Even though the internet is accessible to all peoples and places, there has yet to be a unified platform that consolidates and connects all of Middle America into a Mind and Mouth of its own that is truly independent of puppet-strings of the globo-homo oligarchs and their commissars and agents.
First of all, there must be a war of terminology. Those who control terminology rig the game to favor their own ideology and agenda. Take a term like 'homophobia' that intrinsically favors the homo agenda because the very wording assumes that there is such a thing as phobia about homos when there isn't. There is a lot of negative feelings about homos, but it's not a phobia, an extreme panicked fearful reaction to something that is harmless. People who are turned off by homosexuality have sound, natural, and moral reasons. I mean it's about guys f***ing each other in the ass. Even if we tolerate such stuff, it is ugly, gross, and disease-prone. But the term 'homophobia' rigs the discourse in favor of homomania by assuming that anyone who is critical of or turned off by homosexuality is suffering from a clinical pathology. Or take the utter corruption of term 'antisemitism' that now means speaking the most obvious truths about Jewish Power. Even honest Tru-Semitism, or truthful criticism about Jewish influence, is shouted down as 'antisemitic', a term associated with Nazis and the like.
Anyway, Middle America is finished unless it develops a mind and mouth of its own. It must first wake up and read the divorce papers signed by white elites who chose to pimp themselves to Jewish super-elites and join in the globo-homo elite orgy. Just look at Justin Trudeau, the Man for All Costumes, and Emmanuel Macron, the Negro hugger who says real Frenchness is in Africa, implying France must take in endless numbers of stronger and donger black guys who will beat up weaker French guys and hump French women. White elites handed divorce papers to white folks. They are now in 'free love' dalliance with Diversity. Understanding this, White people and Middle America must tell themselves every day, "White elites are NOT our elites. They are globo-homo whores of Zion. They are swingers, not loyal spouses to the national folk." Understanding this truth, white people and Middle America must decide that, because white elites no longer feel any sense of obligation to white masses, the white masses in turn should feel zero loyalty to white elites. So, if white elites make any demand on white masses, give them the middle finger or the Middle American Finger... just like Yellow Jackets in France are telling Macron to go to hell. Why should white masses serve the power, privilege, wealth, and status of white elites when scum like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos just shi* on them? The hell with globohomo 'free trade' capitalism. Middle America or 'Kansas'(of "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank) should turn Social-Nationalist and say FU to the rich and affluent. Rush Limbaugh assured his listeners that the rich and successful would defend liberty and freedom of all the people from the State, but it turns out that the rich, especially Jewish ones, are spearheading efforts to take away our speech, our rights, and our guns. Via hyper-capitalism, they gain monopoly over media and platforms and treat the masses like Israel treats Palestinians in West Bank. Middle America was told that capitalism is great because profits and self-interest bring together even peoples who don't see eye to eye ideologically or tribally. Business means profits, and that means anyone will sell to anyone for more money, thus assuring co-existence of all peoples on the basis of business interests. But look how the big capitalists collude with the Deep State to shut down even banking and payment systems to certain individuals and groups. Look at the vile Jewish supremacist efforts to shut down BDS and free speech that calls for justice for Palestinians. Jewish capitalists fund politicians to proscribe the rights of Palestinian-Americans and their sympathizers. Look at Tim Cook that vile scum who speaks of 'sin' -- funny talk from a guy whose life revolves around taking penises up his poopchute -- and how Apple must censor anyone hated by Zionists who murder Palestinians. Limbaugh couldn't have been more wrong. Libertarianism was one big fraud that, boiled down to essentials, means the those with most money and biggest monopolies can use their muscle to do just about anything.
Middle America or Middle FINGER America must ask why it must support Jews against Palestinians(and Wars for Israel) when Jewish Power treats whites like Zionists treat Palestinians. Middle Finger America must break free from fat fartbags like John Hagee who has poisoned countless minds with blind worship of Jews and Israel(even though all polls show that Jews hate and despise white Evangelicals even more than Muslims). And if white cuck elites bitch and complain about how Middle Finger America isn't sufficiently loyal to the GOP(that snubbed white people who voted for it in favor of globo-homo hegemony), it should do a Janet Jackson on them and ask "What have you done for me lately?" As white elites declared divorce on white masses, they have no right to demand loyalty from white people. When white elites collaborate with Jewish super-elites to replace white folks and turn all of US into one big California, why should white masses do anything for white elites(who suck up to Jews than serve their own race)?
We need a Left-Right, and by that, I don’t mean that ‘rightists’ should join with ‘leftists’ or take up current ‘leftist’ agendas. Today’s ‘left’ is either crazy, stupid, or silly. (Today’s establishment ‘right’ is gutless and pathetic. A bunch of whores.) What I mean is that the Real Right should adopt certain Real Left themes. The Real Right doesn’t need to form an alliance the Far Left or the crazy ‘left’. Certainly not with the ridiculous globo-homo pseudo-left. But the Real Right can look back on history and recognize the noblest themes of the Real Left and incorporate them into the larger Agenda. Thus, the Left-Right. A Real Right enriched with adoption of the best themes of the Real Left.
Also, to clear thing up, we need to speak of White Elite Privilege.
The US is really about White Elite Privilege, not White Privilege. White Elites really do have privilege and work hard to justify & keep it by spouting PC cliches about fighting ‘white privilege’, thus spreading the blame around to ALL whites, most of whom don’t have privilege. It’s a trick of spreading the blame to stay in the game.
We have to stop talking of ‘White Privilege’. The term is overly broad and generic. Too often, the debate is about ‘there is white privilege’ vs ‘there is no white privilege’. The problem is ‘white’ is too expansive and inclusive a category, including everyone from Bill Gates to toothless hillbilly in W. Virginia. So, ‘white privilege’ is pointless as it includes even dirt poor whites with nothing and are often victimized by black thugs.
But there really is White Elite Privilege. Paradoxically, in order for White Elites to keep their considerable status and privilege, they must denounce ‘White Privilege’. It is oh-so-very convenient for them because they, as the clever educated and affluent, get to posture as agents of ‘social justice’ against the white working class and ‘deplorables’ who resist ‘change’. (Diversity also favors the elites over the masses. In a homogeneous society, the rich elites are at a moral disadvantage vis-a-vis the masses who have less. But in a diverse society, the rich elites can hug Diversity[mostly as tokens and peons] and accuse the have-nots of ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’. Thus, moral advantage goes to the elites.) To expose these a**holes and bring them down, we need to use the term, White Elite Privilege. Or White Comprador Elite Privilege because white elite privilege is in service to Jewish Super-Privilege. As Jewish Power has rigged the Narrative to make Jews holy & pure while making whites tainted & guilty, white elites must appear to atone for past sins in order to justify and keep their privilege. Jews exploit this psychology by steering guilt-ridden white elites to serve Jewish power and Zionism, and the white elites play along because it isn’t all that difficult to shout out ‘Long Live Israel’ and wave the Israeli flag. Sure beats being dragged to labor camps for re-education. We need to talk of White Elite Privilege vs White Mass Problems. Change the terms of the debate, and people will think differently.
Even in the post-macro-ideological globo-homo 21st century, we have so many people discussing power and politics in terms of Left vs Right. So, it’s not uncommon on those on the Right to denounce the globo-homo agenda as ‘leftist’ and associate it with communism or ‘Cultural Marxism’. Because of the rise of movements centered around POC(People of Color) Identity Politics, New Feminism, and Homomania, many on the Right decry that the Left is winning and has always been winning, whereas the timid Right always follows in the Leftist footsteps. But has the Left been winning? Or has the elements labeled as ‘leftist’ been winning? While labels are important, they are not the content of the thing. For example, suppose bottles labeled ‘milk’ decline in market value and are on the verge of being dropped from store shelves. Suppose the bottles continue to be labeled ‘milk’ but come with beer than real milk. Suppose they begin to sell in huge numbers. Because of the labels on the bottles, should we say 'milk' is the hottest item even though the content is really beer? Consider today’s China. It’s still ruled by the Communist Party, but is China’s economy really communist? Isn’t it closer to capitalism and market economics? Or consider the EU that calls itself a union of Liberal Democracies. Are European nations really liberal and democratic? Or are they essentially globo-homo autocracies managed by craven cuck-collaborators who serve globo-homo Jewish Masters of the World? While labels should ideally identify products with accuracy, it’s often the case that something goes by the name of something else. So, just as so much that is called ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’ isn’t any such, much that is called ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ isn’t any such either.
Most of today’s so-called Liberals don’t care about individualism, liberty, and freedom of conscience, the hallmarks of Classical Liberalism. And today’s so-called Leftists are far more likely to rhapsodize over narcissistic elite homos sponsored by capitalist oligarchs than about workers or the downtrodden of society. Sure, these ‘leftist’ elites pretend to care about poor Third World masses clamoring to enter the First World, but the only real value of immigrant/migrant hordes to the proggy elites is their utility as helot-scab-workforce or mercenary voters for the Sorosian Agenda. Also, so much of today’s ‘leftism’ and ‘liberalism’ are ultimately puppet-strings pulled to serve what is essentially Jewish Rightism of the Supremacist Kind. (There is rightist-nationalism and rightist-imperialism. Rightist-nationalism says each people deserve national autonomy and sovereignty, whereas rightist-imperialism says that a superior people should rule over other peoples. Jewish globalists are rightist-imperialists.) After all, there is hardly any moral logic or consistency to the supposed Jewish commitment to Liberalism and Leftism. Jews denounce group identity among white goyim and insist that white people must either be atomized individuals(along libertarian lines) or deracinated ideologues(along universalist-leftist lines), but the same rule doesn’t apply to Jews and their allies. So, while Jews tell whites to be either lonely individuals or universal ideologues, they themselves remind each other to be proudly Jewish, support Israel as a Jewish State, and manipulate World Events to be favorable to Jewish power and hegemony. And even though so-called Jewish Liberals deny right-of-identity to whites, they encourage black pride-of-identity because black complaints and claims are useful in paralyzing white pride and confidence. And while Jews denounce Russian nationalism, they support Ukrainian nationalism against Russia. Of course, two-faced weasel-Jews often play two sets of cards at once. So, while Jews promote Ukrainian and Polish nationalism AGAINST Russia, they pull every dirty trick in the book to weaken Ukrainian and Polish nationalism against the globo-agenda of Homomania(proxy weapon of Jews) and Afro-Islamic Migration-Invasion. So, we need to be more careful when we use labels. What is often called ‘leftist’ isn’t really. What is often called ‘rightist’ may not be so. Cuckservatives are certainly not true conservatives. How can they conserve anything of their race, culture, and heritage when their modus operandi is ‘suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos’? The core Western value according to Conservatism Inc. is to conserve the very forces that are rapidly replacing the natives(whites) with non-whites. According to this School of Bought Thought(especially in America), the essence of Conservatism is the preservation of ideas and values(favored by transnational elites and Jewish supremacists) than tangibles like blood and soil. Following this logic, it doesn’t matter if Europe becomes all black, yellow, and brown. As along as they support low-taxes and ‘free trade’, Conservatism will have triumphed. (Never mind that Western Values cannot survive for long without the white race because other groups have different racial personalities and abilities. It’s like blackness cannot survive without blacks. If black Africa were replaced entirely with Chinese and Japanese, the result would be, despite all the efforts by yellows to be the 'new black', they wouldn’t be able to maintain authentic blackness because the natural inclination of yellows simply isn’t black. This is also why ‘whiggers’ aren’t very convincing. While blacks can draw inspiration from whites and vice versa — and even though some individual blacks can be convincingly white and some whites can be convincingly black — , the collective personality of blacks don’t make for maintenance of Western Civilization, just like collective personality of whites cannot sustain blackness in a world without blacks.) Another bogus aspect of Conservatism Inc. is its sheer craven hypocrisy when it comes to Jews. So, Cuckservatives like David French and Paul Ryan will denounce in the harshest terms any sign of white identity or interest but then go out on a limb to lionize Jewish consciousness and pride. According to their ‘moral’ logic, Hungary and Poland are oh-so-wrong to say NO to mass-migration-invasion, BUT Israel is morally justified in using ruthless firepower to gun down Palestinians who want to return to their homeland. One wonders if these people are blind hypocrites or just craven opportunists naturally prone to suck up to any dominant Power. Paul Ryan tells the 97% of him that is white to shut the hell up but ecstatically celebrates the 3% of him that is Jewish. Such is hardly the basis of true conservatism. By its very nature, Rightism must favor the tangible like home, family, race, land, and nation. In contrast, Leftism is more about ideals borne of intellectualism. If there is a tomato, rightism’s main focus would be to preserve the tomato itself as a tomato. In contrast, leftism is prone to come up with ideas as to what can be done with the tomato. So, both rightism and leftism are necessary. We need to be mindful of what are real & tangible and seek to preserve them. And yet, we aren’t merely animals but creative beings with the power of reason and imagination, and so, it is our nature to come up with ideas that may make better use of the materials we have. There is validity in the rightist will to preserve the tomato and the leftist desire to make tomato sauce out of it. The problem with today’s so-called ‘leftism’ is it believes that if the tomato is called a carrot, it is a ‘carrot’. There are good ways to use tomatoes and bad ways to use tomatoes. Rightism insists on preserving true tomato-ness whereas leftism seeks the broaden the use of tomato-ness. With ONLY RIGHTISM, the tomato would be preserved but would only be a tomato. With ONLY LEFTISM, the tomato might be used for atrocious radical experimentation such as ‘tomato ice cream’, ‘tomato as baseball'.
Another difference between rightism and leftism is the former tends to be eternalist whereas the latter tends to be universalist. Rightism believes that certain truths are so profound and/or sacred that they are relevant and applicable to all times: The truth is just as legitimate today as it was 2,000 yrs ago. In contrast, leftism believes that certain truths are so essential and necessary that ALL OF HUMANITY must be made to share it, even if by force. Judaism was essentially rightist in that it didn’t care to share its ideas and values with all the world but it reminded every generation of Jews that the Laws of Moses must be preserved and obeyed by Jews for all eternity. In contrast, Christianity is both leftist and rightist. Its universalism hopes for all of humanity to share in the same faith as revealed by Jesus Christ. It was a decisive & revolutionary break from Judaism. And yet, Christianity presents itself as the New Covenant for all mankind til the end of time. So, Jesus didn’t just start something new but finalized it as well. He revealed the ultimate truth, and the mission of mankind is to pass down this truth to all future generations; this Truth cannot be altered by whims of fashion. Muhammad too was leftist and rightist, a revolutionary of his time who also claimed to be the Final Prophet who laid down the definitive truth for all peoples and all of time.
But the modern conception of ‘permanent revolution’ rejects eternalism while clinging to universalism. And this has been a source of profound contradictions in Modern Leftism. If it were purely a vanguard movement for a small cult, it could keep evolving and changing at rapid pace regardless of the larger humanity. It could work as edgy elitism. But radical elitism + radical universalism makes synchronicity of the two modes difficult, often impossible.
Now, an eternalist idea can serve as the basis of universalism. While the idea began with a small band of people and took time to spread to the larger humanity, there would be unity and consensus of theme, meaning, and destiny between the creators and the converts. After all, eternalism means unchanging(or gradually evolving) wisdom over time. So, even if many or most people came to the idea much later, they are bound to believe in the same tenets as conceived by the original finders of the Truth. Eternalism and universalism can thus support one another. But what happens when a creed or ideology is universalist but anti-eternalist? It means that the core-vanguard keeps reprogramming the code as the momentary truth. The result is a web of contradictions. After all, once a certain Truth has been ‘universalized’ and spread among the larger humanity, the core vanguard goes about revealing and insisting upon a 'new truth'. Thus, it's difficult to maintain meaningful unity between the creators and converts. By the time the masses have embraced the latest Truth, the command tower says, "Never mind the previous directive, here’s the new one." So, the problem of ‘intersectionality’ isn’t merely a matter of different groups failing to see eye-to-eye but a matter of time-lag between PC command central and the larger populace. So, the very command central that was once for defending all speech as free speech is now for banning anti-globalist speech as ‘hate speech’. The very command central that was once for Female Identity(of Sisterhood) now says men are ‘women’ too if they say so. Of course, as the command central of PC is really controlled by Jews who have near-monopoly over media, academia, finance, law firms & courts, and high-tech, the core motivations behind alternations of Official Dogma is really predicated on the algorithm of "Is it good for the Jews?"
National Humanist Neo-Fascism insists on correct use of terminology, and it believes that most of what goes by the label of ‘leftist’ isn’t leftist and often anti-leftist, by which I mean anti-real-leftist. And even supposedly leftist communist/anarchist groups like Antifa either have been infiltrated by Jewish Zionists or are protected by globo-homo capitalist oligarchs only to be used as cudgel against White Liberationists. Just like German Conservatives(who controlled much of the industry and institutions during the Weimar Republic) provided favorable protection to Nazi street-fighters to be used against communists and other radicals, super-wealthy Jewish oligarchs offer special protection to Antifa gangs because there is nothing that Jews fear more than White Liberation and Emancipation. (When white people call for liberation from Jewish supremadcism, Antifa is encouraged to attack them. And when white people fight back against antifa scum, Jewish power and its cuck-collaborators go easy on Antifa thugs while throwing the book at the white defenders who merely pushed back against Antifa janissaries or Antifanissaries of the Jews.) The key difference between Weimar Germany and 21st century America is that while the National Socialists had a chance of coming to power, no such possibility exists for Antifa communists and such ilk. They are so lacking in mass support that their only utility is as violent street-goons for the Jewish Capitalist Elites. If there really were a powerful Antifa-led communist movement in the US that could topple capitalism and strip the oligarchs of their wealth, Jews would think twice about fanning the flames of Antifa. As far as Jews are concerned, there is absolutely no chance of communist victory in the US, whereas there is a real possibility of mass white civil and racial disobedience to the Jewish globo-homo elites. White Emancipation from Jewish supremacism is a possibility, especially as vile and vicious Jewish globalists are now coming out of the closet in record numbers, spitting in the face of whites, and telling them that they must be replaced by People-of-Color as the Diversity Scab Army of the Jews. (Until now, most white rightists have defended Jews against signs of 'antisemitism' among the POC, but if Jews go on loudly proclaiming that they support massive immigration-invasion by POC precisely to use against whites-as-the-scapegoat-for-all-the-wrongs-in-the-world, then more white rightists will turn against Jews-as-the-main-enemy. Also, if white power comes to be permanently crushed in the US, the only recourse left for white rightists would be to side with POC against Jews who hog the most power and privilege. It would be sweet revenge, giving the Jews a taste of their own medicine. The world is witnessing that very trend in the UK where white pride has been so broken that the only game left for most 'pozzed' whites is to side with POC against the Zionist oligarchs who seem to hog the most wealth and influence. Consider the rise of Jeremy Corbyn's standing not only among POC and PC crowd but among 'anti-Semites' who, feeling they've lost their nation and culture, now opt for the Samson Option and seek to bring down Jews along with the whites.) Besides, even though Antifa brandishes communist labels and symbolism, it’s more about globo-homo consumerist-decadence-and-degeneracy than about spartan economic-based commitment to revolution. Your average antifa member is likely to be a homo, tranny, druggie, incel, punk/grunge fan, body-piercing/tattoo freak, or a drunken hooligan than a sober and well-read soldier of the Revolution(like Strelnikov in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO).
And because Antifa freaks are either too stupid or cowardly to go up against the real power, they are happy to bark and bite at ‘nazis’, which may include Milo Yiannapolis and Gavin McInnes(and even Jordan Peterson). There was some truth to B.F. Skinner’s experiment with conditioning. Consider how, over time, the Power has mastered the reward-and-punishment technique to direct Antifa ire at its favorite targets. Initially, a bunch of Antifa types were attacking globo-capitalists in the 1990s. But Antifa extremists who took part in such mayhem were more likely to be arrested and charged. But when Antifa lunatics attacked the Alt Right or White Liberationists, they were not only treated with kid gloves but showered with praise. Antifa may be scum but they are nevertheless part of the human species, therefore prone to be shaped by social conditioning. Organisms tend to recoil from actions that are punished and repeat actions that are rewarded. Antifa are like dogs or children conditioned by Jewish Power to go easy on Wall Street and hard on ‘nazis’. Jews are indeed very clever.
Anyway, I will now try to use a proper and useful definition of the Left, and then explain why this truer understanding of the nobler aspects of Leftism supports the Family and the essential values associated with it. True Leftism must dwell on the kind of people-who-have-less. Less wealth, less privilege, less power, less protection. These people could be in the multitudes or could be in the minority. For most of human history, the great masses were without power that was concentrated in the hands of the monarchs, noblemen, and the clergy. Under imperialist rule, the foreign elite minority had power over the native majority. The British imperialist elite had power over the vast hordes of natives in India. And until the end of Apartheid in South Africa, the white minority had power over the black majority. In some ways, all societies are minority-ruled in one way or another. Even in a totally homogeneous society, the ruling elites constitute a tiny upper class whereas the ruled masses belong to the majority-classes(middle-class to underclass) that have far less. So, even a homogeneous society is ruled by a tiny upper-crust class over the much larger lower classes with less privilege and influence, and this is true even if the society happens to be a democracy/republic. After all, the masses get to vote only every four or five years. Also, even the candidates they vote for tend to be lackeys vetted and paid for by the upper elites who control most of the wealth and power.
In a diverse society, the inequalities can seem starker. Take Latin American nations, most of which have white minorities that, nevertheless, happen to occupy the uppermost positions in society in terms of political, economic, and cultural power. Thus, such nations are not only ruled by the minority-class but the minority-race... as opposed to a nation like Japan or Poland that is ruled by a minority-class but one that happens to be of the same ethnicity as the great majority: Polish elites ruling Polish masses, Japanese elites ruling Japanese masses.
There are many cases around the world of minority groups ruling over the majority masses. Most of Latin America is an obvious example. (Minority-Aryan-ruled India was a precursor to the state of affairs in Latin America.) In such cases, the minority elites could be the invasive folks or the native folks, depending on the historical trajectory. In Latin America, the white ruling elites are the invasive race over the brown native majority. But if the native ruling elites welcome large scale migration of foreigners for whatever reason(usually for labor to cut costs or to replace a shrinking native population that has lost the will to reproduce), the result will be a society where native elites rule over the majority of foreign origin, that is until the day arrives when the majority-of-foreign-origin decide to take power from the native elites. It’s possible that such will be the future of France, UK, Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. As the native majority folks are no longer reproducing much and/or won’t take on 'dirty' jobs considered to be lowly, they are filling up with foreigners who will work for any pay(or just come to take welfare). Unless trends change, all the nations mentioned above will end up with native minority rulers over majority foreign masses. Such future has already come to fruition in California. California came into prominence with white settlement and development. So, within the framework of American History, one could say the white folks have been the native population of the Golden State. It was with their effort that California really took shape as a recognizable and integral part of the United States. And this glorious California was solidly white majority, patriotic, and conservative. But the native whites began to take things too easy. They put down rifles and took up surf boards. And they didn’t want to do menial jobs like the Okies had done. Mexicans seemed to provide cheap labor. And white birthrates began to drop as white women turned to feminism, careerism, and contraceptives, while the men became more infantile and refused to grow up. And rise of PC instilled white natives with ridiculous radical ideas and ‘white guilt’. California also began to go bad with decadent culture centered around Hollywood in L.A. and Hippie-Homo excesses of the Bay Area. Whites lost pride of place and meaning while non-whites kept pouring in from South of the Border and across the Pacific. So, what is the state of California today? It is still mostly white-run at the top but over a non-white majority. Granted, one could argue that one key reason why white elites got so stupid and pushed crazy policies was because they were under the thumb of an even more powerful Jewish minority elite. Then, California today is ruled by the Jewish minority(with homo minority) that controls the white elite minority that rules over the non-white majority. These are cases of minority having power over the majority, but there are also cases of majority having power over minorities. In today’s South Africa, the black majority has power over the white minority. In Israel, the Jewish majority has power over the Palestinian minority. Russian majority has power over the Chechen minority. In some cases, it’s more complicated as the majority has more political power whereas the minority has more economic power. Jews are a small minority in Russia and lack the dominant position over the majority, but they still have great power due to their wealth and connections. The Chinese minorities in Southeast Asian nations are under majority political power but have considerable economic pull, in some cases owning or controlling the bulk of the economy.
At any rate, for our intents and purposes, what is relevant is how leftism figures into any of this. I would argue that leftism sympathizes with and lends support to whichever side that happens to have less power, and this isn’t always easy to discern. People with less power could be the minority or the majority.
The underlying difference between libertarianism and neo-fascism(of the National Humanist School especially) owes to their difference in their conception of individuals in a society. Libertarianism imagines every individual to be an upright stick, ideally free and independent of other sticks that are also upright and standing on their own. This view of humanity has a certain validity, but humans, being social animals like dogs and dolphins, can’t be free agents all the time. Now, to be fair to libertarianism, it isn’t for anarcho-chaos or barbarism where anything goes. Libertarians do believe in upkeep of social order that makes Rule of Law and Property Rights possible. They believe that, within the framework of basic guarantees of law and justice, people should be free individuals who pursue their idea of happiness, which could be more money, more sex, more drugs, more pleasure, or more whatever.
In contrast, Neo-Fascism views people as sticks that lean on each other. The First Fascism of Mussolini had the bound-bundle as its symbol, one that implied the submission of the individual to the order of ‘totalitarianism’(though, within the Italian context, it meant something other than what it came to mean in the Orwellian-Stalinist state; Mussolini meant interconnectedness of all the forces in society, not total ownership and control of everything by the state). Neo-Fascism counters the radical rejection of individuality in First Fascism or Fascism I. It respects individuality and individual rights but differs from libertarianism in that it understands humans-as-social-organisms who naturally find the most meaning and purpose in relation to others. People are innately interdependent with others in ways that go beyond freedom, materialism, and happiness(always a fleeting sensation outside the context of family and community). ‘Dependence’ in the Neo-Fascist sense doesn’t mean what it has come to mean in Liberal Democracies, i.e. Dependence, even addiction, to the Welfare State, the benefits and programs of which often have degenerative effects of fostering laziness and parasitism. Rather, Neo-Fascist conception of Dependence means something mutual, a sense of give-and-take. We lean on others, but others lean on us. This is as much a matter of culture(or national character) as well as of ideology. For example, ideology is never enough to shape the future of a society. The problem with Fascist Italy was that the Italian National Character tended to be shamelessly parasitic, craven, and deceitful. The reason why Social-Democracy and National Socialism worked better in Northern Europe owed much to cultural issues of character. So, whether Germanic or Scandinavia folks were under right-wing autocracy or social-democracy, their societies tended to be more trusting, cohesive, conscientious, and mutually considerate. In contrast, despite Mussolini’s insistence on a new dawn of Italian Consciousness, too many Italians remained as chronic liars, cheaters, complainers, or back-stabbers. Still, a properly instituted ideology can change the national character of a people over time. After all, Germanic folks were once rowdy barbarians who were hardly known for a culture of conscience or mutual consideration. Granted, it’s difficult to change the national character when the racial character(rooted in biology than culture) goes against the grain of the desired ideology. Gypsies, for example, evolved over many centuries as thieves, crooks, and leeches. So, the kind of Gypsies who were most adept at parasitism stole the hearts of the Gypsy community and had the most kids with the most women. Thus, the gypsy-thief-gene got spread far and wide among the people called the Roma. So, it’s more difficult to reform and reshape the mindsets and attitudes of a people like the Gypsy. (The problem with Jews is they are like higher-IQ Gypsies. Sadly, the once-noble Greeks have become like a bunch of mid-IQ Gypsies.) As for Negroes, their racial character is so naturally jivey and oogity-boogity that it is near-impossible to properly civilize and lead them to higher values and principles. Blacks only understand brute power, which is why whites cannot win with blacks. It's a case of damned if whites do, damned if whites don't. In order for whites to make blacks respect civilization, whites must use ruthless violence to teach blacks a lesson, like with the whip under slavery. But whites will compromise and sully their moral standing if they resort to such violence. But then, if whites abandon such ruthless means and expect blacks to embrace civilizational norms out of their own volition, that too is a losing game because the natural propensity among blacks in a state of freedom is to go oogity-boogity and go ‘burn, baby, burn’. So, the ONLY way whites can maintain a valid moral order is by securing separateness from blacks. Whites co-existing with large number of blacks can keep civilizational norms ONLY by suppressing blacks with ruthless violence. But such use of violence will demoralize whites and fill them with guilt, not least because white racial character tends to be 'philosophical', which fosters moral reasoning. Then, whites will try to make amends by being nice to blacks and enforcing equality(and even special set-asides) under the law. But then, things will get worse because of the BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — Factor. Blacks will run wild with freedom and soon realize that they can whup the weaker and wussy-ass whitey. So, even though whites rejected racial-repression-and-brutality, the result will be even more brutality, what with wild and rowdy blacks rampaging around with their freedom(of apes and savages).
Indeed, in some ways, black neo-savagery in the West is worse than primitive savagery and law of the jungle. At least, primitive savagery is met with primitive savagery. Primitives act wild and aggressive toward outsiders and enemies, but their savagery is counter-balanced by other primitives. They sting but also feel the sting. It’s the same with animals. Animals act viciously, but no animal is immune to the universal viciousness of nature. So, all animals are taught the cold hard lessons of life. In contrast, black neo-savages in the West are protected by the law. So, when they act savagely, they are no longer summarily captured and lynched but provided with lawyers and all sorts of rights. And this is made even worse because the Cult of White Guilt and White Fever(in admiration of Negro as master of song, strong, and dong) has turned blacks into sacred idols for so many whites who now want to, at once, beg forgiveness and beg to suck the black dic*. Consider CucKen Burns the documentarian. It’s the Mandela/Mandingo Complex. So, even as blacks act more savagely and out-of-control(as Colin Flaherty has tirelessly documented over the years), the Western Way is to protect, coddle, flatter, and apologize for blacks... and this may soon become a bigger problem in Europe than in the US because so many millions of black Africans are now invading the Northern Continent in endless migratory waves. While savage blacks come to Europe to plunder and rape, so many whites(from elites to masses) are under the spell of blacks as holy saints, cool & badass mofos, or hapless children in need of help. Figures like MLK and Mandela have served as icons of the Magic Negro Cult. Black success in sports, pop music, and sexual culture had led to White Fever(Jungle Fever for white women, Cuck Flu for white men). And all those BBC news reports about poor blacks in Africa have made whites see black Africans as an eternal childlike race that needs to be saved from itself by beneficent whites. It’s all very confused and contradictory. In some ways, blacks are regarded as poor, weak, and incompetent, therefore utterly in need of white compassion, which is flattering to white do-gooders who see themselves as ‘saving the world’. Especially given that Western Civilization was, to a large measure, founded on Christian precepts, many white folks crave a sense of moral justification by trying to save the world. In the past, as their own nations were plagued with poverty, disease, and backwardness, they didn’t need to look to the rest of the world to feel justified with do-gooderism. There were enough problems within Sweden or Norway to satisfy the righteous urges of the reformers. But then, the basic problems were overcome in those nations with growing economies and state programs. This was a great achievement but also a moral-emotional dead-end. It robbed them of a sense of struggle, meaning, and purpose. As cursed as Sisyphus seems to be in his futile attempts to roll up a boulder that always rolls back down, in some ways he is fortunate because he will forever be occupied with some great feat. After all, what would he be left with if he were to succeed in rolling the boulder all the way to the top? Imagine if you could satiate your hunger and thirst once and for all with your latest meal. The problem of hunger and thirst will have been solved, and you will never feel hungry and thirsty again. But does anyone want to live without eating and drinking anymore? Even as we eat and drink to neutralize pangs of hunger and thirst, don’t we look forward to the time when we will be hungry and thirsty again? When the struggle is no longer necessary, life begins to feel empty. Then, it's not surprising that 'too much' peace, affluence, and trust in Northern Nations led to apathy, boredom, and hunger for meaning. And so, Sweden now sees itself as a moral superpower trying to roll the African boulder up the hill. Even though all evidence points to the futility of this project, it is that very sense of insurmountable struggle that is appealing to Swedes and like-minded people. It is like an Eternal Struggle that forever bestows meaning to the Good People engaged in Saving-the-World. So, even as one side of whiteness sees blacks as godlike(mainly due to oratory) or superhero-like(especially in sports), another side of whiteness sees blacks as childlike(like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman) and eternally in need of the kindly and loving White Hand. How is this contradiction resolved? How can it make sense for whites to see blacks as both the natural master-race and eternal child-race? In some ways, childhood and master-hood are related. After all, there are many images of Jesus as baby and adult Messiah but almost none of Him as a older child or teenager. A baby is helpless but a kind of a master because he is the center of unconditional attention and affection. There is nothing a baby can do wrong because he is in a state that is before-good-and-evil. He is blissfully ‘innocent’ and pure-of-heart. If the baby is before-good-and-evil, the master-messiah-figure is beyond-good-and-evil, or His vision of Good is so beyond our limits of understanding that we mustn’t question but only accept with faith(like Job finally did with God). Because the Negro is seen as both a child-race and master-race, he is seen as both before-good-and-evil and beyond-good-and-evil. The poor black Africans, in their childlike state, must never be judged, only loved and showered with compassion... like a bawling baby in a crib. And the masterful blacks of sports or neo-messianic cults must not be questioned but celebrated and/or worshiped because their prowess(as athletes or studs) or divinity(as neo-messiahs) are beyond the comprehension of white humanity as cold 'ice people'. So, the contradiction in the white perception of blackness is resolved by the following logic: Blacks are the natural master-race but held back from reaching their potential due to (1) history of white ‘racism’ (2) harsh conditions of hot Africa (3) excessively exuberant nature of blacks who are too overflowing with inspiration to commit to the ‘dull, lame, and boring’ duties of civilization. So, it is the role of ‘guilty’(due to history of ‘racism’), ‘lucky’(due to having evolved in the temperate zone), and ‘lame’(due to their coldness and lack of natural rhythm) whites to realize that their ultimate purpose in life is to turn helpless black babies into divine black gods. Whites must build Wakanda for blacks because, whereas whites are trapped in a very human world of good-and-evil, blacks exist in a world that is either before-good-and-evil or beyond-good-and-evil.
Anyway, if the symbol of libertarianism might as well be upright sticks standing independent of each other and if the symbol of First Fascism was the tightly wound bundle, the symbol of Neo-Fascism could be the image of sticks leaning on one another. The image allows for both individuality/liberty(as the sticks are not forcibly bound together) AND mutuality/dependence(because the sticks would fall if not for the mutual support they provide for one another). When one makes a campfire, he or she must set up the sticks in a way that they form into something like a cone. Thus, the fire becomes concentrated in the center and spreads throughout all the wood with utmost efficiency. Each stick of wood leans on others just like a wolf leans on other wolves in the pack. It’s like football and soccer are team-efforts where the various players must learn to ‘lean’ on each other. Each must do his part as an individual, but ultimately, the game is won if and only if all the players come to depend on each other as a cohesive team. So, each line of the Neo-Fascist symbol represents how we lean on each other, and the circle represents the radiant unity, the inner light, of the collective effort. (Perhaps the Cathedral of Light as choreographed by Albert Speer had a similar meaning. When the individual beams of light all converged and ‘leaned’ on one another, they formed something bigger than any single light beam. They formed a sun in the night sky.)
Of course, in the end, the burning sticks will begin to crumble, and then, the fire too will burn out... which is why it is necessary to add new wood to the fire before it goes out. Life is the same way. All young people will grow old, grow weak, and die; therefore, before they expire and fade away, they must create and serve as support system for new life that will take their place in the fire of culture and civilization. Every generation is the new wood added to the existing fire. Thus, even as the earlier wood smolders and crumbles in the center, the flaming structure is maintained with the addition of new wood. Human culture/civilization survives the same way.
Now, how could family-centrism be considered an essential tenet of leftism(though doing so wouldn’t negate its essential place in rightism as well, and if anything, positive recognition by both leftism and rightism only validates its worth as the core organic-and-organizational principle of society)? If true leftism is about moral concern for the most vulnerable members of society, who are more vulnerable than babies and children? While vulnerable adults have it bad, vulnerable children have it worse. It’s like a homeless puppy is even worse than a homeless dog. So, true leftism must be most concerned with the well-being of babies and children, the vulnerable young ones of society. Then, the question must be asked, "What is best for children?" Best for children both economically and emotionally. Undoubtedly, it is sound family life. Babies and children are best off with both parents in a stable family full of caring and commitment. Even before children come to understand the world, they feel an emotional need to connect with their parents or parental figures. And once their consciousness begins to take shape, they begin to wonder about their origins. If they live with their natural parents, mom and dad, they sense the truth of life right there in the home. But if one or both of the natural parents are missing, children feel a gaping hole in their lives and seek an answer. There is no greater tragedy for a child than losing one’s parent(s), especially once the bonding has taken place. But even in cases where the bonding hasn’t taken place, the child(in an orphanage, foster care, or the home of adoptive parents) wants to know about his true origin and why he grew up without the very people who brought him into this world. Did they die in some tragic accident or horrific crime? Or did they just abandon their child like trash? Either way, the truth can only be depressing to the child. This is why a good society is one that maintains pressure on all its members to lead morally responsible lives. A moral society with stable families are best for babies and children, the most vulnerable members of society. So, if true leftism is about concern for the weakest, most powerless, and most vulnerable members of society, it must do everything to bolster and reinforce the kinds of mores, values, and laws that make for sound and stable family life, one in which the greatest number of children will feel safe and loved.
Also, true leftism must more on prevention than on treatment of social ills. After all, what is the worth of a doctor who encourages unhealthy behavior among his patients and then treats(at huge cost) the ill consequences of harmful behavior? He may be an expert at treating illnesses, but the fact remains that he fostered them by encouraging self-destructive habits among his patients. A truly decent doctor would insist on healthy behavior among members of the community so that most of them will not need medical care. It’s better to prevent disease than treat them. When it comes to health, medical treatment should be the last resort. People should strive to be disease-free with healthy habits and diets. If they indulge in bad habits and gorge on garbage(and fail to exercise) like pigs, the resulting health problems may be contained but cannot be reversed by treatment alone. Restoration of optimal health depends on change in attitude, habits, and diet. What’s true of health and medicine is also true of family and society. A good society instills and enforces the kind of manners and values that lead the greatest number of people down the path of morality and responsibility. Though no society can be perfect and problem-free, a superior society is one that keeps social problems to a minimum, and such can only be achieved when most people live with sound morals & values, healthy attitude and outlook. And such a society has stable families in which children can thrive and grow into mature adults with a sense of priorities. Such a society effectively prevents a host of social problems(that always end up hurting children the most) because most members possess and practice basic moral sense. Though it too will require some measure of extra-family programs(mostly by the state) as no society is perfect, most children will grow up in stable households with caring parents. It is best to prevent problems and keep treatment to a minimum than to encourage problems and expand treatment to the maximum. Besides, while treatment can contain the problem, it cannot reverse and overcome the problem. For instance, surgery can treat the heart or lungs of a heavy smoker, but if the patient continues to smoke heavily, the problem will remain and the disease is likely to return and grow worse. What goes for the body also goes for society. The Current West is one that encourages problems and then maximizes treatment as the solution to the problems. A perverse alliance of libertarian permissiveness and therapeutic Statism works hand-in-hand against true rightism and true leftism, the two sides of National Humanist Neo-Fascism. The cult of radical individualism, narcissism, and hedonism encourages(and even enforces via pop-fueled peer pressure) a mindless pursuit of Happiness of the Moment. As so many people are fixated on the ‘cool’(style over substance) and immediate gratification(often addictive and robbing users of self-control), much of the population become infantilized and trashy. Their degraded sensibility leads them astray in their personal choices, and they end up causing lots of social problems.
The worst problems concern children because all babies are born innocent and helpless. If their own parents aren’t up to the job of taking care of them, the therapeutic state must step in with the treatment of government programs. But as with health, treatment alone cannot restore people to well-being. Single-parents and their children may be provided with food and shelter by the government, but they will remain in a soul-sick condition unless they face up to their own problems, change their ways, and choose the path of righteousness. Just like a doctor can contain the problem but cannot restore the patient to full health, the state can provide basic services to troubled lives but cannot cure them of the deeper problems of the soul and immorality. If we want to be cynical, we might surmise that the medical industry willfully does little or nothing to prevent diseases that, after all, are their bread and butter. A society of healthy people would put doctors out of business. More patients mean more profits for doctors and big pharma. Likewise, a cynic may suspect that Big Government actually wants a society with lots of problems because they justify more statist expenditures for burgeoning bureaucracy, professional 'experts'(of all stripes), and social workers. A society that prevents most social problems could get by with small government. Big Government is justified only when society has lots of problems, and a lot of problems happen to be the result of too many immoral louts acting like idiots. But if a society produces than prevents problems and then calls on the need for Bigger Government to fix those problems(that never get fixed because the treatment can contain but not cure), it isn’t doing anyone any favor(unless one happens to have a government job). Progs love to yammer about how they support more programs to take care of poor people and children, but they conveniently overlook the fact that so many lives have been ruined in the first place by moral decadence. After all, children in a stable family that receives no state support are happier and healthier(mentally and materially) than children in unstable families(usually led by single-mother who acts like a whore) that receive lots of state support. So, if statism is the key to family well-being, the children of families that receive the most benefits from government should be better off than children of families that receive none or little. This is true even if we control for family income. Suppose there are two poor families, the difference being that the parents of one family have sound values and raise their kids morally whereas the single-mother parent of the other family acts like a whore and raises her kids on cultural sewage. Suppose the single-mother family obtain the same income as the two-parent moral family because it receives extra-support from the government. If we follow proggy-logic of the therapeutic society, the family that receives more benefits from the government should be better off. Welfare Statism is Treament-centered and argues that the key to solving social problems is for the state to spend more on programs for the troubled. So, according to this logic, the single-mother family that receives more from the government should be doing better than the other family that receives far less or no aid from the government; the latter is poor, but both parents work and scrap by, and furthermore, lead moral lives and do all they can to raise moral kids. Such an approach is prevention-centered, i.e. the underlying philosophy is that the only real solution to social problems is a moral order in which people think and act with a sense of duty, honor, and shame. Treatment-centrism is 'externalist', whereas Prevention-centrism is 'internalist'. 'Externalism' believes there is little or nothing the individual can do to improve his or her lot through self-control or self-understanding. The solution must come from the outside, ideally from Big Goverment. In contrast, 'internalism' believes that moral sense and habits are the most essential qualities needed for personal healing and social advancement. While internalism doesn’t reject externalism — just like micro-economics need not reject all tenets of macro-economics — , it believes external factors can do only so much. Unless there is sound inner quality to make good use of external quantity, the problem will not go away. It’s like it takes two-to-tango, something just about every Liberal understood in the New Deal Era. It’s like wood must be able to internally burn on its own after the initial external contribution: fuel and lighter. If the fire relies on constant addition of external fuel and cannot burn on its own, it lacks ‘internality’ and autonomy. It was beginning in the mid 1960s that American Liberals began to believe that problems could be solved with external solutions alone. Notions such as morality and personal responsibility were dismissed as old-fashioned, un-scientific, or overly judgmental. So, why not just leave it to the experts to come up with the best-and-the-brightest plans funded by big government. Meanwhile, the internal character of so many young Americans, especially among Negroes, came to be shaped by a pop culture growing ever more vulgar, trashy, hedonistic, narcissistic, gross, and irresponsible. So, it’s hardly surprising that the Negro Problem is always addressed in externalist terms, especially made worse by the Magic Negro Cult that would have us believe that blacks are all born with souls radiating with some holy glow from within. No matter how terribly blacks act in real life, the Jew-run media fill white minds with images of blacks are oh-so-cool-noble-and-wise about everything. Even though blacks are more likely to commit acts of crime and violence, the Jew-run media have so many white women convinced that white men are the biggest threats to their well-being while Noble Negroes want to protect them(and fill their wombs with holy mulatto babies than innately ‘racist’ white babies). Because most people’s worldview and ‘humanview’ come from the media that enter into every home via the TV and come alive on every hand via mobile devices — notice how so many Chinese still revere the cult-myth of Mao as a ‘great man’ because of media/academia influence is still controlled by the CCP even though the real historical Mao was a psychopathic monster — and the academia(especially as most people never bothered to study history, society, and culture beyond what they got from high school and college), there is no guarantee that their view of reality will correlate with actual reality. Indeed, consider how Jew-run Google rigs the algorithms to warp our understanding of history and humanity. Going by Google or Jewgle results, one might think the greatest scientists in the US have been black while the biggest criminals are white.
Top Results for Google Search for American Scientists
Top Results for Google Search for American Scientists
Anyway, a true leftist must ask himself (1) who are the weakest, most vulnerable, and most powerless members of society and (2) what kind of socio-cultural order and moral values best serve these most needy members of society? The answer should be obvious. The members of humanity who are most deserving of attention are babies and children — some will argue that the unborn are the most fragile and need of protection, but abortion is a topic for another day. Furthermore, the vulnerability of babies/children cannot be eradicated(as a form of social injustice) because human life can only continue through cycles of birth and death. Children will always be dependent, and that means society must be geared to serve children well. (Of course, old people are also weak and vulnerable members of society, and true leftists must ponder as to what kind of society is best for older folks. A humane society is one where older people are worthy of respect, younger people believe in showing respect for older people, and all good people believe it is a grievous moral transgression for young people to attack or harm older people. For such society to exist, adults must master the art of aging gracefully. If adults remain childish or stupid as they grow older, they will be undeserving of respect. Consider the sheer disgrace of many boomers still acting like they are ‘hot stuff’. Furthermore, society must teach young people that youth is just a phase; there is no race or group called ‘young people’. Youth is a time when children gradually but also dramatically mature into adults, and they must mature and learn to put away childish and silly things. The problem with the current culture is it emphasizes youth as the be-all-and-end-all of existence. So, even as they gain in yrs, young people fail to grow more sensible and wiser. Instead of looking forward to a higher, more advanced, and more elevated state of existence, there is only growing resentment and bitterness. So, the so-called ‘cougar’ is a common and pathetic sight in the current disorder. As women grow older, they don’t see themselves as stepping onto a higher plane but being knocked off the pedestal by younger competitors. Because older women cannot compete with young ones in pure sexiness, they exaggerate their sex appeal by making themselves even trashier and sluttier than young women. It’s like an old whore putting on more garish makeup to make herself seem younger. It’s no wonder that so many aging women become even stupider and more childish than young girls and young women. As they live in a culture that shows little appreciation for anything but youth, aging women desperately cling to impossible youth instead of aging gracefully to a more elevated existence based on experience, reflection, and understanding. Needless to say, this is a problem with men as well, especially as something like video-games and superhero-comic-book movies have become the main cultural fare of so many males since the so-called Generation X, with whom the video-game industry really took off[even though excessive attachment to youth began in the late 50s with rise of Rock n Roll culture]. Consider the estranged father-character in SPECTACULAR NOW, a disgusting cuck-movie that nevertheless conveys the moral degradation of American family culture. Today, it seems like so many parents, from bottom to top, believe that having kids is all about offering them as soul-sacrifices to Mammon.
Anyway, as people grow into sunset years, they grow old and feeble. They become easy victims of crime. So, if a true leftist really cares about the weakest members of society, he must ponder what is best for old folks. The best way for people to grow old and retire is to have children and grandchildren who love and care for them. For older folks to be surrounded by love and affection of family members, they will have had to have been good spouses and parents. If they wasted their youth on stupid behavior and loose sex, the chances are they WON’T be surrounded by loving family members in their golden years. They will die miserably and alone, with no one grieve over them in the final days. The fact that so many older white people are committing suicide suggests they are lost and lonely, and why? The chances are that their youth was spent on Live-for-today lifestyle with little or no thought of long-term consequences. But then, beginning with the rise of youth culture in the 1950s, young people were inundated with the message of consumerism for momentary thrills and pleasures favoring fads and fashions than the deeper facts of life and death. True leftism must acknowledge old people as especially vulnerable and ask what kind of moral values, cultural norms, and social outlook make for a decent society for aging older folks. True leftism must understand how everything connects together, how one thing affects another. It must understand that excessive youth-centrism is bad for old people because it regards growing old as ‘lame’, fosters zero respect for older folks, provides no blueprint for aging gracefully, and leaves people feeling lost and lonely in their sunset years because they'd wasted their entire lives in pursuit of cheap thrills in the conceit that their youth would last forever. Granted, a society that is excessively elder-centric isn’t good either, but an elder-centric society can still maintain civilization whereas a youth-centric society will eventually turn barbaric and savage. But today’s decadent proggies fail to see the big picture. Instead, they are fixated on ‘empowerment’ through pursuit of maximum pleasure and thrills[especially of sexual nature and pop music] that prevent too many people from aging gracefully and preparing for the future. The overriding message is ‘live for today’, and if you feel lost and lonely in the final stretch of your life, just rely on the government and demand more programs. There is nothing more rewarding to old people than the knowledge of their children having children of their own. Such generational continuity is reassuring, and one can die peacefully knowing that they are loved by their children who, in turn, will be loved by the grandchildren. For this to happen, young people need to think in the long-term and develop moral relationships so that, by the time they are old, they can look back and look at their children & grandchildren and appreciate the rewards. But what does our society tell young people? Just live-for-today and don’t worry about tomorrow. Or remain ‘young at heart’ forever, which is taken rather literally, what with older women pretending to still be hot and sexy as ‘cougars’. It’s the difference between mindfully saving for the future & having enough after retirement AND mindlessly spending everything now & hoping the system will take care of you in rainy days ahead. In truth, no internally ruined life can be fixed by external remedies. And when there are literally tens of millions of internally ruined lives, there is only so much that the system can do for such people. Then, it is hardly surprising that so many aging white people have lost all meaning in life and turn to drugs and early death or even suicide. They may have had lots of fun in their youth, but once youth, the only thing prized in our society, has passed them by, they have nobody and nothing to live for.)
Children are most vulnerable in any social order. They must be protected, clothed & fed, educated, and led to adulthood. Given this fact, proggies and libby-dibs raise a lot of fuss about how the government must do more and so forth and so on. Now, there is a need for externalist factors to protect children and provide them with proper care. Surely, if the parents are irresponsible lunatics and taking horrible care of the children, the state should step in and save the kids. Also, poor people may need assistance at times, especially during severe economic downturns. But no amount of externalist programs can solve the problems stemming from the decline of internalism as the guiding spirit. It’s like there is so much the coach can do for a kid with no will to train and play hard. The coach cannot make the kid keep up with the training on his own. The kid must have inner-drive, and the coach can only work on that drive. It’s like teachers can only do so much with students who don’t want to learn(and aren’t pushed by their parents). While coaches and teachers are essential to the training/education of children, they can only provide external influence and pressure. They must be met halfway by the internal spirit, the will and determination to train hard and study hard. This should be as clear as day and 2 + 2 = 4, but we are not living in that kind of world, not least because the West has come under the spell of Negromania that believes blacks to be holy. So, all the black failures in school cannot be attributed to lack of academic commitment(and/or lower IQ among blacks). All the blame is placed on external factors, i.e. MORE must be done to bridge the gap between white achievement and black achievement. But even putting blacks aside, so many truths cannot be addressed and so many criticisms go unsaid because democracy depends on the support of voters who prefer being flattered than slapped with the hard truth. If any politician shows real integrity & courage and speaks his mind & says what must be said, his opponents will invariably accuse him of being ‘uncaring’ and ‘out of touch’. Almost always, the politician who blames anyone and anything but the voters wins over the politician who lays at least some of the problems at the foot of the voters themselves. And profit-driven mass media are generally careful not to offend their readers, and therefore, so much that needs to be said go unsaid. Thus, democracies are both free and unfree. They offer guarantees for free speech but also effectively stifle honest discussion because the honest truth-teller, more often than not, comes to be voted out of office or fired from the job.
In some ways, people could argue that children and old folks are the best-treated in the Modern West. After all, a lot of funds go to education, and there are many laws on the book that protect children from all kinds of abuse. And old folks get social security, medicare, and host of other benefits. True enough, but a society can't be judged merely by laws and programs that can only do so much. No matter how much funds are allocated by the state to provide programs and protections for young ones and old folks, many children and the elderly will suffer in a world of social, cultural, and moral degradation. If couples divorce and young ones must grow up without both parents, it’s a terrible state of affairs for the kids EVEN IF the government provides all sorts of programs for them. And even if old folks get social security and other benefits, their final years will be miserable if they don’t have children and grandchildren. Or, if their memories are cluttered with remembrances of trashy behavior and chronic infantilism. A culture that fosters stupidity and idiocy will end up with a huge population of adults-as-dolts, and when they finally grow old, all they have left is memory of wasted years. Wasted priorities, wasted opportunities, and just waste. Also, no matter how much the state spends on the elderly, a society where oldness is devalued and even disparaged in favor of wanton celebration of youth-as-self-indulgence will create a hostile climate for old folks. This has been made worse among whites because of PC vilification’s of their race. Prior to the 60s, older white folks could expect modicum of respect from young white folks(and non-white folks). But today, even old white folks who’d done much to contribute to American society and economy are put on the moral defensive as ‘racists’, ‘sexists’, ‘anti-Semites’, ‘homophobes’, and etc. It’s one thing to criticize the old order but quite another to spew levels of virulence unimaginable in the past. Today, all these NPC-SJW-types think they are the greatest and ultimate moral arbiters of everything because they coast on the waves of latest fads and fashions in ‘progressive’ politics. They are about as shallow and stupid as the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution, but in some ways, more pathetic. At the very least, the Red Guards rampaged against real figures of authority like teachers, bureaucrats, and even leaders. Granted, they did so at the behest of Mao(who wanted to be rid of rivals by unleashing youth violence), but many people in positions of power and privilege were brought down. In contrast, the latest children’s crusade consist of pathetic snarly kids who are little more than teacher’s pets and windup toys of the Jew-run system. Indeed, it is hilarious that all these PC kids who purport to be anti-supremacist say and do NOTHING about the very real Jewish-Homo Supremacism that controls the West; instead, they fixate on the bogeymen of ‘nazis’ and ‘kkk’ as the gravest threats. Only brainwashed dolts could believe that Nazis or KKK types have any power in the current order. But PC kids are like dogs whose sense of ‘truth’ is utterly dependent on the provided scent. Just like hounds mindlessly chase after whatever scent is put before their noses, PC kids mentally and emotionally run around in packs and seek to maul whatever is deemed ‘hateful’ by the system that is currently controlled by vile, vicious, hateful, and hideous Jewish globalist-supremacists.
It should be obvious by now that the goodness of a society cannot be measured primarily by its laws and programs. Even if a society has Rule of Law, modern amenities, and programs for the needy, many people will suffer if the soul-culture-morality of society is dead. There is a limit to which government policies and programs can help people. Just like the Laffer Curve shows the point at which raising taxes further will not increase revenues but, if anything, decrease them, there’s a threshold after which more government spending and intervention will not improve matters and, if anything, make them even worse. People must always be mindful of the Useful Limit. Among some, there is a dogma that more government programs will improve things because they worked in the past, especially during the New Deal and WWII era(though some economists argue that the New Deal actually didn’t do much to fix the economy, though one can still argue that even if the New Deal per se didn’t really do much to end the Depression, the new spirit allowed for a bigger role of government in the overall economy). But in the New Deal Era, most Americans were family-oriented & religious, valued tradition(at least far more than people do now), and respected hierarchy(especially in showing modicum of respect for older people). So, what the government achieved was fixing the external problems of an internally sound people. The state improved conditions for the bodies of people with souls. In the current world, the culture is decadent and degenerate, spirituality is a sham(with most churches and temples bending to latest ideological and idolatrous fads), morality has been turned upside down(with Holy Homos as the new objects of admiration), and attitude/behavior is grossly out of whack(what with the pornification of culture that has reached down even to Disney). There is no sense of moral hierarchy or personal priority other than Jews are holy, Negroes are holy, and homos are holy, an especially dangerous proposition since Jewish globalist elites are demented in their addiction to power, Negroes are into thug-biatch nastiness as the essence of their culture, and homos think their narcissism should be the foundation of all that is deemed ‘cool’, ‘hip’, and ‘proud’. (The reason why even American Conservatives were such easy suckers for the Milo character was because his identity and lifestyle embodied elements of the Holy Three: He’s part Jewish, a flaming homo, and must have Negro dongs up his bung.) Anyway, externalist solutions can only go so far and do so much. They can do much good for a people with souls but not for those with dead souls. Imagine two groups of poor folks. Both are equally poor in the material sense. But one group believe in family, church, and morality whereas the other group believes in fun, fun, fun. Now, suppose the state offers aid to the first group. The members show appreciation and take the opportunity to improve their lot, indeed even to the point where they become net-taxpayers than tax-takers. Because of the success with this group, suppose the state decides it could replicate the success with the second group. But the second group, being shameless, trashy, and stupid, just take the aid and spend it party and act crazy... and then they demand more and more freebies with the attitude that it is their ‘right’ to leech off society. Why did the state fail with the second group? Because while the state can put a coat over someone's shoulder, it cannot insert a soul into his heart. The soul-thing comes from family, proper upbringing, moralization, church, tradition, and a sense of community. It doesn't come from a faceless bureaucracy.
But what has been done to modern society as the result of Pop Culture, Consumerism, radical individualism, excessive materialist philosophy, Political Correctness, and neo-idolatry? Pop Culture tells everyone that youth is all that matters and that hedonism is the highest value. Consumerism says your value rests on brand names and products, an endless need to keep up with new fashions. Radical individualism puts oneself at the center of the universe. Excessive materialist philosophy tries to diagnose and fix social problems on the basis of programs and products, e.g. maybe black kids will do better in school if each child is supplied with the latest computer without taking into consideration that, maybe just maybe, the real problem of black academic failure has to do with poor attitude and contempt for learning(as well as generally lower IQ due to genetic factors). Political Correctness or PC defines morality in terms of identity than personal accountability: If you’re Jewish, Negro, or Homo, you are automatically good; if you’re Mexican or Asian, you are okay; if you’re white and female, you are okay ONLY IF you side with Jews & People of Color against white males; if you’re white male, you are okay ONLY IF you agree that white males suck, with the compensation that you yourself suck less than most white males because at least you’re proggy enough to know that white males are the source of 90% of all the problems in the world — the other 10% is blamed on Muslims so that Zionists can cook up more excuses to destroy Arab/Muslim nations deemed as threats by Israel. As for neo-idolatry, it measures value in terms of fame and celebrity(even notoriety in our thug-biatch culture of ours); it prizes fashionable sensationalism as one of the highest goods. Obviously, such a society as ours does a miserable job of instilling sound values(that allow for the development of the human soul) among the populace. If things aren’t all bad, it’s because enough people still live by the values that really matter and do the right thing even if it goes against the grain of Pop Culture, PC, and idolatry. Fortunately, even people who have consciously thrown in their lot with Pop Culture and PC don’t necessarily live by degenerate anti-values or insipid dogma imparted by them. In their personal choices in daily life, they remain largely cautious(conservative) and critical(liberal). If most Americans were to totally embrace degeneracy-as-new-values and deception-as-correctness, things will fall apart sooner than later. Thankfully, even many people who’ve consciously surrendered to post-modern craziness carry on with responsible life choices. But maybe that is a bad thing. Maybe, such lingering 'bourgeois' habits and manners amidst all the decadence and degeneracy only serve to make depravity stronger. After all, decadence and degeneracy will come to a quick end if people wallow in them whole hog. No social order can last long with rampant decadence and degeneracy as widespread behavior. In other words, as bad as decadence and degeneracy are, their one saving grace is quick self-immolation when practiced on a large scale. In contrast, the current order has so much filth, ugliness, and dementia in Pop Culture and PC, and furthermore, so many people partake of this garbage as entertainment or value-system, BUT sufficient number of people still remain in responsible ‘bourgeois’ mode and get things done. So, even as the culture and ideology grow even more insane, there remains a solid social edifice and economic engine to keep the system going. Crypto-bourgeois habits still remain at work to prop up a system that is philosophically demented and spiritually empty. But then, negative values and ideological lunacy may gradually chip away at ‘bourgeois’ habits as well. Currently, many successful people are culturally & ideologically decadent/degenerate but habitually ‘bourgeois’ and self-disciplined. But when the culture is so foul and ideology so mendacious, won’t every new generation grow increasingly either jaded/cynical or lazy/crazy? Imagine a person who comes to consciously champion junk food and bad drugs but nevertheless continues to eat healthy and exercise regularly. Such is the state of the modern West: Soulless and rotten in ideology and idolatry but still populated with many members of society who, despite their corrupted attitudes and sensibilities, have retained ‘bourgeois’ habits of work ethic and self-discipline. The question is, "For how long can the body stick with sound habits when the soul has become sick with filth and falsehood?" This is a relevant question in Japan as well. Our impression of Japan is a nation of work ethic, social order, and good manners. And this is still true of many Japanese who diligently apply themselves to sustain the system. But current Japanese culture ranges from inane to insane, and no one really believes in anything. So, for how long can Japan survive as a nation of affluence and efficiency? Will cultural decay and ideological apathy among the Japanese eventually lead to social breakdown? In a way, we are already seeing this. Though Japan is still a relatively safe nation, it is a society of isolation, loneliness, desperation, and/or apathy. No one believes in anything anymore in a nation where the only living expressions of culture are video-games, animated fantasies, and pornography. The sheer nonsensical state of Japanese culture goes to show that a high IQ populace isn’t enough. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6379071/Crazy-love-The-Japanese-man-married-hologram.html Culture can rot just the same if people lose their sense of soul and meaning. In the West, the breakdown of family among all races is a sure sign that the system is cracking. How are strong families possible when young people are told that marriage is merely an afterthought? Young ones, boys and girls, are told that they should pursue loose sex with maximum number of partners possible. So, marriage is not a priority for which people should mindfully prepare but merely something one settles for after one’s lust and/or looks have flamed out. The elevation of mere sexual pleasure over marriage & family goes to show that society now favors the moment and the individual over the long-term and the community. Never mind what loose sex might do to one’s future prospect of love and marriage. Just live for the moment and don’t think about tomorrow; that is so ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’. What you, as the Iron Individual, want at any given moment trumps all other considerations.
Then, is it any wonder that so many couples file for divorce? Instead of putting the needs of the children first, immature or stupid parents favor their personal prerogatives. Never mind what this will do to the children. Their needs are secondary to the egotism of parents who decide to break up for some dumb reason or another. A society that has become overly tolerant of divorce has violated the principle of true leftism. Because of individual-and-moment-centrism, there is this widespread notion that whatever pleases the adult-individual(possessed of all rights guaranteed by society) is more ‘progressive’ because it feels so ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’ for each and every person, he or she. But if true leftism and progressivism are about prioritizing the needs of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, then the current mania for individualist-hedonism is anything but leftist or progressive(in the genuine sense). Rather, it’s the triumph of capitalist-consumerist-hedonism that is all about short-term gratification(of body or ego) than about long-term good, especially for young ones. After all, children are best off living with both biological parents. Also, old people want to see their children in lasting marriages that bear fruit. Old people don’t want to see their children and grandchildren’s lives ruined by divorce. Now, I understand that, in some cases, the conditions get so out of hand in some marriages that divorce is all but inevitable and necessary, but the high rates of divorce indicate that too many people are breaking up for stupid, shallow, or childish reasons. And because of the selfish egotism of these parents, the children(the most vulnerable members of society) suffer terribly(like in the Noah Baumbach film THE SQUID AND THE WHALE).
This is the result of cultural and moral decay, and there is nothing the state can do to cure it. Problems of internal rot, the degeneration of souls, cannot be fixed with external remedies. The government can provide benefits to broken families, but the agony and trauma(especially felt by children who grow up bitter and numb) cannot be reversed with yet MORE government programs or social work, no more than a doctor can do much for a patient who, even after so many costly treatments, continues to lead terribly unhealthy lifestyle of drugs, junk food, reckless lifestyle choices, and lack of exercise. So many problems wouldn’t exist or be far less dire if enough people acted more responsibly, but such sentiments have no traction in a culture where homos and Negroes are the main moral arbiters. Homos never admit that the AIDS crisis would have been far less deadly if they had acted more responsibly. To admit as much would indicate that homos are far from perfect and that true progressivism must be predicated on self-control and personal accountability than on blaming ‘society’ and then demanding that ‘society’ come up with the solution. So, homos don’t admit that their wild behavior spread HIV all around. They insist that they did nothing wrong and, if anything is to be blamed, it is ‘society’ for not having come up with a magic drug soon enough to allow homos to continue acting as they do without the danger of dying of a horrible disease. And Negro logic isn’t much different. Blacks never blame themselves and just blame it all on ‘society’ and then demand that ‘society’ come up with all the solutions.
Anyway, family-centered true leftism isn’t only about the children. Even adults will be better off with family life. Sure, individuals must ‘sacrifice’ certain thrills for the good of the family, but life is always about priorities. As even the Rolling Stones sang, "You can’t always get what you want." Any choice means the abnegation of other choices. If you choose to study to be a doctor, you won’t have time to major in other things. If you choose to spend your hard-earned money to buy a boat, you can’t afford other goods. The key question comes down to what are the main priorities in life that lend the greatest meaning and sense of purpose to individuals? And it is the family. Indeed, one of the sicknesses of the modern economy is that so much is geared to narrow individual indulgences than group family-interest. So much of the economy now revolves around purchases of video-games, gambling, sex industry, and vanity-shopping. A truly healthy economy should be centered on parents spending their money mainly on their children. An economy that is largely geared toward keeping families together is moral and sound. In a good society, the bulk of economic activity should center around needs of the family. Now, look at the economy of Japan where much of the spending is on video-games, pornography, and prostitution by men who remain single. And Japanese women spend most of their money in nightclubs and on vanity products to make themselves look like sex dolls. It’s a pachinko-pornography economy than a family-centered one. In the films of Yasujiro Ozu, we see the bulk of economic activity centered around family life, but in Neo-Japan since the 1970s(when Japan turned into a sterile and soulless wonderland of artifice) the main economy has been about lonely men and lusty women wasting most of their incomes on nicknacks and trifles of the most vapid kind. It’s a dead-end economy based on individuals seeking momentary escapism via junk food and pop culture than an organic economy based on individuals forming family units and providing food, clothing, and materials necessary for the continuance of the nation with new generations of decent citizens and patriots.
Even though the lifestyle of individual-indulgence may be fun and feel ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’ in the moment, it actually weakens individuals in the long run by severing them from deeper meaning and purpose in life. A woman who spent all her money traveling around, buying shoes, and hopping from bed to bed may have had lots of fun in her youth. But, at the end of the day, what does she have to look forward to? The fun times she had are now all in the past and exist only as fading memory. In contrast, let’s say a woman didn’t blow all her money on herself and good times. Let’s say she devoted her life to family and raising children. While she had less fun and may have felt less ‘liberated’ and ‘emancipated’, she has children to look forward to. She has a family in which she is loved and appreciated. In the long run, she is more empowered. And she is liberated from the addiction to vanity and self-indulgence that, in the long run, is just a dead-end of life. It’s like the student who neglects study and just has fun in school may seem to be more ‘liberated’ and ‘emancipated’, but he is only ruining his long-term prospects. Upon graduation he has memories of fun times as a class clown or troublemaker but has nothing to look forward to because he blew his school years on self-indulgence than in constructive preparation for the future. In the end, those who think of the future than merely of the now end up much better off. Those who think to care for others, especially by forming a family unit, are much better off than those who only live for themselves. While family life and its demands can be trying and even burdensome at times, there is long-term meaning and reward in having created a personal domain in which love and devotion exist among family members, the only people who really care about you. (But then, love is always a burden. That's precisely why it's meaningful. It's like the Hollies song, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother". It takes patience, money, and effort to raise a dog or cat, but it's worth it because of the deep bond between you and the animal-friend. Nothing of true value comes easy. The satisfaction comes from the knowledge that you gave yourself to someone or something out of love and devotion.) In the end, when someone dies, who are the only people who really care? It’s not next-door neighbors, business associates, co-workers, clients, and etc. Even much-liked teachers die without their ex-students knowing or caring. And when a doctor dies, how many of his patients know or care? And friends come and go. In the end, the only people who really care about the death of someone are the family members. While we can all sympathize with the grief of others, the tragedies of non-family members don’t stick with us. A son or daughter will forever remember his or her dead mother but not the dead mother of friends, associates, or other people. So, all people, not just children and old people, are far weaker and more vulnerable than they like to think. People like to think of themselves as ‘strong and independent and imbued with agency and choice and freedom’, but in the long run, unless one’s freedom and agency choose family life and mutual love & interdependence within the household, one will end up as lost and lonely individuals for whom life is bearable only because he or she is hooked to escapist fantasies of video-games, trashy TV shows, or some nonsense cult, like with spread of interest in witches.
The Modern Left emerged as a movement to protect the rights of individuals from tyranny but also developed to advanced policies that are good for the whole than merely for individuals. Politics of individualism is complicated because individuals range from homeless bums on the street to billionaire moguls. Most individuals don’t have much wealth or privilege(and almost no power outside his personal sphere), and their individual rights and liberties must be protected from powerful institutions that can easily slide into tyranny(because the logic of institutionalization is to concentrate ever more power in elite or governing organizations). So, leftist defense of individualism focuses on protecting the basic rights of ordinary individuals from the power of big institutions and big industry. But not all individuals are regular folks like you and me. Some individuals are obscenely rich and/or powerful. Take the Koch Brothers, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, the Google oligarchs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Hollywood moguls, and etc. Surely, the individualism of a super-oligarch unfolds differently from the individualism of an ordinary middle class person. The super-rich individual can buy politicians, rig results, and win favors. By throwing money around, he has a lot of pull. In such cases, true leftism seeks to protect the people(as a collective) from the ultra-privileged and ultra-connected individuals. Ralph Nader and Jimmy Dore speak for American People as having a collective interest against oligarchs like Jeff Bezos and others whose tentacles are all over the Deep State.
So, it is stupid to see the world if terms of pure right vs pure left OR pure individualism vs pure collectivism. There is a need for both rightism and leftism. There is a need for both protecting individualism and checking individualism. Ordinary individuals can lose their basic rights to the ever-expanding power of the state. This is why true leftism opposes even Stalinism and Maoism. Power became so concentrated in the Soviet Union and Red China that individuals essentially became slaves of the system despite Marxist-Leninist rhetoric about liberation of the workers. A man like Alexander Solzhenitsyn stood for individual conscience and courage in a system that grew monstrously tyrannical. It was the individual vs tyranny(though, to be sure, Stalinism and Maoism were as much tyranny by individual dictators as by the system; indeed, it was when those individual titans died that the system became more humane). But just because individuals stood up to tyranny(one that was ideologically rationalized in the name of the collective) doesn’t mean that the individuals are always on the side of freedom while ‘collectivity’ always stands for tyranny. Solzhenitsyn was a man of conscience who barely survived the Gulag. But consider certain individuals in the US like Sheldon Adelson, Tim Cook, Jewish sharks who run Disney, the top dogs of Goldman Sachs, Jack Dorsey of Twitter, and etc. They have amassed tremendous fortunes with which they bought a lot of 'friends' and influence. Adelson has turned the GOP into a brothel for Big Casino. As so many GOP pols are whores of Zion, they support insane Middle East policies that encourage Israeli bad behavior while doing incalculable harm to Arabs and Muslims in nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran. Of course, Adelson is merely the biggest fish in the Zionist shark tank. He has lots of company among super-rich Jews who also spend their often ill-gotten fortunes on buying up whore politicians. After all, the Democratic Party is just as servile to AIPAC as the GOP is. On the matter of Israel and Zio-globalist interests, the Democrats vs Republicans dichotomy is like two whores competing to prove who can give a better blowjob to a Jewish Pervert. When so much wealth, influence, and power is concentrated in a small number of individuals with super-wealth and mega-privilege, only a seriously retarded ultra-libertarian moron sticks with the notion that the individual always represents freedom and liberty whereas collective demands spell tyranny and repression. But look all around, and the super-rich individuals of Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Media, and etc. are all colluding together to restrict free speech and free spend. This wouldn’t matter if US had a competitive economy where people who are denied service could go elsewhere. As so much of the economy and communication has now become concentrated into monopolies, denial of service by the oligopolies means virtual socio-economic death for ordinary people. Google isn’t merely one search engine among many. It is THE dominant search engine, and it got so big by assuring all of us that it would play fair to all sides. We all helped it get super-big by supporting it on that basis, but as the predominant player, it is now using its monopoly powers to rig search results to favor certain interests(especially those of Jews, Homos, and Cucks) over others. And these decisions are made by super-rich individuals.
Why are Big Media so full of shit? Partly, too many journalists are ideologically biased idiots. But the main reason is that the top dogs of Big Media — the super-powerful individuals — order the managers and employees to push a certain narrative. In other words, journalists don’t have all that much power as professionals. Big Media are really controlled by a handful of super-powerful individuals. Then, it should be clear as day that individualism also can be tyrannical, oppressive, and abusive. We now have Tim Cook(or Tim Crook) going around saying that God blessed him by making him take penises up his bunghole and preaching demented sermons about how it is a ‘sin’ for super-powerful individuals of Big Tech to allow free speech and free exchange of ideas on the internet. A super-rich oligarch and individual-tyrant, he sucks up to individuals even more powerful than him: the ultra-mega-rich Jews who, with control of finance and media, can bring down even a super-corporation like Apple.
So many libertarians foolishly romanticized individualism and convinced themselves that rich people are heroes who made it to the top with vision, ingenuity, and hard work. So, the individual, no matter how rich and privileged, stands for freedom & integrity and never tyranny and repression. But as the 2008 financial meltdown revealed, the uber-rich capitalist class are mainly about protecting numero uno than upholding principles. The very people who’d tirelessly used the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal to pontificate about ‘free markets’ and supply-and-demand as the only worthy arbiters of winners and losers suddenly had no problem declaring that the Banks were ‘too big to fail’ and in need to be bailed out by the government. And they hired the best lawyers and used their influence/connections to make sure that 99% of people in Wall Street never got to spend a day in prison.
The so-called ‘left’ today isn’t truly leftist because, in their tribal interest(if they’re Jewish) or ideological fanaticism(if they are NPCs manipulated by Jew-run media and academia), they are totally on the side of globo-capitalist oligarchs, the mega-individuals who have near-monopoly power over who gets to exercise free speech and free spend. If you’re a Zionist supremacist, you can say whatever you want and spend(and earn) as much as you want. But if you’re a white liberationist or a Palestinian-American who supports BDS, the chances are that you will be deplatformed, censored, or denied financial services. These dirty tricks are not the acts of the ‘collectivist’ state but of super-rich individuals(many of them Jewish) whose main interests are either egotistical(thereby opposing anything that stands in the way of more trans-national globalism that makes the rich even richer), tribal(as in doing everything necessary to defame and deplatform anyone or anything that speaks truth to Jewish/Zionist tyranny), or pseudo-spiritualist(because the super-rich are not only materially but morally vain and prone to believe that their currently fashionable emotional commitments — LGBTQ nonsense being ‘holiest’ at the moment and there is also the cult of ‘diversity’ — are the highest truths known to mankind, and if you think different, you better just shut up, and if you won’t shut up, you will be shut up because the oligarchs have monopoly power of over so much in the internet age). Against such oligarchic individualist tyranny, true leftism(and true rightism) works to rouse collective action by the People against the robber-barons. Individuals can be the oppressed struggling for freedom and justice, or individuals can be the oppressors using their vast plutocratic wealth, privilege, and connections to deny liberty and freedom to others less fortunate.
Granted, there are moral institutions(such as the church) and managerial institutions(such as the government) that should ideally be immune to forces of both impassioned populism and imperious elitism, but, in the end, ‘money talks and bullshit walks’. Money can turn even bullshit into truth, and the moneyless are helpless to prevent the truth from being smeared as bullshit. Look what the power of Jewish money did to academia in the US. The collusion of Jewish money and Jewish mind have turned most top academic institutions into bastions of Jewish-Zionist tyranny. As academia trains so many minds, even decent and idealistic do-gooders came under the influence of Jewish-peddled filth like LGBTQ-ism. And then, these decent do-gooders spread the filth even into churches. So, the corrupting power of money need not be direct. Even people who never took a bribe(and would never take one no matter how big it is) can unwittingly come under the power of money. As Jewish Money has been spent lavishly to promote LGBTQ nonsense in the media and academia, many decent and well-meaning people have earnestly and sincerely been duped with the pseudo-iconography of the Holy Homo. They didn’t take a dime from Jewish groups or homo groups, but they came under the influence of academic institutions and media industry that were greatly influenced by the power of money. Because most people fail to connect the dots, they idealize the academia as an institution committed to the pursuit of truth. They have no idea how much of a role Big Money plays in academic policies. Donors have tremendous power over colleges. Why did University of Illinois fire Steven Salaita the Palestinian advocate? Why did Depaul University refuse tenure to Norman Finkelstein? Big Jewish Money threatened both institutions with withdrawal of funds or media attack unless they relented to the Jewish-Zionist demands. Of course, such blatant corruption is justified and whitewashed in the name of combating ‘hate speech’, ‘political extremism’, and other weasel-terms.
Anyway, if true leftism concerns itself with the most vulnerable members of society/nation, then it must always be mindful of the changing power dynamics of society. If a society is ruled by an oppressive bureaucratic system where individuals have little or no freedom, then the proper true leftist position would be to side with the individuals and their demand for basic rights. But if that society eventually evolves into one where most of the power and means are owned or controlled by super-rich oligarchic-individuals, then true leftism must take the side of the people whose voices are being muffled and whose minds are being poisoned by an academia and media that are essentially in the pockets of oligarchs. (Things are now worse than ever because Jews are the ruling elites of the US. Jews are smart and talented but utterly lacking in the concept of honor and dignity. Anglo-American elites also had their share of monsters, lunatics, and a**holes, but there were norms and standards in Anglo-American culture that pushed back against excessive corruption and collusion that were deemed ugly and vulgar. Also, the Anglo-American intellectual class believed that its duty was to be critical of the Anglo-American economic class. In contrast, Jewish oligarchs have no sense of limit to their vulgarity of depravity and corruption. Also, Jewish intellectual class will generally close ranks with the Jewish oligarchic class. If Anglo-American intellectuals believed their main duty was to criticize abuses and corruption of their own kind, thereby paving the way for great Reform Movements, what we mostly see among Jewish-intellectuals and pundits is criticism of everyone and everything BUT the Jewish oligarchs who have the most power in the world. These various Jewish intellectuals and journalists would rather yammer about ‘fellow white people’ than about the super-rich and super-powerful Jewish capitalist oligarchs who really control the world and have done so much harm to nations like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and etc. These so-called ‘leftist’ Jewish intellectuals care more about super-rich Jews in Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Big Tech than about working class folks facing hard times and desperation in flyover country. They care more about Zionist IDF death squads than about innocent Palestinian women and children who are mowed down by them.
In order for us to move forward, we need a reevaluation of what it means to be leftist or rightist. We need to ask if the left and right must always be opposing sides, as if one can only exist by excluding or extinguishing the other. Or, is Neo-Fascism(and Zionism, at least in nationalist as opposed to imperialist mode) correct that the best system is one that sees leftism and rightism as integral and organic partners? Zionism is a blend of capitalism and socialism(and of traditionalism and modernism) under the auspices of nationalism. Hasn’t that be a sound program? If Cuban Revolution had been more like Zionism and allowed some measure of capitalism along with the socialism, it would have done so much better. Indeed, what accounts for the rise of China since the 1980s? Though still communist in name, China since then has been mostly in neo-fascist mode. There is socialism and capitalism. There is renewed respect for tradition and the past as well as acceptance of science, technology, and the future. With this new formula, China has grown into a genuine great power. Why should anything be one thing or its opposite, as if the good and sound elements of both cannot be combined? But in fact, every human being is the product of the fusion of male DNA and female DNA. No life was ever created by purist male-ism alone or purist female-ism alone. Likewise, most work is accomplished by the use of both left hand and right hand, left leg and right leg. For the branches of the tree to grow upward, the roots must penetrate downward. This is why Neo-Fascism is about the creative and organic coordination of the left and right. While the ardent left and the arch-right can be enemies, why go for either/or fanaticism than an understanding of the need for both? What white liberationists(or emancipationists) must do is stop labeling itself as exclusively ‘right’ while labeling everything they oppose as ‘leftist’. This is giving too much credit to their enemies. History of the modern world has shown the there was good and bad about the Right and good and bad about the Left. A truly sane movement takes the good of the Right in tandem with the good of the Left. That is Neo-Fascism. By calling all of globalism ‘leftist’, the so-called ‘dissident right’ ends up creating the impression that the Jewish Zionist oligarchs are on the side of the vulnerable and the weak(as historic leftism had often been on the side of the powerless and downtrodden). A true movement must be left-right, not ‘alt right’ or ‘dissident right’. And true leftism, in assessing the most vulnerable members of society, must favor Family Culture that is most beneficial to children and old folks and ultimately to adults as well because life is most meaningful when people live for something more than ‘me, me, me’.
Also, family culture provides the kind of morality that is most empowering of the masses of people who don't have much. After all, right-and-wrong isn’t a matter of who has more money or power but a matter of who has done right and who has been wronged. True morality has value independent of money or power. So, even a man of humble means can be more right than a super-rich or super-powerful person. This is why morality is a great advantage to the regular folks. They can’t boast of much in terms of wealth or privilege, but they can claim the pride of righteousness. This is why the elites fear a moral majority. The majority of people with sound values and dignity can stand with confidence and pride against the corrupt and powerful. But what happens when the masses themselves are morally corrupted and turned into soul-zombies whose idea of culture is drugs, loose sex, tattoos & piercing, endless tirades of foul language, and shameless vulgarity? Consider the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Consider the caring grandmother in RAISIN IN THE SUN. Consider the famous painting by Norman Rockwell of the noble common American in the Four Freedom series.
It’s an image of a simple man with plain clothes but notice the air of dignity about him. Now, imagine him with a stupid haircut(and green hair), a ring through his nose, a tattoo running down his neck, and grunge-torn jeans. What moral authority would he have when he seems as piggish and self-indulgent as the decadent rich who wallow in excess. The natural tendency of humans is to over-indulge in pleasures and vanity, which is why so many rich people and their children came to a bad end. Too much privilege led to decadence and even degeneracy.
People of humble means aren’t innately superior in morality but are forced by circumstances to be moral. So, if a regular guy is married to a woman, he may remain faithful and play the role of father to his kids because he can’t expect much else in life. But suppose he comes into a ton of money and can dump his wife and marry some hot babe and live like a king. Many men and women may well choose glamour and self-indulgence over morality and its obligations. In the past, as most people had no time to indulge in such fantasies, they remained moral and took modest pride in morality, which was all they had left during crisis periods in American history such as the Great Depression. After all, what holds the Joad Family together in John Steinbeck's THE GRAPES OF WRATH? It’s a sense of obligation to one another.
Now, people can become rich and remain moral, but there have been too many cases of temptation winning out over obligation. Consider what happens to the man in Pearl Buck's GOOD EARTH when he comes into fortune. He neglects his wife and buys a concubine. Lots of rich people can't help showing off their having more and enjoying more. Most people lack riches and are limited in their choices, but they can still take pride in being good decent moral folks with a sense of obligation to family and community.
But even this moral nest-egg began to crack in the boom yrs of post-war America. With the spread of prosperity and the rise of youth-consumer culture(and delaying adulthood), even non-rich Americans could grow up with an attitude of self-indulgence and libertine hedonism. And with Rockers and vulgar comedians becoming the main idols of society, many grew up not only amoral(or even immoral) but shamelessly and even proudly so. Thus, people who aren't rich lost the one advantage they had over the rich. They lost the Moral Factor, and this happened in the UK as well as in the US. Our hearts can easily go to the traditional working class in Britain with their patriotism and family values. Consider the father and son who try to rescue British soldiers with their small boat in DUNKIRK.
But we are more likely to feel revulsion for the current British working class that is mired in rap culture, punk attitudes, alcoholism, gluttony & obesity, and shameless vulgarity. It’s like a class of Lena-Dunham-wanna-be’s. And even though Kevin Williamson was needlessly nasty in his article in the National Review about how the rural white working class should just fade away(and move elsewhere and find some other work), we can sort of see where he is coming from. Too many of today’s white working class types are foul louts and moral morons whose idea of culture is WWE ‘wrestling’, ugly talkshows, pornography, drug & alcohol abuse, addiction to gambling, and etc. Granted, one could argue that the working class became this way because the capitalist-oligarchs pushed junk on them, but as people do have agency, they deserve blame too. (Also, even though many of the pushers of filth and foulness have been Jews, these cultural trends are now nearly universal. Japanese entertainment and media are not owned and run by Jews, but just consider how demented they are: A society where mainstream culture for most people consists of stupid video-games, dumb soap operas, mindless comics, soulless consumerism, and out-of-control pornography. And heaven knows decadence and degeneracy of Ancient Rome were mainly the product of pagans and their myriad ways of self-indulgence without sense of shame or limits. While Jews certainly take advantage of filth and degradation, it takes two to tango, and too many goyim are willing to blow their earnings on gambling and other indulgences that only make the likes of Sheldon Adelson richer and richer. It seems Jews, due to their higher intelligence and deeper sense of history, tend to be less naive in losing themselves into spirals of self-destructive excess. And even when Jews do get crazy, something usually holds them back from the abyss because the element of intellect plays a bigger role in Jewish lunacy. The mind, even when committed to craziness, tries to make sense of things, and that very cerebral activity may serve as a brake from sliding totally into self-destruction. It was in this that the field of psycho-therapy has been useful in holding Jews back from totally losing themselves to craziness. While Jewish psycho-therapy may have been crazy in its own right, it required the clients to at least think about what they were doing and why. That may be why Jewish comedians have lived to ripe old age, whereas the likes of John Belushi and Chris Farley didn’t last long. The intellect serves as a brake against the instinctive. Excessive intellectualism can lead to neurosis, which can also be debilitating, but a person trapped in neurotic doubt is less likely to be as self-destructive as someone who hurls himself into the romanticism of raw instinct. Sam Peckinpah came to a bad end partly because he lacked sufficient intellect to serve as skid against his instinctive drive for personal fulfillment as the maverick romantic of American cinema. (Though Peckinpah had a brain and was well-read & well-versed in intellectual matters when he wanted to be, he was essentially a man of violent emotions that fueled his fury toward swift decline and death, far earlier than it should have been. In contrast, Sidney Lumet lived much longer. And Woody Allen is still alive.)
Finally, if socialism is about thinking of the greater good, then some degree of temporal socialism is in order. Too often, we think of socialism in the material sense, e.g. how to allocate wealth from those people to these people. Material socialism justifies redistribution on the basis that all members of a society are ‘in it together’. What temporal socialism seeks is to assess the theory of justice in the life-span of individuals. After all, in a way, every person is multitude of individuals through time. In every moment of his life, he lives out another layer of himself. Day after day, he is the same person but also ‘different’ person. There are 365 versions of him over 365 days. At any given moment, there is only one version of him, but every moment of his life is intricately and inseparably linked with all the other moments of his life. So, he must never think that ‘this moment’ is isolated from all other moments. Whatever he does at any moment has implications for his future selves. If he smokes now, he may mess up his lungs in the future. If he cheats on his wife, he may harm the marriage in the future. Frank Capra’s IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE is as much about temporal socialism as material socialism. George Bailey does what he can to make for a more just social order in Bedford Falls, but he also comes to realize at the end that every moment of his life is linked to other moments of his life. Every action sets off a chain reaction for good or bad. So, whenever people do something, they must be conscious of the fact that they are not just doing it for the here-and-now or living-for-today but taking a course of action that may have implications, good or ill, for his future selves. Thus, his past selves, his present self, and future selves are all in it together. He mustn't only care about himself in the NOW but in the past and future as well. The reason why so many aging white people feel hopeless and commit suicides in alarming numbers could be that too many of them lived in the past without thought of tomorrow. They lived ‘greedily’ for the moment without thinking of its karmic temporal socialist implications. Temporal socialism reminds people that their childhood self, younger self, adult self, older self, and dying self are all connected. They are all parts of the same person but as inhabitants of different time periods. We can’t time-travel, but everything we do in the now has implications for our past selves and future selves. Does our current action betray our dreams and hopes in the past? Does it pave or block the path for what we wish to happen in the future? If material socialism makes society a bit fairer, perhaps temporal socialism can make a people bit wiser.
