How Leftism Can Go from Nationalism to Globalism — The Psychological Underpinning of Leftism that Explains the Mindset of Progressives

There is much talk about how leftists are anti-nationalist and pro-globalist, but this overlooks the fact that leftism was as much a father of nationalism as rightism was. Indeed, at certain moments in history, it was leftism that was pro-nationalist while rightism was anti-nationalist. Of course, the meanings of ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ have changed in relation to the dynamics of the ruling power, international conflicts, levels of economic/industrial development, reigning credos, and dominant idols/icons. Also, we must be mindful of the difference between core principles of leftism/rightism and the pragmatic, opportunistic, or unscrupulous manipulation/exploitation of them(as essentially political fronts) to push through certain agendas that, upon closer scrutiny, have less to do with ideological principles than tribal interests or elite policies.

For those who believe that leftism must be anti-nationalist, consider its origins. The leftist French Revolution was nothing if not nationalist. What did it demand? It was for the National Interest of all Frenchmen. It posited that the leaders must represent and serve the national folks. In other words, the people didn’t exist to be subjects of kings and noblemen, but rather, the ruling elites existed to voice, defend, and represent the needs and will of the people. The French Revolution also argued that the ruling elites must primarily identify with the national masses. Against this, the French monarchy and aristocracy tended to regard the people as subjects. The people existed to serve the ruling elites. Also, as royalty and noblemen, the French elites were more likely to identify with kings and noblemen of other domains. Indeed, the royal houses all across Europe were united by blood. Despite the periodic battles fought among various kingdoms and principalities, the ruling elites across domains regarded each other as kinsmen and brethren bound by royal or noble lineage. It’s like elite athletes battle each other on the playing field but identify more with one another than with the masses of faceless fans. It’s the same way with the gods of mythology. Gods may lock horns with other gods, but they are all still part of the fellowship of immortals who look down on the mortals.

Then, it is no wonder Jews did something very clever with their God. By making Him the one and only God, He could not form alliances with gods of other tribes against the Jews, the people who worshiped Him. Furthermore, the Covenant meant that His main purpose on Earth was to make things better for Jews. In that sense, Jews were proto-nationalists on the cosmic level. They made sure that their spiritual ruler served them as much as they served Him. And yet, Jewish cosmo-nationalism was problematic as it was inherently proto-imperialist. After all, if God is the ruler of everything, everyone, and all-that-is, His power isn’t limited only to Jews but over all mankind and all the world. And yet, if He has a special Covenant with Jews, it means He mustn’t be an impartial emperor over all mankind but a ‘racist’ ruler who favors the supremacism of Jews over all other groups. This contradiction within the Jewish conception of God as both the ruler of all and a rigger in favor of Jews led to the rise of Christianity and then Islam that altered the terms of the Covenant. If God is the ruler of all, He must be a fair and impartial emperor to all peoples and tribes. Anyone or any group that would worship, serve, and honor Him should be just as precious in His eyes. If anything, Jews would be less favored in His eyes because, according to the new covenant, they insisted on being stingy with the original Covenant that said God is theirs alone. From the Jewish perspective, Christianity and Islam are not only horrible heresies but the greatest thefts in history. It was a case of goyim stealing God from the Jews with the aid of Jewish traitors such as Jesus, Peter, and Paul. This is why Jews will do anything to destroy Christianity. While Jews do have a legitimate grievance in feeling that the goyim stole their God, their spiritual conception made the rise of universalized forms of Judaism almost inevitable. After all, if God is the only God and the ruler over all, why should/would He favor the Jews over others? Also, given that Jews themselves admitted over and over in their sacred texts that they’d often been disloyal, treacherous, and verminous in the eyes of God, why would/should He stick by the so-called Chosen who too often chose to act like a bunch of cretins and psychos?

Anyway, those at the top love their power and privilege. And they naturally look down on the less powerful, less rich, less privileged, and less connected. The ‘best’ prefer the company and the acknowledgment of others with the ‘best’ status. They look down on the hoi polloi as mere employees, servants, consumers, and/or subjects. The problem with individualism as a political ideology is it results in hyper-elitism than equal dignity of individuals. After all, while Jeff Bezos and his many employees are all individuals with the same set of basic rights, Bezos-as-individual is worth the power and wealth of countless individuals. He is a giant-individual whereas most individuals are mere ants. Political individualism doesn’t mean that each individual counts as much as all the others. It means a relatively few individuals come to accumulate so much wealth & power and tower over other individuals who mean absolutely nothing. It’s not a forest of more or less equally tall trees but of giant redwoods that reach ever higher while most people are mere shrubs at ground-level. Elite psychology is the same whether the system is aristocratic or democratic. Those at the top come to feel a certain contempt or at least condescension toward the masses, just like star athletes look upon all those faceless fans as a bunch of ‘losers’. In some ways, aristocracy is more honest in its brazen elitism, whereas democracy is one of the most dishonest systems ever created, one where the ruling class pretend to represent and serve the people when it’s really a cabal of oligarchs, elite managers, and commissars. And elitism is made far worse if the ruling class tends to be dominated by a group whose identity differs from that of the great majority. While the US was always an oligarchy, white Christian elites once felt some degree of sympathy and camaraderie with the toiling white masses, not least because rags-to-riches white elites remembered their own years of poverty and hardship. But with Jews(and their proxies, the homos) as the current ruling elites, forget about any genuine elite feeling for the masses. While rich and powerful Jews feel something for fellow Jews in Israel and around the world, they feel only hatred, fear, and contempt for the masses of goyim.

In the age of kings and aristocrats, nationalism didn’t matter so much. Indeed, most peoples of Europe were ruled by the Family than by their own national leaders. Due to intermarriage across domains, many of the kings, princes, and dukes were related by blood, and many of the elites preferred to speak French than the language of the subject peoples. Also, monarchical systems tended to be imperial, and this meant boundaries often shifted to incorporate various ethnic groups who felt little affinity to the ruling class. The most extreme example was perhaps the Austro-Hungarian Empire that was dominated by ruling elites of Germanic Austrians who constituted only 20 to 25% of the entire population. Nationalism was problematic for the ruling elites in imperial mode because it meant they must favor their own people, i.e. if the imperial ruling elites favored their own national folk over all the other imperial subjects, it could lead to much resentment. Indeed, the problem of Jewish rule over West Bank is it is both nationalist and imperialist. As good nationalists, Israeli Zionist leaders favor fellow Jews, but this means resentment among the Palestinians who are treated as subjects than citizens. A system where all peoples are treated as either citizens or subjects is bound to be more stable than one where one people are treated as citizens while others are treated as subjects. If both Jews and Palestinians were treated as subjects, at the very least both groups would be in the same boat. But when Jews are treated as citizens while Palestinians are treated as subjects, it is grounds for grievance and resentment among the latter. For this reason, nationalism and imperialism are like oil and water. Nationalism works best within national borders; it becomes problematic in imperialist mode across national borders. If the ruling elites want to rule over a stable empire, they must treat ALL peoples under their power as either subjects or citizens. Either even foreign peoples must be granted the same rights as citizens or even the national folks must lose their rights and be treated as subjects. In the current neo-imperialist globo-homo New World Order, the New American Way is to treat even non-Americans as ‘fellow Americans’ & ersatz citizens while, at the same time, eroding the rights of Americans as citizens with ever less protections of free speech, gun rights, border security, and freedom of assembly & association; in other words, make American Citizens more like subjects.

Neo-Imperialist Globalists learned the lessons of the past. They figured that the main reason why the European Empires failed was they were national-empires and, as such, bred much anger and resentment among non-white subject peoples. If the European imperialist rulers had treated all peoples, even their own, as subject peoples, then there would at least have been the equality of tyranny. Whether one was a white Briton or brown Hindu, he would be no better or worse than any other subject in the empire. But British Imperialism was also nationalist whereby the British elites felt racially, legally, and politically bound to white Britons who were granted rights and privileges in the UK and across the empire that were denied to non-whites. It was this nationalist or 'racist' element in British Imperialism that especially bred so much animus among non-whites, not least among local non-white elites. Non-white elites, despite their riches and privileges(and collaboration with the foreign overlords), realized that, in some crucial way, they counted for less than even the lowest white Briton. All said and done, even the lowest White Briton was treated as a citizen of the mother country whereas even the highest non-white was regarded as a subject of the empire. Then, it was only natural that many non-white elites decided to struggle against the empire and create their own national orders. In a way, they were aping the Europeans because most non-white cultures hardly had any tradition of people power. The masses had long been treated as mere subjects by local elites, and in a way, nationalism served not only to drive out foreigners but to undermine the traditional order. Even as white imperialists were pushed out, the white national ideal of 'leaders serving the people than vice versa' came to define non-white societies.

At any rate, today’s globalists are in neo-imperialist footing, and they don’t want to sacrifice their global hegemony with the ‘old mistake’ of nationalism. In order for them to rule the world indefinitely, the current ruling elites of the US and EU must send a message to all mankind that they have the same regard for non-whites and non-nationals as for whites and nationals. Indeed, the current PC goes out of its way to demonstrate that any white person with nationalist sympathies/passions will be attacked, defamed, blacklisted, fined, and even imprisoned. Even after Brexit, nothing has been done about the dangerously high levels of non-white immigration-invasion into UK. The only group that is allowed to practice national-imperialism is the Jews, but then, Jews are not only the richest, most privileged, and most powerful group in the world but were clever to shroud their power with the holy-holocaust shield. Also, even as Jews elevated themselves to sacro-saint-victim status, they have no qualms about acting like cutthroat gangsters with elaborate and complex intelligence networks to gather dirt on just about anyone. Also, by control of media and moral hysteria surrounding notions of ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘Russia-Russia-Russia’(or ‘Russysteria’), even those who are clean as a whistle in professional life can be smeared one way or another. Consider how any idealistic antiwar activist has been smeared as an ‘Anti-Semite’ or ‘Russian agent’. Another reason why Jews and only Jews are allowed national-imperialism is to ensure that goy-elites will serve as comprador-collaborationist-elites of the Jews. In other words, while goy elites can only be rich and successful individuals who function as managerial elites of the New World Order, they cannot stand together with their own ethnic folks lest such unity serve as a bulwark against Jewish Supremacist Power. After all, goy national unity means the goy elites of a particular nation must primarily be committed to representing and defending their own peoples than serve an alien power, the Jewish Supremacists.

Generally, empires fear other empires as they clash for imperial spoils. But empires also have problems with nationalism because nationalism wants to be left alone and doesn’t want to be recruited into the imperial power game. It’s like various Greek kingdoms didn’t want to be drawn into the quasi-imperialist adventurism of Agamemnon against the Trojans. Imperialism sees nationalism as an obstacle to its ambitions. Franco’s Spanish nationalism that wanted no part of Adolf Hitler’s imperialist ambitions angered the Fuhrer to no end. Polish nationalism that insisted on neutrality between National Socialist Germany and Soviet Union was seen as a stumbling block for Hitler. If empires seek to conquer and colonize certain lands, it seeks to use other lands as military bases and launching pads for further expansion. The Jew-run US has no ambition to colonize the Middle East with Americans, but it seeks to use nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to encircle Iran. And the US has used Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to encircle and contain China. This is why even mere neutrality of humble nationalism is often regarded as a threat to the imperial world order. Imperialism fears that if it tolerates one neutral nationalism, other nations may demand the same and insist on being left alone. Then, empires lose their bases of operation to expand their hegemony.

At any rate, nationalism, though currently regarded as a ‘rightist’ or even ‘far-right’ ideology(except when Jews and Israel practice it), has had a leftist as well as rightist pedigree. The rise of nationalism in the French Revolution was certainly leftist. Also, even the founding of the United States was, ideologically speaking, more leftist than rightist, as it was about the creation of an independent national republic where the leaders would be mindful of the interests of the national folks. After all, the Declaration of Independence argued that the American colonies were no longer bound to British Tyranny that regarded the colonials as subjects than as free people deserving to be heard and represented by the ruling elites. (Much of the accusations against Britain was malarkey, but the elaborate justification for independence had to do with leftist-nationalist aspirations, and it’s hardly surprising that the American rulers were supportive of the French Revolution despite the fact that the French King had done so much to fund and support the American Independence Struggle.)
Furthermore, most of the post-WWII national independence struggles against European Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism were associated with leftism. In many cases, communists led the struggles for national independence, as in Cuba and Vietnam. In many cases, it was socialists like Nehru of India. Also, even though the Catholic Church has been regarded as a ‘right-wing’ and ‘reactionary’ force in world affairs, the role of the Church in Poland wasn't merely against communism but unfettered capitalism & globalism. In economic theory, Catholicism has been closer to socialism than capitalism. Indeed, only in the US and UK has it been the norm to associate ultra-capitalism, ultra-individualism, and anti-statism as ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’. In most European nations, such positions are considered ‘liberal’, and it is often the right-wing parties that call for more state power and more socialism(though nothing like communism). What Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler both understood was that the most winning formula was the combination of nationalism/patriotism with some measure of socialism. For the most part, Bismarck succeeded because he focused on the German nation. But in World War I, Germany under the impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm went into imperialist mode(along with other European nations) in Continental affairs and brought itself to ruination. Hitler also succeeded on the national level with his formula of nationalism and socialist-capitalism, but then brought Germany to total ruin with another round of imperialist ventures that alienated too many sides.

The point is nationalism has never been entirely ‘rightist’ or ‘leftist’. It’s been a combination of rightist and leftist tendencies. In its focus on People Power, nationalism is indeed leftist and partly egalitarian. Under nationalism, people aren’t mere subjects of the ruling hierarchy. They don’t exist mainly to kneel before noblemen and bow before kings. They are citizens of the state with certain rights. Under the Old Order, only the aristocrats had rights that had to be respected by monarchs. But under nationalism, the concept of rights was universalized to everyone within the national realm. And yet, nationalism is also rightist in that it limits the guarantee and administration of human rights within the national realm. So, even as a nation like Poland or Hungary subscribes to the notion of universal human rights, its role is to ensure and protect such rights for the national folks within the realm. It isn’t their duty to spread such values or practices to OTHER nations. While it is hoped that all nations and all peoples will, of their own accord, come to see the light and practice the Western form of human rights(prior to the rise of degeneracy as the new normal), it is not up to any single nation as ‘liberal hegemon’ to play crusader and force all nations to conform to the one true vision of universal justice.
Furthermore, as communism demonstrated all too powerfully(and brutally), a system and a set of principles are NOT the final chapter in human progress and justice simply because they dogmatically believe themselves to be. As it turned out, communism was the god that failed. So, even though the notion of Human Rights is a noble idea, it is not infallible and, furthermore, there are many more ways than one to conceptualize what constitutes ‘human rights’. Also, ‘universal’ can be a generous idea but also a threatening and aggressive one. It can mean the willingness to share one’s good ideas and values with all the world, but it can also mean the use of ruthless force to spread one’s idea of Truth on the entire world. The wars between Christendom and Islam were battles of universalisms that led to countless deaths. The wars between Catholics and Protestants were also about universalism vs universalism, and they turned the rivers red with blood.

Apart from the dogmatism of something like the Crusades and the Inquisition(and later communism), there is the cynical exploitation of universalist rhetoric — globo-babble about ‘spreading democracy’ and championing ‘human rights’ — to push what are essentially tribalist, capitalist, or imperialist agendas. Notice how Jewish Supremacists veil their essentially tribalist agendas with think-tank yammering about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘free enterprise’, ‘liberal world order’, and etc. If they’re sincere about this, one wonders why they're silent about the Zionist tyranny over West Bank. Indeed, the notion of ‘universalism’ has been so corrupted by Jewish supremacists in the West that countless minions now believe that there is no greater or more urgent ‘human right’ than an infamnia such as ‘gay marriage’ or lunacy such as ‘trans-gender’ rights. In the Current West, decadence and degeneracy are now part and parcel of ‘human rights’. The ‘gay rainbow’ is now a more sacred symbol than the US flag or the Christian Crucifix. And, the so-called ‘conservatives’, who take their money from scum-weasels like Sheldon Adelson the casino crook, do NOTHING to push back against this foul tide. If anything, current ‘conservatism’ seem perfectly content with creatures like ‘Lady Maga’ being the face of New Conservatism.

Leftism, like a chameleon, changes colors in relation to what is considered most urgent, noble, sacred, and redemptive. Also, leftism seeks its heroes and saints within the perimeters of the domain. Under British Imperialism, what was deemed most urgent, courageous, and worthy of sacrifice was national independence among the Irish. Thus, the Irish Left were full-blown nationalists. Back then, Irish Leftism was Irish Nationalism. Leftists love the idea of being underdogs putting up a good fight against the Power. Prior to national independence, the Good Fight was all about resisting the British Empire, the most powerful force in the world, and struggling for liberation and sovereignty for Ireland as an autonomous nation. It is then no wonder that such romanticism attracted many Irish with leftist leanings. By joining the national struggle, they could see themselves as warriors for justice & freedom against tyranny.
Also, leftists must play with the cards they are dealt with. If their domain happens to be mostly homogeneous and limited to national borders, leftism will tend to favor the working folks and thereby de facto end up supporting nationalism. Indeed, consider Swedish Leftism prior to the rise of globalism. It was limited to Swedes in Sweden. Swedish leftists observed that the Swedish working folks are the underdogs in the system and need representation. As the working class traditionally made up the bulk of the national population, a pro-prole politics could only be nationalist in effect even if not by design. National leftism, by urging the working class to demand better wages and more benefits, had a galvanizing impact on mass politics. Also, such mass demand from below led by leftist activists compelled the ruling elites and the rich class to be more mindful of the economic needs of all the people in the nation than of profits-uber-alles. Thus, in a homogeneous national order, leftism can actually serve to reinforce national unity and national consciousness. It can lead to the fusion of capitalism and socialism that works for the good of all. It can remind the ruling class that the people and workers matter as the bulk of national folk. Indeed, consider the effects of the New Deal on American Nationalism. The impact of the New Deal cast a long shadow well into the early 1970s. Despite its excesses and problems, it did create national consensus from top to bottom that Americans must be one people where even the lowliest worker must possess the basic dignities of life. Leftism could strengthen nationalism. If the American Right was focused obsessively on individualism & ‘muh profits’ and therefore had a splintering and alienating effect among the classes, the American Left pushed for pro-worker policies that made the Common Man feel that he had a stake in the system and in the national order.
Still, leftism was so useful to nationalism precisely because relatively homogeneous nations operate on the race-ist basis. The Swedish Working Class made gains because the Swedish Left championed them against the Swedish Rich. And the White American Working Class made great strides because race-ist America was one where white elites were compelled to represent and offer better opportunities and conditions for the white working folks. During the Great Depression especially, there were tons of poor white folks like the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Back then, leftists didn’t need to champion non-whites to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou as even plenty of whites were homeless or just barely eking out a living.

It’s interesting how leftism can so easily go from nationalism to anti-nationalism. Within a homogeneous political-and-cultural context, leftism often aids and abets nationalism by standing up for the working masses. It forces the ruling elites to connect with and be responsive to the totality of the national folks. In a homogeneous setting, leftism is invariably about the people. It may not be particularly ethnocentric or race-ist, but its overall effect is to bolster People Politics. As most people within a homogeneous political order share the same ethnicity, leftism unites the working masses to be heard as a national folk. Ideally, to prevent the spread of radical leftism, it is best to have a right-wing or centrist government that comes under pressure by the left. Because of its virulent nature, leftism-in-power tends to be restless in trying out NEW policies, most of which turn out to be useless or, worse, harmful. However, when leftism is a critical/supportive force than a dominant one, it has a way of pressuring the ruling elites to be more responsive to the masses. It sends a signal to the elites that unless they are mindful of the needs of the national folks, the people might opt for more radical measures, which would not be good. Indeed, it was leftist pressure in late 19th century Germany that urged upon the right-wing ruling elites to enact certain socialist policies to provide safety nets and basic protections for workers. Wittingly or not, German leftism, by cooperating and compromising with the Ruling Class, lent credence to the German Right. Indeed, German Nationalism was the intersection of rightism and leftism.

And yet, leftism can just as easily turn anti-nationalist. How could something that could be so useful to nationalism be so against it? Because the CORE principles of leftism are not about tribalism, nationalism, or particularism but radical messianism, universalism, egalitarianism, and/or underdog-ism. Furthermore, the core leftist psychology is about holier-than-thou-ism and moral/spiritual puritanism. This is where leftism is different from libertarianism. Decadence and degeneracy as libertarian rights are all about freedom and liberty, not about moral sanctimony. Libertarianism doesn’t morally defend self-indulgence and depravity; it merely defends the right of individuals to take part in them. In contrast, when leftism merges with decadence/degeneracy, it feels a 'spiritual' urge to sanctify and ‘sacralize’ them as the ‘new normal’ or even the ‘new holy’.
Though leftism has largely been approached and analyzed ideologically, it can also be understood as a psychological tendency. In some ways, the psychological factor may be more important. After all, if leftism is all about ideology, it should have died with the fall of communism. Also, what is more hierarchical than globalism that has created a world of the Master Class of super-oligarchs and the rest of us? If ideological leftism were still active, it should primarily be anti-globalist and anti-hyper-capitalist. And yet, so much of today’s ‘leftism’ sides with the Deep State, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, and super-capitalism. Ideologically, it makes little sense, but psychologically it makes plenty of sense. Even if leftist ideology is pretty much dead, leftist psychology is alive and well, and it cannot be extinguished because it’s a psycho-emotional tendency that some people are more prone to for genetic reasons. Some people are born with psycho-leftist tendencies, just as some are born with psycho-rightist tendencies. While sanctity matters a lot to both psycho-rightists and psycho-leftists, the former are more into preservation of familiar symbols & entrenched values, whereas the latter are more into moral outrage of the moment. Thus, psycho-rightist emotions are rarely as heated as psycho-leftist ones. Obviously, defending the realm requires less hysterics than changing the world. Granted, psycho-rightism is not without passion. Many psycho-rightists have a deep and powerful sense of connection to their land, folks, customs, & history. Psycho-rightism is about the sacred mansion, psycho-leftism is about the holy mission. Also, because psycho-rightism is rooted to the soil, it is more resilient in the long run IF it can weather the storm of change. It’s like trees with roots deep in the ground recover and regrow after harsh storms, cold winters, and even forest fires. In contrast, because leftism not only lacks roots but is anti-roots, when a particular leftism is discredited, rejected, and passes from history, it really vanishes without much of a trace. However, there is a way in which psycho-leftist fervor and fury can overwhelm psycho-rightist passion. Because psycho-rightism is more an emotion — the feelings one has for family, home/homeland, heritage, and etc. — , it tends not to be articulated or intellectualized. In contrast, because psycho-leftism is about finding faults in the system and changing it radically or altogether(and even trying to change the entire world), it has to be more than a passion or hysteria. It has to be intellectualized into an ideology or dogma. As such, leftism tends to be more articulated and ‘rhetoricized’ than rightism is. It’s like someone who believes in ‘home sweet home’ feels a certain sentimentality, and that feeling is enough for him to feel justified in maintaining his home-sweet-home. In contrast, someone who says the home should be torn down to make way for something new, different, and better has to explain why his plan should be realized. Precisely because leftism goes against the ‘natural’ and normally-accepted way of doing things, it has to justify itself morally and intellectually. Thus, leftism gains greater mastery over the Politics of Words. As words have the power to convert minds and as converted minds go about joining the crusade, words can change the world.

Between the psycho-rightist mentality and the psycho-leftist mentality is the psycho-libertarian mentality that neither feels a strong attachment to folks, culture, land, & heritage nor feels a particular tendency toward moral outrage & redemption through transformation. Psycho-libertarians find psycho-rightism to be stuffy and repressive and find psycho-leftism to be rabid and virulent. If psycho-rightists want to keep homos in the closet, psycho-leftists want to elevate homos in the church. Psycho-rightists want to restrain perversion, deviance, and difference to maintain the Traditional Way or the Current Norm, whereas psycho-leftists want to restrain tradition, natural norms, and ‘reactionary’ views to push through the New Agenda. As both are founded on sacred emotions — psycho-rightism is about the holy, psycho-leftism is about being holier-than-thou — , there is a limit to which either can accept freedom and liberty. If freedom threatens what is sacred to psycho-rightism, it must be curtailed to preserve what is believed to be noble, essential, and true. If freedom threatens what is holy to psycho-leftism, it must be curtailed to ensure the continuance of the march forward. Because psycho-libertarians hold nothing sacred, they have a difficult time understanding the rightist emotional attachment to tradition/heritage and leftist emotional attachment to ‘social justice’.
Granted, there is one thing that is quasi-sacred to certain psycho-libertarians. As near-worshipers of the Individual, psycho-libertarians tend to idolize the super-individuals who achieved the most, especially in business. So, as often as not, psycho-libertarians will slavishly agree with whatever the richest bunch of oligarchs have to say. So, if superduper rich corporations use monopolies to limit free speech and push globo-homo, such matters have the full stamp of approval from psycho-libertarians who are star-struck with the image of the superduper individual who is so awesome because he’s worth billions and billions of dollars. Indeed, this is why so many psycho-libertarians are fully on-board with Israel and Zionism. Not because they have a sentimental attachment to Israel or harbor worshipful feelings about Jews as the Chosen but because they are so impressed by Jewish wealth and Jewish achievements as individuals.

Because the globalist elites know that ‘leftism’ now exists essentially as a psychological than ideological quality, they’ve used their control of academia, information media, entertainment, and the deep state to manipulate and exploit psycho-leftism. Globalist elites know that psycho-leftists are concerned less with ideological consistency and intellectual honesty than with emotional fulfillment of being self-righteously outraged and/or smugly & snidely feeling superior in being ‘more evolved’ or ‘on the right side of history’. Leftism used to be wedded to a particular set of ideals and ideological worldview. Now, it’s mostly about ‘muh feeling’. Just like a person who is fixated mainly on the orgasm doesn’t care about love & commitment as just about any sex partner will do, a psycho-leftist doesn’t really care what he or she is up-in-arms about AS LONG AS it provides him or her with the emotional satisfaction of being holier-than-thou and self-righteous. So, as long as the globalist elites find clever ways to tickle their ‘outragenous’ zones, the psycho-leftist rabble are happy. It’s like dogs need to hunt for or chase after something. It can be ANYTHING as long as they get to run after it. It could be a rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, ball, or a stick. As long as as a dog is given something to chase after, it is happy. Likewise, as long as the psycho-leftist is given something to throw hysterics about, he or she feels fulfilled with the moral-orgasm or 'morgasm'.
Indeed, the Jewish globalists prefer this because ideological leftism insists on an underlying consistency of ideas and principles. Thus, ideological leftists are harder to manipulate hither thither. This was indeed why Jews eventually lost out under communism. Communism, being an ideological form of leftism, stood steadfast with a certain set of principles. It was anti-wealth, anti-individual, and anti-enterprise. It favored mediocrity and conformism above all. In a system governed by such principles, Jewish communist elites were targeted and brought down a peg in the name of greater equality. So, even though Jews started out strong in the Soviet Communist Order, they kept losing power as the years went by. In contrast, Jews went from strength to strength in the US because it allowed individualism and meritocracy, two areas in which Jews were advantaged for their pushy personalities and higher IQ.
Still, Jewish leftism was useful as a moral cover precisely because Jews were gaining so much in terms of power, privilege, and wealth. If Jews were only associated with money and position, people would look upon them with suspicion and resentment, even hatred. But if many Jews were associated with the Left, it would create the impression that Jewish Role in America is more about justice and equality(and concern for the little guy) than about Jews getting ever richer and more powerful. While capitalist Jews and leftist Jews didn’t see eye to eye on lots of things through much of the 20th century, the depressing fate of Jews under communism, the amazing success of Jews in the US, the galvanizing cult of the Shoah, and the rise of Zionism all led to a mutual understanding between two camps. Jewish capitalists would keep getting richer and richer and gain greater control of society while Jewish ‘leftists’ would make a lot of noises about ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ to lend the impression that Jews are more about 'social justice' prophecy than material wealth & profits. In other words, Jews pretty much gave up on ideological leftism and formulated ways to manipulate psychological leftism by using media, academia, and deep state to concoct new idols, the latest issues of the day, and fashions/trends to rouse up moral hysteria. Ideology and ideas matter far less than idols and icons, especially those of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, Homos as ‘gay rainbow’ angel-fairies, and Negroes as Mandela/Mandingo stud-skank-saint-victims. So, never mind what Zionists are doing to Palestinians. Just weep over and over about the ‘muh 6 million’ and go hunting for ‘New Nazis’. And never mind that Homos deeply embedded in the Deep State and working with CIA and other goons to spread US neo-imperialism(aka Wars for Israel) that have devastated entire nations and peoples. Homos are holy-schmoly, and it feels so gratifyingly self-righteous to wave the ‘gay’ flag and holler at ‘homophobia’. And never mind that blacks kill blacks(and other races). Just chant the mantra of ‘Black Lives Matter’ as if blacks are the ones who need to be protected from the ‘white racist police’. And forget about what Jews, Liberals, and ideological leftists once said about McCarthyism and ‘paranoid red-baiting’. You better hysterically believe it’s Russia-Russia-Russia that is interfering with our elections — of course, Russia is EVIL because it said NO to Globo-Homo, one of the most fashionable current moral outrages among psycho-leftists. And never mind Obama turned out to be just another neo-imperialist stooge who did the bidding of Zionists and spread more Wars for Israel. Why, he is the first black president, and that means he’s holy and a symbol against the evil of ‘racism’. With psycho-leftists, it’s really a game of ‘fill-in-the-blank-slate’. As ideological leftism is dead, today’s wanna-be leftists have no long-term vision or no deep set of principles to live by. Psycho-leftism is like a gun that wants to fire off endless rounds. It doesn't matter what ammos are loaded into its blank cartridge as long as it gets to fire them.
One thing for sure, today’s ‘leftism’ isn’t about equality or anti-imperialism as so many on the so-called ‘left’ cheer on US neo-globo-imperialism, defend the deep state, and praise Wall Street & Silicon Valley. Now, why would ‘leftists’ be for the super-rich and globalist imperialism? Because having no real ideology to ground them in a certain worldview, today’s ‘leftists’ are really just psycho-leftists who mainly want to feel moral outrage and holier-than-thou about something. As most of them are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to come up with their own issues and topics to get all worked up with, they rely on the powers-that-be to supply the idols, icons, and issues about which to get most rapturous or hysterical about. It’s like a dog cannot throw the ball or stick to chase. It has to be thrown by the master. Likewise, psycho-leftists are like dogs that rely on their Jewish globo-homo masters to toss balls and sticks for them to chase. This is why today’s ‘leftists’ are so malleable and seem so arbitrary in their moral outrages. Their moral outrage is not the cart behind the ideological horse. Rather, their moral outrage is the horse, and it will carry just about anything loaded onto the cart. Consider that most ‘leftists’ had no concern about ‘refugees’ who were detained under Obama’s administration. They had no concern about US deep state’s use of Neo-Nazis to pull off a coup in Ukraine. They had no concern about Obama administration’s support of military coup d’etat in Egypt that toppled a democratically elected government. They had no concern for the Kurds in Syria. And they sure as hell cared little about Muslims. But when Trump became president, these ‘leftists’ would suddenly throw fits about whatever ball or stick was thrown by Jews for them to run after. For awhile, one got the impression that ‘leftist’ believed there is nothing as American-as-Apple-Pie as the Muslims. And yet, these are the same ‘leftists’ who support globo-homo that represents everything that Islam detests. To get a sense of psycho-leftism, consider the ridiculous case of Justin Trudeau who is all about smug moral upmanship about things that contradict one another. So, he will dress up as a Muslim and embrace Muslims as his brothers, but then go off and wave the ‘gay’ flag at a ‘pride’ parade. What do Islam and ‘gay pride’ have in common for psycho-leftists like Trudeau? Never mind the ideological inconsistency. What matters is both offer him insta-doses of ‘virtue highs’. Mingling with Muslims he is one with much-consecrated Diversity and against ‘Islamophobia’, and dilly-dallying with homos he is one with the holy ‘rainbow’ and against the dark sin of ‘homophobia’. The fact that ‘transphobia’ also became a hot topic and object of a new crusade almost overnight goes to show that psycho-leftism is almost entirely about senses and emotions than about ideas. As Joe Biden and others have pointed out, the rise of globo-homo owed less to ideological or intellectual debate than the power of idolatry and iconography via TV shows, movies, advertising, pageantry, and propaganda. In a world where image and sounds count for more than ideas and where chants-mantras-slogans-platitudes have precedence over words as tools of logic and facts, people have forgotten how to think. Indeed, so many people now want to be rid of Free Speech because certain words, even if true and factual, offend their sense of the sacred, mostly about Jews, blacks, and homos. Why, it might be 'hate speech'.

In a homogenous order, leftism will tend to side with the working masses against the rich elites — we may call it national leftism. But in a diverse order or in an order(even if homogeneous) where diversity has been sacralized, leftism will side with diversity of minorities, immigrants, and foreigners against the national folks — we may call it ‘global leftism’. While national leftism and global leftism don’t see eye to eye, they do have something in common at the psychological core. Both are predicated on the need to feel moral outrage and self-righteousness. National leftists feel holier-than-thou in supporting the poor and toiling workers against the rich and privileged. They feel like little jesuses standing with the have-nots against the super-haves. Global leftists also feel holier-than-thou but in their coddling defense of marginalized minorities, distrusted foreign elements, and struggling immigrants. For global leftists, the peoples of the Third World are even needier than the white working class in the West. Because leftism is about feeling self-righteous by sticking up for the little guy against the big guy, its politics is always relative to who happens to be the littler guy. In a homogenous setting of nationalism, leftists see the national proles and poor as the little guys(like in populist Frank Capra movies). In a diverse setting of globalism, leftists see the global poor as the little guys who need to be championed and coddled. But such mindset can take over EVEN BEFORE diversity takes over a nation. Before homogeneous Sweden embarked on its agenda of Diversity and national suicide, its media and academia instilled countless Swedes with the idea that Diversity is not only good but downright sacred. And that meant that National Sweden was an imperfect and even vile place lacking in vibrant Diversity. Apparently, it didn’t have sufficient diversity that bestowed proper blessing upon the nation. Once Swedish psychology was inculcated with the notion that Diversity is next to godliness, Swedish leftists kept pushing for more immigration. And once non-white immigrants got a foothold in Sweden, Swedish leftists went about embracing, championing, and coddling them as the new ‘little guys’, the sacrosanct victims deserving of the most love and sympathy. Swedish elites, who only care about money and privilege, figured they could be spared the leftist ire if they signed onto the Diversity program. What did they care since they got the money and means to keep themselves safe and sound in their affluent enclaves even if Sweden were to fill up with foreign hordes? Indeed, the rich class and the Swedish leftists could scapegoat the Swedish nationalists(mostly lower-middle class and working class) as the ‘racist’ villains who aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about holy Diversity.

This is why the world needs National Humanism or Neo-Fascism as the only workable formula for fusing the right with the left in the name of national preservation and against imperialisms of all kinds.

What is the Main Duty of National Elites? To Defend People, Culture, & Land. Can such Obligation be served nobly under Mass-Immigration, Diversity-Mongering, and Minority-Elite-Supremacism?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/16/yuma-arizona-declares-state-emergency-over-surge-m/

Yuma, a city on the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, declared a state of emergency Tuesday, saying it cannot handle the crush of illegal immigrants the government is being forced to release onto its streets.
Mayor Douglas Nicholls said the migrants are being released by the Border Patrol into his community faster than they can leave, and local shelters are already at capacity.
He warned of mobs of people “roaming the streets looking to satisfy basic human needs,” clashing with citizens looking to protect their own property.
“There is an imminent threat on having too many migrant releases into our community,” he said. “It’s above our capacity as a community to sustain.”
The move was designed to draw the attention of the country to what locals said was an untenable situation and to beg for solutions from the federal government, which has been at a political stalemate over what to do.

Why do we need elites, leaders, or the ruling class? One may argue that it is to maintain order and ensure good governance. Just like the body is useless without the head, a society is bound to fail without some form of central command. Elites exist to protect the people from outsiders and from themselves. Without security and protection, any social order can be overtaken by foreign powers through military invasion or by other peoples via demographic replacement. Without morality and rule of law, any social order can fall into decay and degradation. Therefore, ideally speaking, elites exist to protect the people from outsiders and from themselves. Without protection from outsiders, it’s only a matter of time before the domain is invaded and taken over by others. What goes for nature goes for humans; after all, humans are part of nature. Organisms must always protect their territory against others or else be overrun. And humans must protect their domain from nature because, otherwise, it will be reclaimed by weeds, trees, insects, and animals. Notice that without proper maintenance, a house is taken over by ants, termites, hornets, rats, rabbits, and creatures of all kind. And humans must secure their property, private or public, against other humans. Any private property won’t be private for long without security and enforcement of the law. One of the main reasons why people are placed behind bars is because of violation of property laws.
That said, people must also be protected from themselves. Left to their own devices, people are likely to indulge in excessive, harmful, and self-destructive behavior. There are too many silly people, dumb people, stupid people, and deranged people. Just like parents and teachers must guide young ones(who will invariably mess things up if left to do as they please), the elites need to remind the people of what is right and wrong, what is of primary importance; and the elites must guide the people in the right direction, like Moses did with the Hebrews in the Exodus. In matters of right vs wrong, elites must steer people from darkness toward the light. In matters of priority, it’s more complicated because each choice has merit and value. But because we can’t have everything, we must choose what is MORE important given the demands of the times. Surely, a family with a limited budget should focus more on food, clothing, and shelter than on motor-boats, fancy dress, and gourmet food. Likewise, a nation that needs to develop industry will prioritize education in science & technology(as it needs plenty of engineers) than something like the humanities(even though it too has value).

When we read the news story above, it should be clear that American elites are now totally useless. The US is still a great, rich, and powerful nation, but it owes mostly to land, lineage, and legacy than current leadership. America’s advantages owe to bountiful land & resources, founding & formation by Anglo-Germanic-Celtics(a very talented & advanced people), and the tradition of law and honor that came to characterize American governance and ways of doing business. (While Northern European Americans may have been unfair in dealing with non-whites and certain ethnics, they were more just and fair-minded with their own kind than non-whites and certain southern/eastern Europeans were with their kinds. Also, the fact that so many people wanted to move to Northern-European-made America suggests that they found even white prejudice to be preferable to social and political conditions in their own nation. It’s like a Chinese guy was likely to get more justice, at least on the individual level, under British Imperialists in Hong Kong than from fellow Chinese in Mainland China. And for all the gripes by Arabs/Muslims about ‘white racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’, they seem attracted to the West because they are less likely to be treated brutally than in their home nations so rife with corruption and harsh repression. Better to be called a ‘muzzie’ behind one’s back once in awhile than be rounded up and shot dead.) Some say the success of the US is the product of democracy and ‘liberal values’, but I wonder. After all, both Germany and Japan surged ahead in the 19th and 20th centuries under autocracies. And even after World War II, Japan has essentially been a one-party dictatorship, and German democracy was just a puppet regime of NATO. And one-party dictatorship of China hasn’t prevented it from making huge economic gains. And do so-called proponents of ‘liberal democracy’ really prize multi-party politics? If so, why do they look to California as the template for future America? Multi-party democracy is dead in California that is now a defacto one-party dictatorship. Nothing is more threatening to multi-party democracy than mass-immigration-invasion because the great majority of non-white invaders vote for Democrats as the party more favorable to mass immigration and non-white identity-politics(at the expense of whites, of course). As immigrants vote for the Party that puts out the Welcome Mat and flatters them with gushing Valentines — Democrats say endless immigration-invasion is what America is really about — , open borders will effectively turn the US into a one-party state.
Granted, a nation’s democracy can be a defacto one-party dictatorship without massive Diversity, as has been the case of postwar Japan, but even that suggests the US(that was most responsible for setting up Japan's postwar political system) was far less interested in liberal multi-party democracy than its own ‘national interests’. After defeating Japan, the US occupation forces were initially amenable to the Japanese Left, but once the Cold War set in, especially with communist takeover of China, the US did everything to ensure political stranglehold by the Japanese Right in future elections. And the Japanese Right sold its soul and cucked out to the US for this arrangement. (But the Conservative advantage may soon fade as rural Japan is fading demographically, in which case all future elections will likely be decided by the more globo-homo Metropolitan areas.)
The fact that so many autocracies have been economically successful while so many democracies have been economic basket-cases suggests that ‘liberal democracy’ was not the most important element in the rise of America. Anglo-Germanic America might have done just as well(if not better), at least economically, under an autocratic system. Plenty of Latin American nations have adopted the liberal democratic model, but it hasn’t done them much good. Furthermore, Chile's economy did pretty well under Pinochet’s military regime, and plenty of leftists and even liberals have apologized for Fidel Castro as having done more for his people under an autocratic system that suppressed the excesses that marred most Latin American nations.
Now, proponents of ‘liberal democracy’ argue that political democracy, meaning elections based on majority will, isn’t enough for good governance and national progress. They insist that Rule of Law and clean government(that limits if not eradicates corruption) are crucial, but they often overlook the racial basis of the cultural basis of social basis of political practice. While any race can be corrupt and culture doesn’t guarantee anything, certain races are more likely to conceive of certain ideas & values and use them more constructively & intelligently. The white race was more likely to create figures like Plato and Aristotle than the Negro race. Also, even when presented with the same ideas and values, various races use them differently. Christianity for blacks means turning churches into discos for oogity-boogity jivery. Philosophy for blacks usually turns into personal megalomania or lots of egotistical jivetalk. And look what blacks have done to the tradition of Western Debate. In colleges, they just holler like gorillas about to wallop baboons for bananas. For Jews, whites, and Asians, the concept of modern education means to hit the books, gain knowledge, and sharpen the mind. For blacks, schooling means fooling around in classrooms and acting like pimps and chimps. Black schools are like Classroom of the Apes. So, even though any race can be corrupt, some races are more prone to wild behavior that makes corruption more likely. And even though any race can use culture badly, some races are likely to use it truly badly. Just look at the state of libraries in Detroit. When blacks riot, the bookstore is one thing they leave alone.

So, when thinkers like Francis Fukuyama(more like Fukyomama) or Daren Acemoglu(more like Ass-Mugly) yammer about need for cleaner culture or more virtuous values, it becomes almost irrelevant when blacks are concerned because black racial nature is so oogity-boogity. As for non-blacks, racial temperament is a key factor as well. While all non-black races have proven themselves capable of creating civilization(from the French to the Hindus to the Mayans to the Khmers and etc.), some peoples have been more adept at progress and innovation than others due to matters of temperament and personality. While it was possible(as anything is ‘possible’) that the British could have developed a culture like that of Feudal Japan and vice versa, it was highly unlikely due to factors of personality.

Anyway, what’s the point of having an elite like the one in the current US? Americans along the US-Mexican border are being inundated with foreign invaders and call for help, but the US government hardly does anything. Doesn’t the elite exist to protect its people from foreigners? Then, why do the ruling elites do so little to secure US borders and make life easier for American citizens? If anything, if US citizens were to take the law into their own hands to fend off the invasion, the elites will send government goons to arrest and prosecute them. Indeed, the elite policy is worse than do-nothing-ism. It is, if anything, do-everything-to-aid-the-invaders and do-everything-to-shut-down-patriots. The current elites use ‘legal’, media, and deep state powers to sabotage Donald Trump’s efforts to secure the borders(that is IF Trump was sincere about his campaign promises). They even work against the President elected by the people. These elites are not national leaders. They are globalist imperialists who don’t regard the US as a nation to defend and preserve but as the base of operations for their globalist-imperialist hegemonic ambitions. So, the US must use its wealth, military, and soft power to take over other parts of the world. And in order to destroy the white majority power in America and to convert non-white immigrants into ‘servitors of the empire’ — consider how the likes of Fareed Zakaria and Nikki Haley are total whores of the Zionist globo-homo War Machine — , the current elites(mostly made of Jews and their cuck-collaborators) push for both Wars for Israel & Jewish Hegemony and Mass Immigration-Invasion to permanently alter the character of the US(and EU). Of course, Jews would oppose mass-immigration IF they really felt that the newcomers could pose a threat to Jewish elite power, but Jews are confident that NO PEOPLE can challenge them at the top. All those browns and blacks will undermine white majority power but won’t be able to rise high enough to depose Jewish power. If Jews really believed that Muslim-Americans are capable of rising fast and taking power from Jews, they’d oppose mass-immigration overnight. As for Asian-Americans, they do better in school and graduate from top schools, but Jews feel that Hindus will just suck up to the Power(like they did for so long under the British) and East Asians are too lacking in ego, creativity, and personal pride to possess anything like chutzpah to challenge Jews. Indeed, most Asian-American elites seem lackluster in terms of originality and submissive to the template set forth by Jews(and their favorite allies, the homos), which is why Jews have come to value them as reliable yellow dogs. If Jews use brawny blacks to bite whites(aka ‘punch nazis’), they use scrawny yellows to bark at whites. It’s the scrawn-brawn strategy of the Jews. So, increasingly in America, we have tough blacks beating up whites in schools & streets AND robotic yellows berating whites in print media.

The majority of US politicians, national and local, are still non-Jewish whites, but they are useless as elites because they serve their Jewish donors and work against the white masses, the very people who elected them. Worse, so many white masses have been brain-warped by the J-Rays(Jewish Rays) of mass media and entertainment that they believe whites exist mainly to honor Jews, admire Negroes, celebrate homos, and welcome Diversity(to replace whites). Also, the cult of novelty has made so many yuppie-hipster(or yupster) whites enamored of the notion of constant change, even if it means their kind is reviled and replaced. As long as it is ‘new’, it is favored over the ‘old’. This is the mentality of those who are severed from their origins, roots, mythos, and kin. As atomized individualists in search of new thrills, charms, and fads, they always favor the moment over memory. But then, as people have a natural longing for belonging, these atomized and uprooted ‘yupsters’ cannot live on individualist antics alone. But since whiteness has been dehumanized and turned into a scapegoat-object of hatred, white ‘yupsters’ attach themselves to OTHER identities to feel a sense of membership or community. Some try to be ‘black’ or pro-black. Others suck up to Jews and wave the Zionist flag while denouncing white identity(like the worthless David French, the white goy who adopts black kids and sings praise to Israel while always denouncing whiteness). And so many deracinated whites have attached themselves to ‘gay’ stuff. Indeed, if a white is a homo or tranny, suddenly he has a lot of ‘wokemon points’ because Jews have elevated Homomania as neo-christianity, aka Queertianity.

The current situation is worse than elites being disrespectful of and unresponsive to the wishes and demands of the white majority. So many white people have been corrupted by J-Ray(that promotes Jew-Negro-Homo-Diversity Worship) that EVEN IF worthy white national elites were to emerge to guide the white race to the Promised Land, too many among the white masses will curse them out. Jews have near-total lock on white cuck elites but they also control countless minions among the white masses because they control the media, academia, and entertainment. Indeed, look at the state of UK. The problem isn’t merely with cuck-elites like David Cameron and Theresa May. It is that EVEN IF genuine national leaders like Enoch Powell were to emerge, so many among the white masses will curse him as ‘racist’ and ‘white supremacist’ and call for more mass-immigration-invasion and Diversity to finish off the white majority. More restaurants please.

Still, fish rots from the head down, and the current tragic-pathetic state of affairs came about only because white elites sucked up to Jewish elites. As Jewish elites turned white elites into worthless cucks, the white masses no longer had their champion and leader, their own elites. Jewish elites acted to serve Jewish interests, and black elites existed to serve black interests. But white elites decided their duty was to serve the interests of OTHER groups. Now, such white elite attitude didn’t necessarily begin as cuckery. To some extent, there was genuine ethics and even nobility of heart associated with it. When white elites ruled America, they recognized that non-whites had been discriminated against, even oppressed. And as they noticed that whites made up the overwhelming solid majority and had most of the wealth and high positions, they didn’t think whites needed special consideration. Just like it makes more sense to help the poor than the rich, it made more sense to lend aid to non-whites than to whites who had the most wealth, held most managerial positions, and lived in nicer neighborhoods. And given what happened to Jews in World War II, it was understandable why the then still dominant white elites went gentler on them.
But we live in an age of historical acceleration. Just like technological changes in the 20th century outpaced technological progress in all of prior history, social changes in the second half of the 20th century America happened a lot faster than anyone could have imagined. If most of history moved at 5 mph, the 19th century began at about 10 mph and ended around 25 mph. By mid-20th century, history was moving at 50 mph and, since the 60s, it’s been speeding up to 100 mph. How else do we explain the fact that so many Americans, even older folks, changed their minds on ‘gay marriage’. As David Cole has explained in the article "Our Privileged Oppressed", attitudes and habits can lag behind fast-changing reality. Former underdogs may still carry on as ‘underdogs’ even though they are the new top-dogs, and former top-dogs may still pretend to be ‘top-dogs’ even though they(or at least many of their kind) have become the new underdogs. This is partly due to rapidity of change in modern times, so much so that perception often lags behind reality. Of course, being Jewish himself, Cole doesn’t mention that Jews are the biggest practitioners and beneficiaries of the Change/Notice Lag or Be/See Lag. As the new top-dogs, Jews still want to be seen as underdogs to garner sympathy than resentment. Also, Jews prop up the illusion of the Eternal White Top Dog as means to divert the world’s attention from Jewish Power. Jews use white ‘top dog’ cucks as useful fronts and buffers. As for Cole’s Dennis Moore(of Monty Python) reference, he sort of misses the point. It is not Dennis Moore who failed to realize that the poor have become rich and the rich have become poor. After all, he arrives at a point where he begins to rob from the New Rich(the former poor) to give to the New Poor(the former rich). The problem is with the Megaphonic chorus that has failed to notice the change and mocks him for stealing from the Poor(when they're not rich). Especially as the new ideology is PC(ever changing according to whims of Jewish globo-homo academia) and the only living culture is Pop Culture(all about fads and fashion), mass mentality can shift and go in wholly new directions almost overnight depending on elite-media manipulation. Bob Dylan sang, "You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", but now, it’s the weathermen of academia and media who CONTROL the Wind Machine. And they’ve turned history into a hurricane of mendacity and degeneracy.

There is a famous film by Akira Kurosawa, SEVEN SAMURAI. In it, a community of peasants is periodically set upon by a roving mob of bandits. As men and women of the soil, they are helpless against armed and brutish marauders. They’ve tried to alert the authorities, but officials do little but offer lip-service. It takes place during a chaotic period in Japan’s feudal history, and in a state of flux, the authorities are either unwilling or unable to offer security and assurance to people such as the peasants in the story. In other words, the peasants are under a useless elite, ineffective, weak, uncaring, and/or corrupt. So, what do they do? They seek a new elite, if only a temporary one, to provide the community with protection from open-borders bandits who have no respect for boundaries or properties. Initially, the peasants are met with ronin(masterless samurai) who are unwilling to take up the offer, especially as rewards are non-existent. The only thing the peasants can offer is shelter and food as long as the samurai are on the job. Given the honor culture of Japan, samurai ideally want to serve a great lord, a social superior. They are supposed to lord over peasants(in service to a higher lord), not place the well-being of lowly peasants at the center of their concerns. But there is one ronin, an elderly man, with deeper understanding, experience, and ability, and he inspires sufficient trust and respect to recruit several others for the mission.
From this, we can learn much about the human condition. Most people are like a body without a head. They need to be led and guided. A people without an elite is like a chicken with its head chopped off; it may hop around but has no sense of direction. Where would the Hebrews of Egypt have been without Moses to lead them? In the modern era, whatever one thinks of Zionism, it came to fruition because of its founders & funders, theorists & leaders. In other words, it was led by the Jewish elite. Jewish hoi polloi on their own couldn’t have made it possible. In offense or defense, a team needs a leader. This is why football has the quarterback(and behind him the coach). Even in a looser game like basketball, the point-guard has to see and know more of the overall strategy. An orchestra needs a conductor, and film-making requires a director. Some with more anarchic or egalitarian tendencies have theorized of new social orders without leaders and rulers, but such never pans out for long. The ancient Jews were without a king until they decided they needed one. After the fall of Jerusalem, it made little sense for Jews to have kings since they were scattered around the world and unable to muster sufficient political power to be ruled by their own kings. Even so, Jews attached themselves to European and Muslim elites for protection in exchange for service(mostly of a financial, medical, or regulatory nature). As a different/alien people, Jews were unfit to become leaders of the goy masses. As a talented people, they felt closer to the elites of any society than with the crude mobs. And yet, because elite status was insecure and problematic for Jews — Christian elites regarded Jews as Christ-killers, and Muslim elites regarded Judaism as deeply flawed & corrupted — , they didn’t develop a culture of manners and politesse either. Unlike goy elites who were born into privilege and cultivated with ‘dignity’, Jewish access to goy elite world required lots of cunning, hustling, hand-rubbing, and trickery. Thus, the Jews could, at best, be a vulgar elite.
Jews understood the importance of elite power. After all, they remembered the story of Moses, the first great Jewish leader. And they remembered how Jews grew to greatness(if limited) under King David and Solomon. And even though Herod was a cuck-king of the Romans, he was nevertheless a great builder and protector of the Jewish domain(though some say he wasn’t really Jewish). Jews understood that the REAL power is with the elites. Sure, there are times when elites fall and mobs run wild, but eventually, the new boss emerges to restore order from the chaos following the fall of old boss. Politics abhors an elite vacuum. In the absence of an orderly elite, various impromptu elites will form. Consider the rise of Arab chieftains in the Middle East with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Consider the rise of Warlords upon the collapse of the old order in China in 1911. Consider the state of post-Gaddafi Libya, with entire swaths of territory controlled by clan chieftains. And there are parts of Mexico that are, more or less, controlled by drug gangs as the central government is either too weak or corrupt. And one wonders about the future of America when, increasingly, what happens in the Beltway has less and less to do with ‘flyover country’. It seems people in Washington D.C. are too busying ruling the entire world as their empire to care about ‘small potatoes’ such as the American People and Culture. From the perspective of the Beltway, endless waves of immigrants(even illegal ones) are not ‘foreigners’ because, in their view, all the world is part of Pax Americana or Globo-Homo Americana. If globalism is for a united world under the umbrella of US power, then it makes no sense to distinguish between American and non-American since the Empire considers ALL peoples around the world as its subjects. When Roman elites got to rule the ‘world’ as part of their empire, the Roman Republic suddenly seemed boring and ‘small’. For imperial ambitions, national limits are stifling. It’s the logic of power. A boxer isn’t content to be the local hero. He wants to be world champion.
And in some ways, much of the world supports globalism because human nature has a ‘monotheistic’ tendency, which is why Christianity and Islam spread so far and wide. If one had to choose between one’s limited local god and the all-powerful God of everything, then one is likely to abandon the wimpy lesser god in devotion to the all-powerful God. On the one hand, there is much resentment around the world about arrogant, destructive, and corrosive US as the lone superpower that does as it pleases. But there is also much awe, respect, and admiration. US is the lone superpower like God is the only true God according to Christianity/Islam. At one time, Jews were anxious about the US as the great superpower because so many Jewish eggs had been placed in the Soviet-Communist basket. In the first half of the 20th century, Jews had more power in Russia than in America, and Jewish Leftist support of the USSR was only partly ideological. It also had to do with identity. But with the fading of Jewish power in Russia and the rapid rise of Jews as New Elites the US, Jews came around to thinking the US must remain the lone superpower, the ‘monotheistic’ god of power. This explains why Jews are doing everything to destroy Russia and contain China. And in the Middle East, Israel must be the lone superpower, which explains why Jews are so committed to destroying Iran, a nation with the potential to be the dominant power in the region. Jewish personality can be seen in the God they conceived. A jealous God, a totalistic God.

One reason why Jews are so powerful is because they do have an elite-mass unity, i.e. elite Jews measure their worth in terms of identity as well as of status. They are not only about meritocracy but about ‘inheritocracy’, or a collective sense of Jewish inheritance on the basis of history, culture, narrative, and of course the Covenant. In contrast, the deracinated white elites are only about class and status, which alone cannot sustain the greatness or ensure the survival of a people. If people without a responsive elite is like a body without a head, an elite without a body is like a head without a body. In the current condition, Jews control the white head and uses it to make the white body serve Jewish interests, such as directing Wars for Israel or managing the globalist state that twists laws to fill up the West with Diversity meant to destroy the white race. At any rate, just like the peasants in SEVEN SAMURAI needed a real elite to protect them from bandits, white people need a real elite to protect them from globalism, Jewish supremacism, Negro thuggery, and homo-tranny degeneracy. Alt Right had this chance, but it was led by Richard Spencer, a dufus with his head up in the clouds of Faustian neo-imperialism and STAR WARS fantasies. Just when the West needs to be protected and preserved, Spencer’s neo-white-supremacism dreams of colonizing Africa once again and ruling over darkies. To what end, I’ve no idea. It must be a way to play 007 + Kipling.

Anyway, Jews have long understood the indispensable value of elites. But the problem in Europe and other goy territories was that the elites were not Jewish. Naturally, the elite A is more likely to feel closer to people A than to other peoples. German elites were more likely to feel closer to German volk, just like Japanese elites were more likely to feel closer to Japanese folk. Jews are a ‘jealous’ people and couldn’t abide by elite-people unity among the goyim. This is why Jews favored empires over nations. In empires, the elites rule not only over their own kind but over vast numbers of foreigners. Because of the divergence of identity & interests between imperial elites and their foreign subjects, they need the aid & support of middlemen, and this is where Jews offered a most invaluable service. Likewise, Chinese middlemen served the British in Southeast Asia, and Hindu middlemen served the British in Africa. Also, when a people go from national politics to imperial politics, the bond between the elites and their own people may weaken. In some ways, it may strengthen, that is IF the elites favor their own people above all and if the national folk are made to share in the imperial glory. This was certainly the case with Great Britain and empire. As the UK was awesomely race-ist, the British elites favored their own people over foreign subjects, and so, the white masses were happy to serve the empire because the glory trickled down from British elites to the British masses. But over time, especially under pressure by restless and resentful foreign subjects, the imperial elites are pressed to make concessions to the Other. After all, an empire has to be maintained by carrots as well as by sticks. And one effective way of keeping control is to be more generous with foreign collaborator-elites. In time, the imperial elites may grow closer to foreign subject elites than with their own peoples. And indeed, signs of this emerged in the British Empire, not least because of the great emphasis on class in British Society. Thus, there was a growing sense that the upper classes of Britain had more in common with upper classes of non-whites than with the lower classes of white Britons. This problem was a great opportunity for Jews as one of their main tactics of power was to make the British elites move closer to Jewish elites and further away from the British masses.
Both elitism and egalitarianism were useful to Jews in creating a elite/mass rift in goy societies. Via elitism, or universal elitism, Jews urged white elites to favor meritocracy and/or privilege above all and identify most with Other elites, especially Jews of course. On the other hand, via egalitarianism, Jews urged white masses to hate the white elites as oppressors and wallow in a culture of either rage or vulgarity, a sure way to alienate the elites from them. What Jews hated most was the unity of goy elites and goy masses, which is why National Socialism was especially seen as a threat to Jews. And even though Jews supported FDR and the New Deal as necessary bulwark against Nazi German power, they had problems with it as well as it was national-socialism-lite. Indeed, the patriotic military-industrial complex that developed under FDR quickly turned against the USSR and foreign communist elements(many of whom were Jewish) soon after World War II. This may explain why Jews in the 21st century tend to be more muted in their praise of FDR. (If anything, they seem to be egging people on to find examples of ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ in the New Deal. This is ironic since many conservatives of the time called the New Deal the ‘Jew Deal’. Today’s Jews are far more likely to support unfettered capitalism as they hold so much wealth and monopolies of banks and big tech to censor voices and crush opposition.)

There was always a great contradiction at the core of the American Project. Americans have been big about patriotism, but the US came into being by treason against the Mother Country(and becoming 'American' for immigrants meant to switch one's loyalty from one's deep ancestral homeland to the New Country, a kind of act of betrayal). Also, even though lots of ink was spilled to justify the founding of America in flowery terms, the main driver of Americanism was materialism and wealth, mainly because there was so much land and resources awaiting conquest & exploitation by the colonists and trailers. Granted, ideas do matter. There were lots of land and resources in South America and Russia, but history there was very different. Even so, the main reason why America could commit to greater freedom and social equality had to do with what seemed like boundless land. A virtual nobody could come to the New World, claim a plot of land, and be a free property-owner, something that was impossible in cramped Western Europe. America could be more ‘generous’ because there was more land and stuff to be generous with. Also, it was a race against time. If Anglos didn’t claim it, some other power surely could and would. After all, nearly all of Canada and the vast Louisiana territories had once belong to the French Empire, and huge swaths of southern United States had once belonged to Spain(and France to lesser extent). And Russia once had Alaska, which was sold in surely the dumbest sale since the Louisiana Purchase. The American Revolution was essentially an elite revolution. The colonial elites, with boundless pride and ambition, wanted the power in their own hands. It was not a mass uprising from the bottom. But in order to get sufficient people onboard, the declaration of independence was made out to be something more than a power-move by the elites. (Even with support of one-third of the population, the American Revolution succeeded only because of French intervention.) In a way, it was a genuinely great moment in history, not least because the Founding Fathers were among the most talented and sound-minded leaders the world ever produced. But it also set a troubling template that continues to plague not only current America but all the world. Americanism, now a global phenomenon, has spread the ideal of betrayal of one’s own people, roots, and culture for materialism. Just like the colonial rebels decided to give the middle finger to the Mother Country(which had actually gone out of its way to defeat the French in Canada, not least under colonial pressure) to have the bounty of the New World all to themselves, the siren song of Americanism encouraged peoples all around the world to abandon their own nations, peoples, and cultures to start anew as ‘Americans’ pledging their loyalty to a new nation, or World Empire. Through American history, we had German-Americans taking up arms against Germany(just like Anglo-colonialists fought Anglo-Britons). Italian-Americans fought Italy in World War II. Some Japanese-Americans, though dispossessed and herded into internment camps, volunteered to join the war effort against Japan(though the bulk were sent to fight in Europe). More recently, Muslim-Americans in the US military joined in the invasion of Iraq and other nations. And even those who don’t serve in the military pay taxes that go to harm other nations, even nations of one’s origin. Russian-Americans pay taxes that support a system that, at the behest of Jews, is trying to destroy Russia.

In some ways, Americanism of now is worse than ever because the ONLY advantage it has is materialism. At its inception, the US was one of the few democracies/republics in the world, and by the end of the 19th century, things hadn’t changed much. Even most of Europe was still under monarchic rule, and in the first half of the 20th century, the two fast-spreading movements were communism and fascism. And even after World War II, Eastern Europe was under communist rule. As for the Third World, democracy, especially the functional kind, was unheard of in nearly all of them well into the 20th century. And yet, by the time of the fall of the Soviet Union, democracy had spread far and wide across Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the Far East. And even in autocracies like China and Iran, there were lots of personal and cultural freedoms AS LONG AS one didn’t go out of his way to offend the authorities. So, if people in the past went to America for both material opportunity and the dream of freedom — the latter sounded nobler — , all that is left today is materialism(and cuckish awe of power, the desire to be a member of the World Metropole than be stuck in one's own ‘loser’ nation). Especially as American identity went from race-ist-nationalist to diversity-imperialist-globalist, it is no longer certain what is and isn’t an 'American', especially when so many Americans believe their nation is the ‘greatest in the world’ and rest of humanity exists either to emulate Americanism or come to America to be converted to, Hallelujah, New Americanism. All this talk of Diversity has no respect for true diversity. What it’s really about is diverse peoples around the world coming under the hegemonic power of Jew-run globohomo America as the sole metropole.

How did a nation born of treason develop a new patriotism based on loyalty? How could the Founders of America, who rose up against their own King(especially by allying with France, the main rival of Britain), command respect and loyalty from the people? If it’s justified for a people to seek separation from tyranny, who was to say each state shouldn’t go its own way and break free of the New England elites that held most power and prestige? There had to be some kind of incentive, and it was relative freedom and material opportunity. Even though the nascent American nation, with it slave economy and limited electoral franchise, wasn’t exactly the land of the free, it was relatively freer than the Old World with entrenched privileges, customs, and traditions.
There was also the appeal of anonymity(like on the internet today) in blank-slate America. In the Old World, the chances were that everyone knew you all to well in the town or village you were stuck in, say, some part of Britain or Ireland. If you were a somebody, to be known was a good thing. If you were a nobody, everyone knew you were a nobody, and there was hardly any escape, especially since all of your nation/kingdom and indeed all of Europe was already claimed, settled, and owned. In contrast, even if you didn’t amount to much in the US, you felt freer because you weren’t pigeonholed by the community. A person characterized as a ‘loser’ in some village in Sweden could only be that ‘loser’ all his life. But in America, he would be free of that burden EVEN IF he was hardly more successful. As he was starting anew among strangers, his lack of status mattered less. There was even the consolation that other Americans felt as you did. Also, given the vastness of America and lack of deep roots, there was the sense that if you couldn’t make it in one town, you could move to another and try your luck there. And since so many people didn’t know you and may even be of various ethnic stocks, there was less of feeling of being looked upon and judged by others. In some ways, people want the company of others who are like them racially and culturally. But in other ways, it can be stifling as such people are more likely to treat you and judge you as one of their own. This is why family is both comforting and suffocating. There is intimacy and affection but also the sense other members always know who you really are. And belonging to a church comes with both joys and anxieties. As a member, you are part of a community but also judged by your peers as a fellow with duties and obligations. A non-member may feel lonelier in his or her lack of belonging, but he or she also feels freer as no social-cultural burdens are placed upon him/her. Just like some Americans move to Alaska to start anew as unchained ‘nobodies’, many people want to come to America because they find their own nations, peoples, cultures, values, and expectations suffocating, stifling, and even humiliating. If you’re an educated Hindu who can’t get a good job in your town or village, people who really know you will also know you as a ‘loser’. But if you come to America, even if you don’t amount to much and remain a ‘loser’ with some lackluster job, you are among strangers who don’t judge you. Also, just being part of America means you’re suddenly a ‘winner’(even if you’re a ‘loser’ on the professional level) because the US is the richest and most powerful nation on earth, the lone superpower.

Initially, the Founders sought to create a cohesive new nation by favoring Northern European Protestants. But there was too much land to conquer and too much to do, and Irish & German Catholics were also accepted. And as America expanded all across the Western territories, it needed even more people, and immigrants were accepted from Southern and Eastern Europe. Part of the plan was that these immigrants would pan out west and do much of the heavy-lifting. Some of them did, but many also chose to just stick around East Coast cities, especially New York. For many, there was hardly an incentive to move beyond New York since it was understood to be the central city of America. Therefore, many ethnics stuck around New York, New Jersey, and East Coast cites. Some made it as far as Chicago, but beyond that, the main movers and doers were Anglos and Germans, some of whom moved further West to get away from all the swarthy newcomers who were turning places like New York into something like Jew-towns and Dago-towns with clannish criminality.
Still, because all these newcomers were white/European, Anglo-Americans decided to properly Americanize them, and in time, they became like Anglo-ethnics who mainly spoke English and knew & cared more about Anglo-American history than their own. (The one exception were Jews who retained a powerful sense of identity and history, especially rife with resentment toward Christian goyim). Thus, ethnic whites were melted and remolded into Anglo/Americans. One might say they were ‘Anglo-Europeans’. Unlike their continental kinfolk who viewed the island of Anglo-Britain with certain trepidation and even hostility, they took to Anglo-Americanism, not least because so many of them arrived from lower classes without much in the way of culture and education. (Again, the exception was Jews.) Having weak sense of culture and memory, their children were like blank slates for Anglo-American educators and propagandists.
In a way, one could say that all these immigrants took part in treason. Even though their nations of origin were not at war with the US, they quickly adopted a new identity and pledged their main loyalty to another nation, one that could potentially end up going to war against their nations of origin. Still, as fellow whites, they could effectively melt into America as a kind of Pan-European nation anchored to Anglo-American heritage. After all, they were all fellow Europeans. And even though Southern Europeans were recognizably different in certain ways, the cultural roots of all of Europe lay in Greece and Italy. If not for the cultural prestige of Greco-Roman civilization, perhaps Northern Europeans(and Eastern Europeans) would have been less willing to regard Southern Europe with a degree of respect and affection. The Southern Europeans were a fallen(and even mixed) people, but they were once great. (In contrast, because the Caucasus contributed far less to Europe in terms of arts, culture, and history, peoples of those parts aren’t necessarily considered as ‘white’, even though the term Caucasian is named after the region.) But Jews were the odd-people-out despite their considerable European DNA and history among white Christians because they still felt sufficiently different racially(and not just ethnically) and spiritually. Also, they didn’t just feel resentment as a ‘wronged’ minority but arrogance as the superior people who must eventually go from revolving around white goyim to making white goyim revolve around the Jews. In the past, Jews had to be a planet revolving around the goy sun, but deep in their hearts, they always felt as the rightful sun, around which all of humanity must revolve. If Chinese regarded themselves as the Middle Kingdom, Jews regarded themselves as the Central Tribe or the Focal People. But for Jews to be at the center of America, they had to undermine whiteness as identity of pride, the unity of white elites and white masses, the unity of white men and white women, and the power of Christianity as accusatory judgement on the Jews. Then, we can see how mass non-white immigration-invasion was so crucial to the Jewish strategy. With whiteness associated with ‘racism’, ‘supremacism’, and all bad things under the sun, there would be less prestige in assimilating to whiteness, especially of the Anglo-American kind. With white children raised on ‘Liberal’ gibberish and then PC, they would come to spit on the graves of their ancestors and embrace the Other while vilifying the Our. And even those who didn’t care for the Other or Diversity and preferred to value whiteness would have to shut up about it because any expression of white pride could be disparaged as ‘racist’ and wicked. So, anti-white whites could be vocal in their hatred, but pro-white whites had to be sullenly muted about their love of their own race. This mattered a lot through the years. After all, if someone is encouraged to say he loves chocolate ice cream but another person is censured for saying he loves vanilla ice cream, the ONLY thing anyone is likely to hear is how great chocolate ice cream is while almost nothing about how good vanilla ice cream is. In Jew-run USA, blacks are encouraged to complain about whites all the time and express their black pride. Jews are free to show Jewish pride and bitch about white goyim. But whites are not only vilified for being critical of blacks and Jews but denounced for expressing even mild sentiments such as "It’s Okay to be White". Jew-run media associate such statements with ‘far right’ and ‘Neo-Nazis’. Jews are like the kid in THE TWILIGHT ZONE episode: With Jews, you lose.

In time, a whole generation of whites grew up in an atmosphere of white self-loathing as a virtue-signaling: "I hate my grandparents because they are 'racist'." But because it’s not natural for a people to hate their own kind, not all whites adopted self-hatred as virtue. Indeed, even among the boomer generation, most whites weren’t that radical. And there were plenty of conservatives among the children of white boomers. Then, why did they keep losing out to the anti-white whites? Again, it was the power of taboo. Under Jewish control of academia, media, and politics, it was permissible and even virtuous for anti-white whites to spew their poison, but it was considered bad form for any pro-white white to speak of his pride of race and heritage. Just think. If 25% of whites are anti-white while 75% are pro-white BUT IF anti-white whites are allowed to speak their mind while pro-white whites must shut up about their sentiments, the air will be filled with only anti-white voices. And then, the next generation will grow up listening to only anti-white voices since the other side has been muted. It’s not just a matter of the megaphone but of the mute-a-phone or gagophone. After all, in any crowd, most people are silent while ONE person speaks. One man’s voice fills the air and dominates. If there are 100 people in a room, and if 10 are allowed to speak while others have tapes over their mouths, the talking 10 will dominate the ‘truth’.
In a political climate where anti-whiteness was permissible(and even encouraged) whereas pro-whiteness was muted, generations of whites grew up with anti-whiteness as the dominant discourse. And as teachers, journalists, activists, managers, politicians, and bureaucrats, they spread these anti-white dogma to non-white immigrants who, being like blank slates or sponges, soaked it all up, and the result is now a generation of children of non-white immigrant-parents who spout the usual anti-white nonsense. Jews imbued whites with self-loathing and then favored self-loathing whites over self-loving whites. As self-loathers were favored for key positions, they got to indoctrinate young white kids and non-white immigrant kids, and the result is a total disaster for the white race. Of course, Jews are besides themselves with hideous glee like the demon that possesses Regan in THE EXORCIST. Anti-white globohomo whites are Jew-demon-possessed puppets.

So, with whiteness relentlessly and methodically dissected, deconstructed, and demonized at every turn(as the supremacist legacy that had favored whiteness over Diversity & Inclusion), Americanism went from mostly European immigrants assimilating into Anglo-America(and making amends to Indigenous Indians and once-enslaved blacks whose stories were intricately linked to Pan-European transformation of America) to white people welcoming all the world and accommodating endless waves of non-whites as New Americans and even truer Americans because they represent Diversity, supposedly what America should really be about. And yet, even if ALL whites were to forsake whiteness and do their darndest to merge with the People of Color, they must still be excoriated for their whiteness because the ennoblement of the Other rests on the demonization of whiteness. Whiteness is too useful to PC to just let go. Even if all whites were to reject it as a racial or social category, non-whites must prop it up as eternal bogeyman and scapegoat for all their own problems and failures.
But whiteness is also crucial because, contrary to the Proggy Narrative, the US didn’t really go from ‘white supremacism’ to Diversity-Equality. Rather, Americanism became essentially White Submissivism to Jewish Supremacism. The Anglo-American elites didn’t relinquish their power & privilege and pass them equally to non-whites. Rather, the key and scepter were passed to Jews. Of course, it was a closed ceremony, a kind of silent coup or revolution. After all, the deal was that white goy elites would keep many of their positions and status AS LONG AS they served as fronts of Jewish power and did its bidding. Whether it’s Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Donald Trump(despite his tough talk), the name of the game is "Do as the Jew Tells You". This has led to yet another huge contradiction in Americanism. Contradiction One was that the US was founded on treason but appealed to the loyalty of Americans in all 13 states that didn’t see eye to eye on lots of things. Contradiction Two was the emphasis on freedom and principles while favoring Northern European Protestants. Contradiction Three was the insistence on Anglo-American template while taking in huge numbers of relatively exotic immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. And yet, all these contradictions were overcome and more-or-less solved under Anglo-American rule. But the contradiction of white-founded-and-made America and Diversity-as-the-new-Americanism is far more problematic, and no one knows how to deal with the worsening mess. But an even bigger contradiction is that, despite the Narrative of the US moving from ‘white supremacism’ to ‘Diversity’ & ‘Inclusion’, the inescapable fact is the US is currently in Jewish Supremacist mode. And the reason why Jews make such a fuss about ‘white privilege’, ‘white supremacism’, and white whatever is because they seek to hide the fact of Jewish Power by fooling everyone, whites and non-whites, into thinking that Power and Privilege in America are still overwhelmingly white. This way, naive whites remain in self-loathing mode because they think evil whites are still in control, and non-whites are too busy beating on whites to pay much attention to Jews who have the real power.
It’s all very amusing in sick and perverse way, and I’m sure Jews are cracking up among themselves. After all, if indeed the US finally forsook ‘supremacism’ in favor of equality for all, why doesn’t the New York Times or Washington Post ever hire a Palestinian-American columnist? Why aren't there panels and hearings about how Jews are way over-represented in elite institutions and fields? Why are the media silent about the GOP being funded to a large degree by a Zionist supremacist nut Sheldon Adelson who said Iran should be nuked? Why are anti-BDS laws being instituted all across America to silence voices that champion justice for Palestinians? How come the US showers Israel, a nation with 300 illegal nukes, with billions in aid while Iran, a nation with no nukes, is hit with sanctions? And notice when Ilhan Omar spoke of Jewish power and privilege, most of the Jewish Establishment and their cuck-dogs(Donald Trump included) circled the wagons against her and vowed to crush anyone who lends her support. And what happened to Marc Lamont for his support for Palestinians? He got fired from CNN. Jews are swindlers who play loose with all sides. Inheritors of ethno-cultural arrogance via the Covenant and hustlers extraordinaire of skills honed from merchantry, Jews are unlikely to have a sense of honor. Some Jews, due to rabbinical tradition, are capable of profound thought and deep conscience, but when it comes to simple trust and honor among Jews, you have a better chance of finding a nun in a whorehouse.

Anyway, most Americans now have a useless elite. The only people with a useful elite in the US are the Jews. After all, Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Ivy Leagues, Law Firms, Courts, and much else are aligned with Jewish power. Indeed, it seems the New US Constitution is about bending and twisting laws to flatter, appease, serve, and worship Jews. Free Speech? Forget about it. Pass Anti-BDS laws and silence criticism of Israel. No discrimination on the basis of race, CREED, or color? Forget about it. If you’re deemed dangerous to Jewish Supremacist power, you are to be deplatformed, censored, fired, and/or blacklisted. And no banking services for you. If Jews want ‘gay marriage’, they get it. If Jews want abortion up to birth, they get it. And Jews are now moving to take away gun rights because they don’t like goys + guns. They just want government + guns because they control the government. If Jews want Wars for Israel, never mind the power of Congress. If Jews want children to have access to hardcore pornography, that’s fine too. If Jews want the US to wage hate campaigns against any nation/people(like Russians, Syrians, and Iranians) hated by Jews and to funnel billions of aid and weapons to Israel, Jews get what they want. And just like Jews in Israel, Jews in America can do as they please. In the West Bank, Palestinians are helpless to stop the flow of Zionist Caravans of ‘settlers’ who come invading. And in the US, neither Trump the president nor his supporters can do anything to stop the endless waves of non-white immigration, white and non-white, that Jews welcome in order to destroy white majority power. If anything, even though Trump is reviled as ‘nazi’ by the Jews, all he ever does is praise and serve Jews like a worthless cuck. And with control of the media as propaganda tool and banking as the water of the economy, Jews can make or break any group or individual. US is not a liberal democracy but a tribal oligarchy. The US Constitution is now just a hollowed shell. Jewish termites gnawed through the spirit of the law and laid eggs that hatched into bugs that pervert and corrupt the letter of the law in most perverse ways so that Jews will get what they want. Is it any wonder that a demented psycho like Sheldon Adelson who openly calls for nuking Iran gets to play top donor to the GOP with NO outrage from the Jew-run media? Is it any wonder that someone like Arnon Milchan, who admitted to stealing US nuclear materials, can walk around freely in the US and fund anti-white films like 12 YEARS A SLAVE?

Well, maybe things will begin to change when people like Ann Coulter STOP NOTICING that Israel can have a wall while the US can’t and START NOTICING that the US can’t have a wall just like Palestinians in the West Bank can’t. Just like West Bank Palestinians will be arrested for resisting the Jewish-Zionist Caravan, white Americans will be arrested for resisting the Brown Caravan. What do West Bank Palestinians and White Americans have in common? They are both under imperial-colonization of the Empire of Judea. Things will begin to change for White America ONLY WHEN whites begin to realize that Jews see them as merely More Palestinians. If Jews treat Palestinians like garbage, why would they treat your people any better?

The current American elite is responsive only to Jewish supremacist interests and agendas. White elites are now just cuck-compradors. Many of them willfully play toady to Jewish Power. Most politicians and businessmen have no scruples, let alone principles. They only care about money and status. In European Past, Jews had to convert to Christianity to fully partake of socio-economic opportunities and political ambitions. In the current West, all goyim who want to enter higher institutions and succeed in big industry must ‘convert’ to Jew Worship, Globo-Homomania, Magic Negro Cult, and Diversity Faith. While many white-cuck elites play along out of opportunism, there are those who sincerely take PC dogma to heart in naive, foolish, or dumb conviction that it is the road to redemption. In a society where minds are trashed by pop culture and chained to political correctness, it’s not surprising that so many whites are gutless dorks and twerps who howl like harpies when triggered by those who choose to be politically incorrect in favor of truth, integrity, and courage. When Jews don’t have whites by the wallet, they have them by the souls(and holes, of the genital kind). Whites turned onto jungle-feverish & globohomo Pop Culture and anti-white Political Correctness are mentally colonized and spiritually sodomized by Jews. In any organization, there are cynical players and true-believers. Both are useful to the Power. The Players have a good sense of what is really going on and don’t believe any of it, but they care about money & status and will do ANYTHING to get what is theirs. As for the Believers, they earnestly believe in the dogma and fail to see it for the doggerel it really is. True believers may seem to lead the charge, but it’s like a dog pulling the leash. An eager dog pulls ahead of the master, but it’s the master who decides the direction in which they are headed, game that is to be hunted, or the scent that is to be tracked.

Many whites don’t complain about the current situation because too many are Players or Believers. Players figure they should do as told and reap rewards like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan. Believers are truly convinced of the burden of White Guilt and feel that anti-white-ism is a necessary agent to cleanse the US of its ‘sins’. Players and Believers are allowed to wallow in their racial self-loathing.
Now, there are whites who refuse to ‘play’ or ‘believe’, but if they express any sign of white consciousness or desire for white survival — even something as innocuous as "It’s Okay to be White" — , they are hounded by media, fired from work, and targeted by institutions. And Donald Trump will do NOTHING for them. Indeed, Trumpism turned out to be like the Hundred Flowers Campaign. In the mid-1950s, Mao Zedong goaded the Chinese people to speak freely. Don’t hold it in. Come out and say what’s on your minds. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Soon enough, people began to speak freely and express their frustrations. Increasingly, what they had to say went against Maoist cult and dogma, and that was intolerable to Mao. So, what began as a ‘spring’ soon ended as winter for freedom. Worse, those who’d spoken freely and honesty in good faith(as Mao had urged them to) were targeted and ruined, mostly by being sent to ‘re-education’ labor camps. Some were outright executed. The flowers were suddenly regarded as ‘weeds’ to be destroyed.
Something similar happened with Trumpism. Because Trump acted so loud and brash, many Americans thought the Overton window had shifted, and it was a new dawn of political discourse. Also, with Trump as President, surely white voices would be heard and protected. White people who’d previously said little or nothing finally came out of the woodwork, banded together, and made their voices heard. But this just gave the Jews the opportunity to identify those individuals, target them, get them fired, get them deplatformed, get them ruined, and even sent to prison on trumped-up charges. (If Jews can sabotage the president with bogus Russian collusion hoax, imagine what they could do to little fish.) And what did tough guy Great White Man Trump do for people who followed his lead? NOTHING. He just twiddled his thumbs while Jews in media, academia, deep state, courts, and high-tech went about shutting down tons of his supporters. Trump emboldened white people to act bold and brazen, but when Jewish Power went after them, Trump not only did NOTHING but sucked up to Jewish Power while telling people whose lives were destroyed to be ‘good’. Trump is like someone who says, "It’s all safe and clear now. You can come out." But when people come out of the bushes, they are mowed down by Jews while Trump does nothing. In effect, Trump has been an informer, wittingly or not, of the Jewish Supremacist Inquisition.

As for non-whites, all they get is a ticket to America, which is the basis of their alliance with Jews. They don’t much care for Jews(and even resent Jews as the richest whites), but since it is Jewish Power that is dominant in the Democratic Party and pushes for More Immigration-Invasion of the West by non-whites, non-whites mostly side with Jewish Democrats and Jewish Neocons(who use the Republican Party for agendas hardly distinguishable from those of Democratic Jews). Because non-whites want so much to come to the West and live with white people(than with their own kind whom they dislike personally), they will do ANYTHING, and that means working with Jews against whites who say ENOUGH with immigration. Jews and non-whites no longer see whites as an autonomous people with their own identity, culture, and territory to defend. They see whiteness as one big dairy cow to milk. They see white nations as one big brothel open to all. White people exist to serve the Other. So, white people built nice stuff for non-whites. White women and wombs exist for black men. White men and white seed exist for yellow women. Hindus want to live in clean white nations than stick around their own dirty and filthy kind. Jews know this and offer meal-tickets to non-whites all over the world to come to America and Europe(and Canada and Australia). Jews claim that America is all about endless immigration and say the EU must atone for its historical ‘sins’ with compassion for ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’, but it’s all just about Jews using non-whites as battering ram against white unity and power which they defame as ‘white supremacism’. According to twisted Jewish logic, a white national folk who don’t want to invade and conquer other peoples and just want to be left alone in their own nation are ‘supremacist’ and ‘nazi’. Ask yourself, did Nazis just remain in Germany or invade other nations? They were invaders, but according to Jews, white people who don’t want to invade and, if anything, want to fend off demographic-imperialist invasion are the ‘nazis’. These Jews are simply impossible.

Of course, Jews don’t give a shit about non-whites. If they really did, why do Jewish diamond merchants in South Africa continue to exploit black labor? Why do Jews in Israel use the most brutal means to terrorize and oppress Palestinians? Why do Jews say the US needs more brown serfs from Latin America to do menial labor that is beneath the dignity of Americans? Why do Jews use gentrification, mass incarceration, stop-and-frisk, and other means to push blacks out of cities? Why do Jews manipulate the US government to wage more Wars for Israel that destroyed so much of the Muslim World? Jews only care about non-whites as battering ram against whites, but if whites can be used as battering ram against any nation or people hated by Jews, Jews will do that too. Just ask the Iraqis, Libyans, and Syrians about what white US military did to their nations.

When the current Jewish ruling elites only care about Jewish interests while playing a dirty game of divide-and-rule among the diverse goyim, it’s about time to bring down the existing elites and erect new ones. The best way is a Hundred Flower Campaign for elites. Let each people have their own elites and do their own thing. If Jewish elites want to serve Jews, that’s fine. Just don’t make non-Jews serve Jewish-Zionist interests. When a people impose their own interests onto others, that is the textbook definition of supremacism. Let blacks have black elites, let browns have brown elites, let yellows have yellow elites, let Jews have Jewish elites, and let whites have white elites. Why should all goy elites cuck to Jewish elites? And why should goy whites serve Jews in the crushing of Palestinians and their defenders for justice? As America grows more diverse and divided, it’s about time each people had an independent and autonomous elite that favors the interests of its own people that those of others. Jews say whites caring for whites is ‘supremacist’, but what is truly supremacist is Jews forcing whites to deny their own identity & interests and chaining them to the narrow tribal-supremacism of loathsome Jews who now think and act like Nazis during WWII. When Jews make whites support Wars for Israel, Zionist oppression of Palestinians, globo-homo war on decency & morality, and white demographic demise, that is what true supremacism is all about, and it is about time whites mustered some true grit and courage and told the Jew, "NO MORE". As for white cuck-elites, they can just go to hell.