Libertarianism vs Nationalism. Nationalism is the Answer. / Proglodytes as Demon-Possessed. Talk to the Devil, not to its Minions

http://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-collapse-of-trumpism-on-war-and-immigration

Donald Trump's supporters are becoming disillusioned with Zionist-Globalist War Cries emanating from Washington D.C. Whatever happened to nationalism over globalism? Whatever happened to no more wars and instead focusing on the problems facing the American people?

It goes to show that a people cannot rely on just one man.

It's like Moses led his people out of Egypt, but the Hebrews couldn't rely only on his leadership and vision. After all, even great men fade, fall, or die eventually. So, Moses had to provide his people with the Law, the vessel of principles and meaning. That way, with or without him, the Hebrews had something to guide them and set them straight through the ages.

Likewise, white people need something more than Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Putin won't live forever, and Trump has shown himself to be a huckster and opportunist. He's not to be trusted. Also, Jewish Power is so entrenched in the US that it's difficult for Trump to outmaneuver the Jews even if he wanted to. In contrast, Russia was such an anything-goes anarcho-gangster state in the 90s that someone like Putin with deep state instincts and connections could pull off a counter-coup against the Jewish oligarchs.

Anyway, white people need a sense of who they are, what they are, where they came from, and how they must advance into the future. Trump was useful in shaking things up, but he has to deal with the reality of the Deep State and powerful institutions being controlled by Jews and/or globalists.

One thing for sure, white people need to reject libertarianism that has defined so much of 'conservative' thought. Consider soulless and spineless asses like Paul Ryan. While individualism and freedom are valuable, libertarianism goes too far in lionizing those themes above all else. It is the ideology of "I got mine, and I don't care about others, even or especially for those of my own race/ethnicity."
The problem isn't one's conviction in individuality, independence, responsibility, and personal success; it isn't one's criticism of those paying the price for poor decisions. After all, the kind of leftism that mindlessly fawns upon the poor and the 'powerless' is pretty useless. It has a knee-jerk tendency to see success as 'greed' and failure as 'nobility'. In fact, many people, especially in a free society, messed up in life due to poor/stupid decisions. And they must realize this and act more sensibly in life. To be free means to accept the consequences of one's freedom.

The important thing is there is a sensible middle-ground between Libertarianism and Socialism. Libertarianism is so radically self-centered that its adherents care only about their own success. Or, if unsuccessful themselves, they fawn on those with money and power with toady-like deference. Theirs is a worldview of arrogance and contempt. According to libertarianism, the winners must be great and wonderful since they used their smarts and freedom to rise high. Libertarianism tends to ignore how ability and success can easily lurch into corruption, abuses, and exploitation. It's like even naturally talented athletes will cheat by using steroids or dirty tricks. Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones.
Socialism, in contrast, is so sanctimonious in its righteous compassion that it fails to see the flaws and failings of groups deemed as 'victims'. So, lower classes are just saints with hearts of gold who, if they act crazy or violent, are merely reacting to oppression.
Blacks, refugees, and immigrants are automatically good for belonging to a 'marginalized' group. Such lack of critical mentality in socialism fails to come up with useful advice to the 'losers' of the world. By fawning on such peoples, socialism only encourages the 'victim' groups to feel sorry for themselves, self-righteous relative to the have-mores, and justified no matter how stupidly they act.

The Left has done itself no favors with this brand of socialism. It always gives useless or even destructive advice to people it purports to help because of its dogmatic sentimentality about the poor, the minorities, or the 'wretched of the earth'. So, if blacks riot and burn down a city, the Left just sees blacks as nobly enraged with injustice. So, if a bunch of Muslims leave their own nations and illegally barge into the West for material gain, they are to be coddled as the 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' instead of as craven opportunists.
Imagine a parent who never straightens out his children but always makes excuses for them. Imagine a teacher who never accuses his students for bad behavior but only makes excuses for them, as if it's never the students' fault. There can be no progress, no improvement, and no rectitude with such attitude. This is why leftism has been such a catastrophe. The problem is not its concern for fellow man(who may be down and out) but the lack of courage to be critical of those in need of help. Even if a people are without privilege or advantage, they must be judged and corrected when they do wrong. It's like Moses sometimes had to be tough with his people even if they were a sorry desperate lot.

But libertarianism has its own problems. While it has some positive ideas like individuality, freedom, responsibility, and work ethic, it is obsessive about the self at the expense of all other considerations. In regard to humanity, it only sees single individual selves, not a people with common bonds of ethnicity, culture, history, and territory.
Libertarianism isn't wrong to espouse the ideal of individual success by individual effort. After all, no one should expect others to do his homework for him. Where libertarianism fails is the total unconcern for anything but the self(or the various individual selves). If the self has it good, a libertarian feels no compunction to care about anyone else. But with such unconcern, a libertarian cannot have a meaningful identity, culture, or sense of history.
He is just an atomized individual in a globo-cosmopolitan universe. Since he identifies only as an individual and sinks-or-swims as a mere individual, his heart and mind have no connection to anything beyond the self. As such, it cannot have a wider or deeper sense of community across time and space. Libertarianism sees lots of dots but never connects the dots to form a large picture.

Consider two individuals. One is a Libertarian Jew who is totally radical about his libertarian principles. The other is a Jewish nationalist. Now, suppose both individuals believe in individuality, responsibility, and ambition. Suppose both Jews gain success. In that regard, they have much in common.
However, the Libertarian Jew is only concerned with the individual, the self. He only cares about his individual freedom and success. And he considers rest of humanity ONLY AS INDIVIDUALS. So, he sees successful individuals, middling individuals, and failed-individuals. He has no other consideration of who-they-are when dealing with humanity.

In contrast, the other guy, the Jewish nationalist, has a sense of ethnic, historical, and cultural identity. He doesn't see himself merely as an individual but also as a person of a specific racial community. So, even though he also sees a world composed of successful individuals, middling individuals, and failed-individuals, he also sees a world made up of cultures and tribes. And he feels a unity with the people of his tribe/culture, the Jews of the world. So, even though, purely on the basis of economic and individual worth, he is more like rich Hindus, rich Anglos, and rich Chinese, he feels a deep connection with all other Jews, rich-middle-poor. And if possible, he would like to do something that serves the interests of all Jews on the racial, cultural, territorial, or historical level. Meanwhile, the Libertarian Jew feels no such feelings when it comes to other Jews. They are just individuals, and some are successful, and some are not.

Now, suppose there's a Jewish community in some part of the world and something horrible is happening to it. The Libertarian Jew's attitude is, "Why should I care?" Since he only sees himself as an individual among other individuals, why should he care MORE about what happens to some Jewish community than what happens to some other community? After all, bad things are happening all the time in some part of the world. Earthquake could destroy a community in Iran. Hurricane could destroy a community in Florida. Famine could destroy a community in Ethiopia. Flood could ruin a community in Japan.
So, why should the Libertarian Jew care more about what happens to a Jewish community? After all, his special concern for Jews would go against his own Libertarian principles.
It might be deemed 'racist', 'supremacist', and 'exclusive'. For him to care more about a tragedy befalling a Jewish community would mean his emotions are playing racial-favorites. It means he's thinking collectively and nationalistically than as an individual committed only to principles of colorblind freedom, liberty, and success. So, even though, in a broad sense, he might feel generic sympathy for any group facing hardship or horrors -- and donate to humanitarian charities for trouble-spots around the world -- , he doesn't feel an obligation to care more about suffering Jews than any other people. So, he sees suffering Jews only in a generic way. They are suffering like the rest of humanity that is suffering, and that's that. And there is no need for him to feel especially bad about the plight of his people. Indeed, he doesn't even regard them as 'my people'. So, even though there could be some Jews suffering really badly in some part of the world, he feels no special connection with or obligation toward them. As such, he feels just fine going about his daily business and is concentrating on persona/professional interests. So, if HE is rich and happy, all's fine with the world. His happiness isn't associated with what happens to a bunch of Jews halfway around the globe.

In contrast, the Jewish Nationalist feels as part of a larger ethno-humanity. No matter how well he may be doing, no matter how well-off he is personally and professionally, and no matter how safe & secure he and his family are, he doesn't feel happy or feel all's well with the world IF there are Jews suffering terribly in some part of the world. He sees them as a part of an extended family. So, their suffering is, at least partly, his suffering as well. He feels a connection to others of his kind. His life doesn't revolve around himself. His life revolves around something bigger and deeper, a sense of being part of a history and culture.



There's a scene in SANDS OF IWO JIMA where a soldier goes on break. He's supposed to return quickly and aid his company, but he prolongs his recess to take it easy. As the result, his fellow soldiers end up getting killed because of his absence. He is overcome with shame and guilt. His extended break proved negligent and led to the death of his compatriots.
The Jewish Nationalist feels in a similar way in relation to other Jews. He feels that all Jews should care about one another. This doesn't mean that some Jews should work so that others can freeload off them. Such dependence would be parasitic and opportunistic. Rather, his ideal is for a kind of ethno-INTERdependence whereby, despite every Jew's effort to gain success on his own, he would be mindful of what's happening with the worldwide Jewish community. So, if some Jews are seriously hurting in a part of the world, other Jews should feel obligated to do something, like when American Jews lent a hand to Soviet Jews. Such compassion may be tribal than universal, but universalism is too generic for meaningful emotions. After all, it's impossible for anyone to care about all the families around the world. Naturally, one cares more for one's own family. Trying to help or save all the peoples around the world would be impossible. Besides, universalists only pretend to care about other groups as for one's own. 20th century was filled with lots of horrors, but Jews have been fixated on the Shoah. Why? Would Jews have cared so much if it had been directed only at Polish Catholics and not Jews? It's only natural that Jews would care more about fellow Jews.

For a person to care ONLY ABOUT THE SELF AND CLOSE ONES would be petty. For a person to care for ALL OF HUMANITY would be generic, more a case of virtue-signaling than anything meaningful or consequential. The middle-ground for meaningful human emotions is ethno-culturalism. A Polish person shouldn't just care about the self or the individual. But it'd be impossible for him to care about all of humanity. Universalism will always be generic and confused.
The meaningful balance can be found in ethno-culturalism: A Pole who cares about Polish-ness as a people, culture, nation, and history. Let him defend and preserve Polish-ness, and let peoples of other nationalities defend and preserve their own identities and heritages.
It's like different departments in colleges focus on different things. Chemistry department focuses on chemistry, not on the law. Accounting Department focuses on accounting, not on agriculture or rocket science. It would be absurd to expect every academic department to focus on every discipline & every field of knowledge and welcome any student with any interest. Likewise, every nation has its own specialization in ethnicity, culture, territory, history, and mythology(collective narrative). Specialization allows the university to maintain the various departments. People of each department specialize in a certain field and maintain expertise in it. So, those in psychology maintain knowledge about psychology, and those in film studies maintain knowledge on the art of cinema. We don't condemn such specialization as 'academic tribalism' or 'academic exclusionism'. In order for every department to be expert in its specialty, it has to concentrate on certain kinds of knowledge at the expense/exclusion of other kinds. So, if a department is about teaching foreign languages, it would be stupid for it to include physics and finance as well in the name of 'academic inclusion'.

Likewise, each nation has its own special history. And each nation is stamped by a unique story of a dominant ethnic group. And each nation has a rich history, culture, folklore, and tradition. It is up to the people of each nation to safeguard, preserve, defend, and disseminate this specialized body of national-cultural knowledge among all its members. Each person of a nation must be seen as a student & scholar of its ethnicity, history, culture, and territory.
Just like everyone in a college department must gain expert knowledge of the department's subject, every person of a nation should try to be an expert on that nation's history, culture, arts, geography, and etc.
It is the loss of such mindset under the pressures of globalism that has made so many people into such bad students of their own identity, history, and culture. It is no wonder they are flunking in national survival and self-preservation. Poisoned by globalism that says every nation must inclusively accept ALL nationalities across its borders, people are no longer compelled to become knowledgeable patriots of their ethnicity, history, and culture with the will to defend their territory.

Imagine if the French language department was accused of specializing in French and not welcoming other disciplines. Therefore, suppose the French department declares itself as no longer exclusively about French and allows people from engineering, agriculture, ceramics, photography, law, medicine, and etc into the department. So, what would the French department be about now? It'd be deemed 'nativist' or 'racist' for the department to be about French above other disciplines. But the people in the department only know French, and they know nothing of other disciplines. And people who specialize in other disciplines feel lost wandering around the French department which is ill-equipped to serve their interests. In time, every discipline that's been allowed into the French department suffers since no one is allowed to meaningfully concentrate on anything. Only by everyone returning to his own department and only by French department concentrating on French will all departments flourish.

Likewise, all nations have more to gain by maintaining their own peoples, cultures, histories, and territories. Let the French preserve what is French in France. Let Cameroonians preserve what is Cameroonian in Cameroon, and let Algerians preserve what is Algerian in Algeria. Let different peoples specialize in their own ethnicity, territory, history, and narrative. And once each nation is preserved in such manner, the world can share and exchange each other's ideas, stories, achievements, and etc... just like various departments in colleges can share their general knowledge with other departments that specialize in their own disciplines. For there to be interdisciplinary studies across departments, each department must maintain expertise in its special field. That way, if another department needs help from the French Department, the latter will be all revved up to deliver.

We need a robust nationalism that encourages each person to be an expert in his folk, history, and culture of his/her nation. And it should be seen as a lifelong pursuit than something only learned in schools. A person with no such interest or investment should be seen as a flunk. What's the point of being a member of a nation if one has no interest in it? It'd be like being part of college department without having any knowledge of its subject.

Anyway, a nationalist doesn't only care about himself or look upon humanity as a collection of 'free individuals' in a borderless world. That would be a libertarian. A nationalist believes that certain peoples, histories, and territories became interwoven to form special 'cultures' that need to be preserved, ideally by those with blood ties to the cultures. Surely, a black African feels a deeper connection when he looks upon the artifacts of his culture. While anyone can appreciate African art on the aesthetic level, it is more than mere art to those of the race and culture that created it. Similarly, Chinese culture surely means more to people of Chinese lineage. It's like Jewish things in Jerusalem mean more to a Jew than to a Japanese, for whom the gardens of Kyoto have special meaning.

Globalism wages war on the specialization of cultures, histories, and peoples. It tries to turn all cultures into Cultures-for-Dummies: bland, generic, superficial, interchangeable. Globalism tries to turn every nation into Nation-for-Dummies.
In contrast, nationalism believes that each person should become an expert of one's identity, history, and culture. Also, if the people of the culture fail in this, they mustn't expect any other people to do it for them. If Hungarians give up on Hungary, non-Hungarians will not fill the void? If Hungarians decide to abandon their culture, who will preserve it for them? Africans? Mexicans? Japanese? Brazilians? No chance.
And even if another people did decide to preserve it for Hungarians, it still wouldn't be the same. It'd be like Chinese preserving the Kenyan nation, or Nigerians speaking Polish and pretending to be Polish Catholics. It'd be just 'larping'. If Jews gave up on Jewish identity and culture AND if Hawaiians or Gypsies took up the mantle of Jewishness, would it be the same? Of course not. No more than if Vietnamese took over Congo and pretended to be New Congolese.

For a nationalist, the meaning of freedom and justice cannot derive solely from personal well-being. No matter how free and well-off he may be as an individual, he doesn't feel truly free and secure as long as others of his kind are suffering or living in bondage. He feels a 'psychic' connection with others of his own kind. It's like a father cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his own children are going hungry. It's like a son cannot enjoy his meal no matter how much food he is served if he knows his parents are starving. A nationalist sees his people as part of his larger family.

A libertarian has no special feeling for others of his own kind. He only cares about himself and has a generic sense of humanity as individuals. So, if people of his ethnicity are suffering, he doesn't see them as 'my people'. He just sees them as suffering individuals no different from other suffering individuals in some other part of the world. A true-blue Libertarian Jew would be no more disturbed by Jews being rounded up and killed than by any other people being rounded up and killed. He would be appalled but no more appalled than by violence committed to any other group.

Of course, few Jews actually feel that way. Jews, even those who claim to be libertarian, feel a great deal of tribal camaraderie with other Jews around the world. Jews know this feeling is the source of their power, resilience, unity, and will to survive.
Now, it'd be nice if Jews, in valuing the meaningfulness of such tribalism, respected similar feelings among other peoples. But Jews won't tolerate such among whites because white gentiles with a sense of tribal compassion may favor their own kind's interests overJewish interests. After all, if white gentiles felt special compassion & loyalty to their own kind, they'd be less partial to sacrificing their own interests in favor of Jewish ones. In some cases, they might see Jewish interests as threatening to their own and work against them. And this is why Jews will not tolerate tribal-communion compassion among white gentiles. (This is why Jews use three methods to make sure whites serve Jewish interests uber alles. First, Jews try to persuade whites that Jewish/Israeli interests and American/European interests are one and the same. So, what is good for Israel is good for the US, no ifs and buts about it. And Western Values are synonymous with Jewish values. Second, Jews tell whites that nationalism is passe, and therefore, whites must adopt Universal Values. Oddly enough, however, once whites are made to forgo white identity in favor of universalism, Jews steer whites toward to serving Zionism and Jews above all else. In other words, it's a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. When Jews say people must surrender nationalism for universalism, it doesn't apply to Jews who are, if anything, celebrated for clinging to their nationalism. Also, 'universalism' is a sham because deracinated and de-nationalized whites are then steered to serve specific Jewish interests than truly universal ones. To be sure, Jews mask their tribal interests with faux-principles about 'human rights', 'war on terror', and 'liberal democracy', but just about everything Jews push under such labels goes toward serving Jewish or Zionist interests. Third, Jews not only advise whites to adopt universalism but go all out to smear even the faintest whiff of white identity as 'nazi' or 'white supremacism'. Therefore, whites are made an offer they can't refuse. They must reject nationalism in favor of 'universalism' that, however, is configured only to serve Jewish tribal interests and Zionism. The current trouble with Russia and Syria has everything to do with Jewish obsessions and nothing else, at least from the standpoint of the US.) If Jews are killed by Palestinians, Jews care a great deal about Jewish victims. Indeed, they use the media to make even gentiles care for Jewish victims. But whites are not supposed to feel any kind of racial compassion for their own kind.

So, there's hardly been ANY expression of sympathy or alarm about all those whites who've been brutally robbed, raped, and/or murdered in South Africa. And Germans are not supposed to care about German victims of migrant rapists. French are not supposed to care about French victims of Muslim violence or African thuggery. And in the US, whites are never allowed to express racial camaraderie with fellow whites attacked by blacks or overrun by non-white immigrants. Ethno-Compassion has been stamped out for whites... but whites are pressured to feel compassion for Jews(every crisis is a new holocaust), blacks(black lives matter), homos, and immigrants, even illegal ones("we have to keep families together"). But when it comes to white identity and interests? Forget about it. If anything, non-whites are encouraged to insult whiteness(despite their desire to move to and live in white nations), and even many whites have been mentally-colonized to spit on their own identity and history. Whites are only allowed, indeed compelled, to feel racial compassion for other groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos.

This must all change.

-----------------------

Dealing with Proglodytes, it's best not to approach them as individuals with critical faculty and agency of thought. It's best to see them as mind-infected, psycolonized, or 'possessed'.

Demon-possessed Regan in THE EXORCIST was no longer herself. She was taken over by the Devil. It would have made no sense for the priests to address her as a free-thinking, independent, and autonomous person. Her young impressionable mind was taken over by Satanic spirits.



Progs are possessed by some demonic GLOB spirit. And it is that demon-spirit in them that we must address. We must focus on the Soros-bug inside their minds that is doing the 'thinking' and talking for them. We must bypass them-as-individuals and get to the source of the malaise.
Progs are mere carriers of this disease. Notice how they all sound and act alike. It's as if they all caught the same Flu. It's the Globonic Plague. When a doctor treats a patient for a disease, he focuses on the infection or condition, not on the patient per se. It is the disease that has hold on the patient, not the patient who has hold on the disease. These ideological infections create the illusion among the afflicted that they freely and personally chose those 'ideas' & 'values' when, far more likely, they became infected or 'possessed' by them.
Granted, the afflicted might have done things that aided and abetted the likelihood of the infection. If a person situates himself in an area where lots of people have come down with the flu, he has a good chance of catching it himself. Still, once the person has caught the flu, it is the disease that must be addressed, not the person as he no longer has control over the disease that has a 'logic' and 'will' of its own.

Proglodytes are zombie-like minions... just like Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution were infected with Mao-itis. It would have made no sense to treat every Little-Red-Book-toting-and-quoting Red Guard as an independent thinker with free will. Their minds were infected with the same ideo-disease. Once Mao-itis ran its course and passed away, it was amazing how everyone lost the fever at the same time and the same way.

Now, the GLOB is tricky and deceptive in hoodwinking its minions into believing they are made free, liberated, independent, and empowered by casting off the core tenets of morality, integrity, responsibility, sobriety, and normality. But once young ones reject such virtues as 'reactionary', they are left with a void that, desperately hungry for meaning, fills up with every fad or fashion that comes down the pipeline. Young ones fail to understand that core virtues are the immunity against being infected by various fads concocted by the cynical GLOB or radicals(or fadicals) who are infected themselves. Now, there are degrees of infections. Some proglodytes may eventually emerge from the infection and regain sanity. But some have caught the viral rabies or leprosy version of the disease, and for them, it's total madness or slow decay.

Zionism vs Afrikanerism as Political Philosophy of Labor — How the Ideology of National Labor eventually trumps the Expediency of Global Labor — Mind and Body in Man and Nation

Politics of Labor will decide the future of nations.

What was the most crucial difference between Zionism and Afrikanerism?

Zionists debated early on whether the Jewish settlers should hire Arab workers or Jewish workers. Zionists came down on the side of Jews hiring Jews. Thus, the Jewish head would be wedded to the Jewish body. And as the theme of Zionism would be ethno-cultural, it would serve as the heart between the head and body of the Jewish nation. In the short-term, it would have been more profitable to use Arab labor. It would have been cheaper than Jewish labor. Also, whereas a Jewish boss would feel moral obligation to treat fellow Jews with some sense of justice, he might merely exploit Arab laborers as expendable than essential members of the Community. But if Zionism had opted for Jewish owners and Arab workers, it would have failed in the long run. As there are always more workers than owners, Arabs would have outnumbered the Jews, and Jewish dominance would have been difficult to maintain. So, even though Jewish owners hiring Jewish workers was economically more costly in the short-run, it was crucial in the long-run in the creation of a Jewish state where the Jewish mind was united with Jewish body. It became one organic unit and fought off all challenges. But, suppose Zionism had opted for Jewish owners hiring Arab Workers. When the Partition of 1948 was declared, would all those Arab employees of Jewish owners have sided with their Jewish bosses or with their Arab brethren? Most would have joined with Arab Brethren, and the Arabs would have won the war, and Jews would have been expelled from Palestine permanently. But because Zionist opted for Jewish owners and Jewish workers, when the crisis moment arrived, all Jews from top to bottom united as a single force and fought the Arabs and won... and were even able to grab most of Arab territory.

In contrast, let's look at the Politics of Labor of South Africa. Afrikaners were race-conscious, but they opted for economic expediency. They decided to hire lots of black workers to do much of the work. In the short-term, this was a terrific bargain. Blacks could be hired for cheap. They could be exploited because they weren't white. White owners and bosses felt some paternal feelings for black workers but not as much as if they'd been white. So, this was a great boost to the South African economy on farms and in the mines, not unlike the economic arrangement in Rhodesia where blacks worked for white owners. But in the long run, what happened in South Africa? These blacks increased in number, outbred whites, and more blacks moved to white areas from the hinterland and even from other African nations. This meant lots of cheap labor that whites could exploit, but it also meant whites being outnumbered by blacks by an ever-increasing margin. Unlike Israel that came to be about Jewish mind wedded to the Jewish body and united by Jewish heart, South Africa increasingly became a world of white mind wedded to the black body with heart of stone lodged between the two communities. Afrikanerism wasn't organic like Zionism. Zionism decided to see Labor as part of 'us' and 'ours'. Afrikanerism decided to see Labor as the Other.
Zionists had been tempted to go with Arab labor. After all, Western Jews honed their skills in white-collar professions and in ownership of property. They weren't really into manual labor. That was for the goyim. Granted, there were poor Jews in Eastern Europe at the time who did manual labor. And even in the West, there were plenty of poor Jews in the garment industries. Still, the Jewish ideal was to use one's brains, not to toil like a 'dummy'. Labor was looked down upon as stuff Dumb 'Polacks' did. Even Jewish communists wanted to be intellectuals or commissars representing laborers; they didn't want to become laborers themselves. Karl Marx never stepped inside a factory in his entire life. And yet, another side of Jewish culture had more respect for the common man, at least if he was Jewish. As Jewish culture wasn't about warriors, it didn't develop an aristocratic culture like the Europeans and Japanese. Among the goyim, the warrior caste became the noblemen, and their power and privilege rested on blood. So, the Western ideal came to be aristocratic-minded, like that of Sparta though not nearly as extreme. Aristocratism deemed that a certain caste was superior over all the rest, and they had the right to rule over others who had to do the heavy lifting as peons and peasants. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant was shared equally by all. Rich Jew, poor Jew, it didn't matter. So, at least within the Tribe, Jews could be more mindful of the humanist value of every Jew. After all, in the Jewish Lore, the kings came later, long after the emergence of the Jews as a people and culture. In contrast, many goy narratives begin with some great leader figure who conquers and rules. According to the Jewish Lore, Jews are a people with certain needs, and they reached a point where they needed a king. In contrast, the Goy Narrative is often about how some guy beat all the others and gained the right to rule, and therefore, it was the duty of everyone else to obey him and his descendants.

National Laborism believes Labor isn't just some economic entity or measure but part of what defines and defends a people, land, and culture. Zionism is National Laborism, and it may be the only nation that is ideologically formulated to be that way.
In its day, National Socialist Germany had a similar ideology. German workers weren't seen merely as economic units but as part of the national family. Labor was organic. It was the body wedded to the German mind and soul. Unfortunately, this ideal all went to hell when Germany decided to go imperialist and turned non-Germans into slaves, thus going from National Socialist ideal to Imperialist Exploitation expediency. And yet, Hitler understood the need for German owners and German workers to be united in the newly occupied lands. Hitler's vision of Russia wasn't for German owners to hire and rely on Slavic laborers. Initially, Germans would use Russians as slaves, but eventually they would be replaced with German workers as a strong German Empire could be assured only by unity of German minds and German bodies. But this was a grisly vision outside Germany because it entailed removal, even extermination, of entire populations. Hitler was right about the New World. North America(minus Mexico) was sounder than Latin America because North was mostly about white owners and white workers. There was organic racial unity of white mind and white body. In contrast, Latin America was about white minds ruling over brown bodies. Thus, there was no heart between mind and body in Latin America. In North America, there was a sense of heart between white mind and white body because it's tougher to exploit one's fellow tribal brethren than another people. It made labor more expensive but also more precious because it wasn't seen merely as economic value but as national-cultural asset. But Hitler was wrong to apply New World historical lessons to the Old World. While it's true that the Red Man lost out tragically to the White Man in North America, there weren't all that many Indian savages in North America. Also, primitive world was supplanted with a modern world as a result of White Conquest of the Americas. In contrast, German invasion of USSR was a war on 170 million people. Also, despite evils of communism and Slavic backwardness, Russia was still part of the great civilized world. Eradicating all of that to create Greater Germany was a mad vision. Though Zionist occupation of West Bank isn't nearly so spectacular, it could be the undoing of Israel if it's ever annexed as Israel will have to offer some form of citizenship to all those Palestinians who may tip the demographic balance of bigger Israel. But then, Jews could try to expel them, but that will stir up a giant international shi*-storm.

When the US was gloriously race-ist, it had a defacto if willy-nilly kind of National-Laborism. While immigration was key to the rapid expansion of the US in the 19th century and early 20th century, most of the newcomers were white and, in time, assimilated. People like the Joads in THE GRAPES OF WRATH mattered because it was deemed a moral necessity for white haves to have a heart for white have-nots. George Bailey doesn't bowl alone in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE because those white folks of Bedford Falls are his people. If they were a bunch of crazy Negroes, apathetic Mexicans, and angry Muslims, he would have left the town. Labor was seen as part of the National Family. New Deal addressed the issue of Labor and Laborers as fellow Americans.

In contrast, the white elites in Latin America always saw Labor as a huge threat. Latin whites were the mind, but the Laboring body was brown(or black). There was little heart between the two. In some ways, Latin white elites envied American white elites, and vice versa. Latin white elites thought American white elites had it better because they hired white workers. Latin America too tried to encourage more white immigration to stem the tide of Rise of Color. But most white Europeans wanted to move to US than to Latin America. Anyway, American white elites also envied Latin White elites. Because American white elites had to hire white workers(for the most part), they felt an obligation to pay them more and offer more benefits. After all, it wouldn't do for whites to mistreat whites. But in Latin America, white owner class could treat the brown workers like expendable peons desperate to work for few pesos. It's no wonder some American capitalists romanticized Latin America. It's like what Hyman Roth says about Cuba. Money goes further in Latin America where the owners don't have to treat the people as Workers with Identity and Rights. Workers are mere peons, and political 'leaders' are whores who can easily be bought. (Today's DC resembles Havana before the Revolution, and ironically enough, this makes Trump with his Deplorable rabble army seem like New Castro to the Deep State.) It's no wonder Buckleys and Bushes had romantic views of Latin America and Mexico. It's where the distinctions of race and class have been more clearly etched. Owners are up here, and workers are down there.
We tend to associate mono-racialism with conservatism, but there is something inherently socialist about mono-racialism even if the dominant economic system in such a society is capitalist. Under mono-racialism, everyone is seen as part of the national family, and so, there is a sense of obligation to each and every person who is seen as deserving of education, opportunity, job, and benefits. In contrast, Diversity means the owner class may well be racially and culturally different from the working classes. And that means the owners don't have to pay much attention to the Other, the lesser folks who do work that is deemed low and inferior. Though Diversity is often associated with liberalism and equality, its effect is often a form of conservative hierarchy like in caste-ridden India of old. Latin America was more diverse than the US and also more conservative and reactionary in just about every area. To this day, it's about white elites ruling over browns. Of course, the official rhetoric of Latin America is that everyone is nicely mixed and no one sees race, but that's just bogus fantasy to mask the fact of hierarchy and lack of communion between those on top and those on bottom.

East Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been about yellow minds and yellow bodies. And nationalism was the heart that glued yellow minds to yellow bodies. But the rise of elitism via near universal college enrollment and elevated expectations may lead to the demise of National Labor ideology in these nations. Today, most Japanese see non-white-collar jobs as 'dirty, demeaning, and dangerous.' Same in South Korea and Taiwan. Not only do many yellows prefer to commit suicide than take up 'dirty and demeaning' labor, they refuse to have children who might fail in school and end up doing 'dirty and demeaning' labor. Also, Asian women, nearly all college educated, only want to marry 'winners'. This means sudden drop in birth-rates, and it means low-level jobs must be filled by... someone, and so, even Japan is now taking in 500,000 foreigners to take up those jobs. And according to Peter Frost's research, South Korean labor will be 40% non-Korean in 25 yrs. Taiwan seems to be following similar trends. So, their economic ideology is closer to Afrikanerism than Zionism. In the short term, it will be profitable and convenient as poor laborers arrive from places like Philippines and Indonesia to fill up 'dirty and demeaning' jobs. But in time, those newcomers will take over the nation just like blacks took over South Africa. Another threat to East Asia is globalism. East Asian mentality is essentially TO SERVE. The samurai, also known as 'bushi', was about submission. 'Bushi' means To Serve. Even though samurai were the elite caste, they were all about serving the Lord. Without someone to serve, one was a ronin, a nothing. Among Chinese and Koreans, the ideal was to become a Confucian bureaucrat and serve the emperor or king. Thus, an individual has no value except in service to the highest power. In Akira Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI and RED BEARD, samurai are initially reluctant to serve the 'common rabble' than some fancy lord. They are used to serving the High than the Low, just like the shoe-maker in HIGH AND LOW must really struggle with himself before coming to regard his chauffeur's kidnapped son as akin to his own. When the top power in Asia was national, most were happy to serve the local power. But now that globalism made the West the uppermost power, most Asian elites are servile to the Western globo-homo way. This is in contrast to Jews who have a sense of self-worth. The Covenant means that every Jew has a direct connection to God. So, even as Jews may work for or with other people, they don't believe they exist to SERVE others. If anything, the key is to make OTHERS serve them, the Chosen Individuals. Asians lack such mentality. Today, Asian elites believe they should serve the West, the toppermost power, and they think they, as 'fancy Asians', should be served by lower people such as 'jungle Asians'. This goes against the grain of Zionism and will be disaster in yrs to come. (There is also a matter of personality. Three groups -- Jews, blacks, and homos -- have big personalities that tend to be egocentric or vain and expect the world to serve them. In contrast, most other groups have either neutral or servile personalities. Jews think everyone should revolve around Jewish Genius, blacks think everyone should suck 'muh dick', and homos think everyone should kiss their behind. No wonder the Three have such out-sized roles in World Culture.)

At one point, whites were like 50% of the South African population. Had Afrikaners taken the Zionist route and decided upon white workers for white owners, South Africa might have become a White Israel. But whites thought short-term. And same could be said for California. When the Golden State had been gloriously race-ist, it came to its senses and excluded Chinese Invasion and Colonization. It didn't want to end up like Tibet or Xinjiang are ending up today. California Dream was a kind of White Israel on the West Coast. And it was a fantastic success story, in some ways the most spectacular tale of American can-do spirit. But at some point, white Californians got used to Too Much of a Good Thing. And they turned grasshopper and took things for granted, even leading to the rise of the California Teenager meme. So, Californian economic ideology went from quasi-Zionism to quasi-Afrikanerism: Whites were too good for certain jobs, and they were to be taken by all those lowly 'beaners'. But just as lowly blacks took over South Africa, these lowly 'beaners' came to demographically take over much of California. This is what happens when the mind and body are no longer one.

Though a collective of people is different from a single person, there are certain parallels that are instructive. Even if heads and bodies could be traded among peoples, a person functions best if his head is connected to his own body via his heart. "My mind, my heart, and my body." But suppose we do an experiment where one person's mind is connected to another person's body and both are pumped by heart of yet another. Would such a person feel as one? When men pretend to be 'women', what happens to their psychology?
In John Carpenter's THE THING, the extraterrestrial creature doesn't care about any of the bodies it takes over since it can move from body to body. It has no organic unity with any single body. It considers every body as expendable. As far as it's concerned, all bodies exist just so it could move from one to the other to spread more Thingish-ness. Now, imagine if your head was severed from your body and suppose your head could move around from place to place. Suppose, it could supplant the heads of other people and take over their bodies. Would you take good care of those bodies? Not likely. Why not? They are not your bodies. You're just a parasite that sees every body as a host. You'd use and abuse the body as long as possible and then move onto to new bodies to mess with. This is indeed how George Soros and Paul Singer operate. They are heads without bodies. They move from nation to nation and attach their heads to the nation as 'advisers' and then do everything to suck that nation dry and then move onto new national bodies. But would Paul Singer do such to his beloved Israel? No. When Singer's head connects with Israel's body, it feels like 'Home', like when ET saw Yoda on Halloween.
https://youtu.be/VrVEHszxL7E?t=2m12s
In the current West, the Jewish head/mind feels little connection to the white body. If anything, the Jewish mind fears rejection by the 'deplorable' white body that might call for the return of the proud white head, and so, the Jewish mind is hellbent on diversifying the body so that it won't be white anymore: White torso, Mexican liver, Asian lungs, African dong, Muslim hands, homo anus, and etc. These body parts will be too busy rejecting one another to come together to reject the Zardoz-like Jewish Head.
As for the former white mind that used to control the white body, it was decapitated long ago, and having no organic connection to the body, it dreams silly dreams of Homo and Tranny as the new god.

A sane and sound person's mind is connected to his body and soul. A sane and sound nation is essentially of one elite ruling over one people. While Israel has a sizable Arab population, it has been a Jewish majority nation led by Jewish elites for Jewish identity from Day One. Zionic beats Bionic. Organic beats artificial. And if Turkey remains viable to this day, it's because modern Turkey was founded as an organic nation of the Turks. Its biggest problem has been with Kurds, a people who insist they are not Turks, but fortunately for Turkey, Kurds are a minority like Arabs in Israel.

Now, it may be understandable why some elites want to boost Diversity and destroy organic nationalism. They feel burdened by having to lead and deal with their own people. It's like Moses had a fearsome task ahead of him because he was a Jew leading the Jews. Because they were his people, he couldn't just see them as chattel or the rabble or human trash(even though the mobs sometimes acted like that). He had to whip them into shape, inspire them, and secure their future in terms of land and survival. Such is a huge challenge and burden, and not all elites are up to it. They just want to make money, gain privilege, and live in the glam world.

American elites were more conscientious and mindful. Protestantism suppressed narcissism and vanity. In contrast, in the colorful Catholic Latin America, the elites were more shameless in lavishly furnishing themselves with the Good Life and style over substance. In a way, the rise of Marxism was like the Second Reformation in Latin America. A way of saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to all the Havana playboy lifestyle. Castro decided to play Moses by ruling Cuba as a nation where every worker would matter as part of the national family. Unfortunately, the fool chose Marxism than Neo-Fascism, the true way to bridge the mind and body. But in the end, the problem wasn't only bad choice of ideology but race. No matter how much Cuba's white elites tried, they couldn't represent whites, blacks, and mixed-race people in between the same way. A racially diverse nation has a hard time being organic. Ideology goes only so far in stitching the differences.

Anyway, Zionism or Afrikanierism when it comes to Labor? Should Labor be seen as part of National Family or Global Finance? When we compare the fate of Israel vs South Africa, I think the answer is clear. So, why do Jews push Afrikanerization of Labor for all nations EXCEPT Israel? Because smart(and devious) power wants to keep the secret formula for itself. Let the suckers fall for the hustle of short-term profits for long-term demise.