Beware of Nominalism — Why Russian & Chinese National Fascisms are Necessary Bulwarks against Jewish-Gangster-Globalist-Fascism — Paradox of How the US destroys true democracy around the world by promoting its parasitic brand of deep state Imperial Democracy

Michael Lind: "Another answer is that members of the establishment are almost all nominalists. That is to say, if they give something a name, it takes on real existence in their minds. The Afghan National Army offers a perfect example. Because we called it an army, gave it lots of American money, equipment and training, and knew its order of battle, it was an army. But it wasn't."

'Democracy' is a word game in our political culture of nominalism, or judging things by name or brand than what it really is.

Fascist Theory of Power is true. All things of power turn 'fascist'. Ideology gives into the true dynamics of power, and the winners(or at least survivors) subscribe to all or most of the pillars of power-essentialism.

Jews used to be socialist, anarchist, communist, liberal, libertarian, or etc. Today, Jews are overwhelmingly tribal. They are now focused on power, not principles. Of course, they tirelessly invoke principles but only to twist and bend them to the needs of power, not the other way around. Fascist theorists understood this nature of power and human nature. In time, all things, at least those with the will and wherewithal to survive and gain in strength, turn fascist. A movement can start from the right or the left, but the end result for survivors and winners is the intersection where fascist truths converge. It's been said fascism was defeated in WWII, but only a kind of fascism met such fate. What we've seen since is the rise of new fascisms but guised as something other. Indeed, all post-WWII fascisms have postured as 'anti-fascist'. Even fascists hate the label because it's too candid and forthright about the nature of power. Just like people wear clothes to conceal their nakedness, most forms of power cloak themselves with rhetoric about 'higher principles', 'freedom', 'social justice', or 'the people'. Indeed, even Italian Fascists and National Socialists did this with their overripe reliance on myths and cult of personality. It was to hide the essentially gangster nature of those in power who, far from embodying the noblest qualities of their civilizations, gained position by a good measure of cunning opportunism and backroom compromises.

Supposedly, the end of the Cold War was also the End of History, with liberal democratism and free markets triumphant all over the world. But Francis Fukyomama got it all wrong. The passing of the Ideological Age didn't lead to the rise of the Individual Age but to the Globo-Tribal Age, one where a group(Jews) that refused to abandon its tribal identity &power urged upon all others to do just that. Following WWII, the ideal had been universal nationalism or universal tribalism: Each nation would embrace nationalism but against imperialism as a violator of national independence. Indeed, both the US empire and Soviet empire during the Cold War justified their hegemony as the guarantor of nationalism against the imperialism of the other side, e.g. USSR supported Cuban and Vietnamese nationalism against American Imperialism, and the US supported Polish and Hungarian nationalism against Soviet Imperialism.

But following the end of the Cold War, the new mantra wasn't nationalism-for-all but one-world globalism, or the (not-so)gradual erasure of all nationalism to bring about a New World Order with US as the lone superpower guaranteeing freedom of individuals and markets all over the world. According to Fukuyama, the future was about universal individualism for all nations under the protective power of the US as the great post-national empire, one that used its might not to dominate and exploit others but to emancipate them and open them to opportunities.
Whatever one thinks of this idea, pro or con, the people who gained dominance in the West had other ideas. While Jews pushed deracinated globalist individualism to everyone around the world, they themselves stuck to Jewish supremacist tribal-nationalist-imperialism. Thus, the New World Order was really Jew World Order, with one set of rules for most of the world and another set of rules for the Jews. This contradiction has perhaps been best exemplified by the diabolical figure of George Soros.
Jewish aim wasn't to simply join the global humanity but to rule as the master race over the rest. Notice Jewish Power has been about mass migration for all nations but NOT for Israel. Jews insist on white deracination but demand that whites praise and champion Jewish Power and Zionism. As such, the agenda of universal individualist-globalism was deeply marred(and even doomed) because its most fervent proponents, the Jews, refused to apply it to themselves. It's like the Sacklers pushing opioid junk on goyim. As far as Jews were concerned, globo-individualism was for goy suckers, not for themselves. It was to weaken goyim and bring about their dissipation into atomized individuals, all the while Jews would empower their networks and embolden their identity. (True, many Jews intermarry with goyim, but the children are raised as Jews, just like black-white pairings lead to 'black' kids. In any race-mixing, one race gains dominance over the other. It's like all those mestizos are labeled as Latino, a European-derived identity.)

So, the New World Order after the Cold War was a two-faced beast. On the one hand, as Fukuyama pontificated, it was about the spread of post-ideological and post-national global-universalism of individualism, free trade, and rule of law. (Rule of Law is problematic in a world where a tiny cabal uses its legal and financial dominance to rewrite any set of laws. While goyim are expected to obey the laws, Jews get to rewrite them as they please. Rule of Law used to mean defense of free speech as a Western principle, but with Jewish rewriting of laws, it now means the police can arrest you for speaking truth to Jewish power, Homo idolatry, or Black thuggery. Worse, Rule of Law is useless when Jewish-controlled US, as the lone superpower, does as it pleases around the world. US is illegally occupying the oil-rich parts of Syria but gets away with it. So much for Rule of Law.)

Now, post-national globo-individualism is anathema to many on the Right(and some on the Left who oppose capitalism), but it was doomed to create havoc because of Jewish supremacist hypocrisy. Perhaps, the globalist agenda would have panned out better in Russia had Jewish advisers been more principled and dedicated to fairness and justice. Instead, Jews exploited the opportunity to rape Russia... which turned most Russians against globalism. And in the US, Jewish Power grew ever greedier. Via ethically dubious machinations of finance and big tech, Jews got richer and richer. By suppressing BDS, Jews created a system where Jews can call for boycott of any political group or any Muslim nation but no one can call for boycotts against Jews and Zionism. Jews in power get to decide what is 'terrorism'. When Israel does it or supports it, it's never called 'terrorism', but false-flag events in Syria, of which Assad isn't guilty, are labeled as such. Even non-existent crimes of Assad are deemed 'terrorist' by US State Department and Jewish-controlled mass media, whereas Israel's endless terror-bombings of Syria and its support of ISIS goons never are.

What Jews did to Muslims, they've also done to whites who are now being denied platforms, free speech, and financial services. Samuel Huntington wrote about the Clash of Civilizations, but the most important one was not between the West and the Muslim World. It was between the West and the Jews, but people failed to see this because (1) there were too afraid to speak truth to Jewish Power (2) they were too philosemitically beholden to Jewish Power (3) Jews are regarded as part of the West because of assimilation.
Huntington spoke of Western Values vs Muslim Values, but the main threat to Western Values came from Jews who'd penetrated deep into Western institutions. While tolerance for homos can be said to be a part of Western Value, since when was Celebration of Sodomy a Western Value? Since when was Western Values about fifty genders and the fantasy that a fat guy with penis and balls is a 'woman'? Since when was the deification of black thuggery and Afro-savagery as neo-sainthood a Western Value? Since when was Jungle Fever and White Male cuck-maggotry a Western Value? No, all these sicknesses had no roots in Western Civilization but were planted as poison seeds by Jews. But Huntington focused on Muslims. Sure, Muslim values are at odds with Western values, but why were there so many Muslims in the West in the first place? Why did Europeans become so accepting of the Great Replacement and Diversity? (For most of European History, the West was about defense of the race, preservation of Classical Civilization, faith in Christianity, and/or Rationalism & Enlightenment. What passes for 'western values' in the Age of Globalism is anything but.)
And why did the West stir up the hornet's nest in the Middle East with interventions, wars, and support of terrorists(usually against Arab secular regimes war with Islamic fanatics who were mainly funded by Saudis, key allies of the West)? Granted, Huntington expounded his views before the West went fully 'woke' with globo-homo and BLM nonsense. Still, the main flaw of his thesis resulted from fixating on Muslims than on Jews. Even 9/11 wouldn't have averted if the US, under Jewish pressure, hadn't gotten so mired the Middle East, especially beginning with the Gulf War under George H.W. Bush. 9/11 was essentially blowback with the winds fanned by the hidden hand of Zionist gangsterism. Idiot Muslim terrorists were the sailboat, and Jewish Power was the gods blowing the winds in certain directions. Just like how the gods guide men vs men in THE ILIAD.

The Jewish refusal to surrender to globo-individualism(that was really meant for goyim) doomed the principled foundations of globalism. Whether one supports or opposes globalism, one could at least acknowledge its principled universalism had it demanded the same of ALL peoples. But for Jews, it was a case of 'you goyim take the medicine while we Jews play doctor'. Russians woke up to this, and globalism failed in Russia. But there was another factor. China, like the Jews, took part in the business-aspect of globalism but clung to its nationalism under the leadership of CCP, the only Asian government, apart from that of Vietnam, that wasn't created more-or-less under US neo-imperialist domination.

So, while white cucks in the West became totally spellbound by Jewish Power, Chinese(and Russians and of course Iranians) kept their independence. In a way, this explains why white cucks(libby-dib or conzo-wonzo) are so angry with Russia and China. Why should Russian and Chinese goyim remain independent of Jewish Power when whites in the West have totally groveled and cucked to it? The anger is partly based on ideology and partly on envy. Many white cucks sincerely believe they are the 'most evolved' people on the planet because they are into self-debasement, Negro Worship, cuckery to Jews, and globo-homo mania. They really believe this. But, on the subconscious level, they feel envious of Russians and Chinese who say NO to Jewish globalist authority. White cucks can't help sensing that Russians and Chinese are more like defiant wolves while they themselves are totally obedient dogs. John McCain barking at Putin was so much like a dog barking at a wolf. It was in total servility to the Jewish Master but also in envy of Putin's relative independence from him.

White cucks will say they hate Russia and China because those two states reject 'liberal democratic' values, but if that's the case, why are white cucks so supportive of Jewish supremacism, Zionist tyranny over Palestinians, and Black megalomania? It seems white cucks also have their tribal favoritism: Blacks over non-blacks and Jews over Palestinians & Iranians. And it seems white cucks believe that Muslims, such as Afghanis, have human value ONLY WHEN they adopt 'gender studies' and globo-homo. Are white cucks even aware of their hypocrisy? Cold Hypocrisy of cynical politicians is bearable because so many people say one thing while doing another. But, white cucks are into Hot Hypocrisy, the kind where passions are at odds with principles. If we tend to despise religious hypocrites more than political ones, it's because politics is about cold hypocrisy of saying whatever to get elected. In contrast, when religious types invoke God and morality but then act like louts, thieves, and perverts, it comes across as far worse. Because 'woke' craziness has all the fervor of a religious movement, the hypocrisy is hot and beneath contempt. And of course, Jews are among the hottest hypocrites, always sermonizing about 'hate', Holocaust, 'racism', and 'white supremacism', all the while acting like Zio-Nazis or Jewzis. Just ask the Palestinians. Also, Jews who, for so long, never tired of denouncing 'McCarthyism' as the darkest period in US history are now 100x worse than the anti-communists. The former bitchers about 'red-baiting' and 'anti-communist hysteria' are into white-baiting, Christian-bashing, Constitution-smashing, and free-speech-attacking. Jews also warned people of how the Nazis used medicine as cultural metaphor and political tool, but now Jews use medical tyranny to lend the impression that those who say NO to the 'vaccine' are germs that must be stamped out.

21st century has been about the resurgence of fascism even though all these new forms of fascism hides behind the nominalism of 'liberal world order', 'democracy', 'socialism', or what have you. While some governments admit to being nationalist, a term less toxic in the globalist-controlled discourse, none dares to admit it has anything to do with fascism. It goes to show that World War II still casts a long shadow on the future. Because the peak of Soviet/Russian prestige came with the defeat of National Socialist Germany and full independence for China followed the total defeat of Japan(an ally of Germany), both the Russians and Chinese carry on the charade that they've been the main victims of and victors over fascism. And because Jews met their greatest enemy in the German fascism of National Socialism, Jews have since postured as the biggest anti-fascists in the world(though it hasn't restrained them from supporting quasi-nazi elements in Ukraine).
Of course, the main reason Jews denounce fascism is they want to keep its magic formula for themselves. After all, fascism fuses rightist and leftist elements, whereas other ideologies pit right against left, thus creating division, distrust, and general havoc among a people — indeed, whites are so divided because they reject fascism and opt for ideological partisanship(or even purism) as a 'blue-stater' or 'red-stater', whereas Jewish neo-cons and neo-libs work together to make both rightism and leftism serve the Jews. It's why the secret to power for whites isn't found in the new right or the dissident right but in the left-right, which was the source of success for Adolf Hitler and FDR — Hitler adopted leftist elements into German rightism, and FDR adopted rightist elements into American leftism; and if communism had a saving grace, it fused socialism with nationalism.

Now, there is no guarantee that a nation will be good and decent because it is fascist. Fascism, like any ideology, can be used in bad ways — democracy too can be a disaster, like Russia of the 1990s, South Africa under black majority rule, and all Anglosphere 'liberal democracies' today that have facilitated the rise of Zio-globo-oligarcho-gangsterism. Fascism can lead to brazen rule by gangsters, a case of Machiavellianism. While fascism as theory of power brings us closest to the true nature of power, the moral worth of fascist rule depends on how those lessons are reflected upon and practiced. After all, the truth can be used for good or ill, just like a gun can be used to protect or rob people or chemistry can be used to create medicine or poison. Just because fascism makes us better understand the nature of power doesn't mean we will be better people with power.

Despite the problems of corruption and general abuse of power in China and Russia, it's fair to say their use of fascism is preferable to that of Jews. Besides, paradoxically enough, the biggest enemy of democracy around the world is the Jewish-controlled US as the most fervent promoter of 'democracy'. True democracy must organically grow from the soil of any nation. American democracy worked relatively well because it developed independently of foreign meddling. It was democracy by Americans for Americans. In contrast, whenever some nation around the world tries to open up and liberalize, the US takes advantage of the freedom to infiltrate its institutions & networks and subvert its sovereignty & integrity as a unique homeland of a people and culture. It was Yanqui meddling that undermined attempts at democracy in Latin America, especially in Guatemala. Whether democracy succeeds or fails in some Latin American country, it should be up to the people there, not for Americans to interfere and decide what's what. If anything, things have gotten worse ever since Jews took over the US. In the past, white Americans, being the national majority and imbued with sound values, had no problem with majority rule and true morality. If anything, the core values of White Christian America weren't all that different from those of the Non-West; the only major difference was more tolerance of deviance and more individual liberty in the West. In contrast, Jewish-Americans seek to undermine majority authority and moral sanity in every country by spreading globo-homo and Afromania, the idea being that all European and Asian nations should elevate homo minority over the majority and care more for black thugs than their own peoples. Of course, such minority-privilege and moral inversion is means by which Jewish Power gets to sink its hooks into other nations. Jews think any nation that elevates homos and blacks over their own majority population no longer has a strong sense of national identity & security and is therefore ripe for Jewish globalist picking. Because of Jewish-controlled US meddling, democratic experiments have failed everywhere. The only kind of 'democracy' that the US and its EU satellite will tolerate is one that bends over to the Jewish-controlled afro-globo-homo-schlomo agenda. Whenever freedom and democracy lead to a system that has other ideas and says NO to the afro-globo-homo-shlomo agenda, the US does everything to undermine that country. It's like the US was for the Arab Spring until free elections brought Muslim Brotherhood into power. Then, the US backed the Egyptian military in the coup against the rightfully elected government. And Jewish-controlled US recruited thugs and stirred up mob violence to unseat the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. In other words, US support of democracy is really a kind of 'demockery'. It's not about the freedom of peoples around the world to choose their own values and destinies but about the US exploiting freedoms in other countries to infiltrate, subvert, corrupt, and prop up puppet regimes onboard with the afro-globo-homo-shlomo agenda. In other words, it's not about spreading true democracy or freedom but propping up puppetocracies. It's a form of Imperial Democracy, the cloning of 'new democracies' around the world to serve as shills of Jewish-controlled US as the Imperium. If all the houses in the neighborhood agree to keep their doors unlocked, such openness can work ONLY IF everyone agrees not to trespass onto other people's homes and steal stuff. Whenever a nation around the world unlocks its door, the US trespasses and rearranges everything in the house and even steals stuff. Naturally, the doors must be locked again to keep out the Americans(who now do the stealing for the Jews). So, even though freedom is preferable to autocracy, some measure of the latter is necessary to maintain national sovereignty in a world where the US, as the tool of Jews, promotes freedom not to bolster but to destroy national independence. It's like Jews promote youth culture not to make young people more free and independent but more dependent and addicted to junk culture and dumb fads pushed by Jews. 'Liberal Democracy' has come to mean conformity to the demands of Jewish Globalists. Of course, any honest person would notice that what Jews demand of goy nations, they never demand of Israel. What is good for Israel is not good for Hungary. What Jews demand of Hungary, they never ask of Israel. This is why the national fascisms of China and Russia are, at least at this moment in history, laudable as bulwarks against Jewish Supremacist gangster-fascist-terrorism.

21st century is turning out to be about three dominant fascisms, those of China, Russia, and the Jews. Chinese rule China, Russians rule Russia, and Jews rule US, EU, Anglosphere, and its cuck satellites(like Japan). China has arrived at a fascist equilibrium. Confronting Western Imperialist aggression in the 19th century, China was like a turtle that hid deeper into its shell of ultra-conservatism and reaction. It only kept China weak when faced with the challenges of modernity. Then, as if to compensate for its long decay under rigid traditionalism, China embarked on radicalism under Mao, but this war of culture and ideology led to great havoc and destruction. Then, China embarked on what seemed like a pro-market-oriented neo-liberal path, but the fates of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan under US ideological and idolatrous hegemony have proven to be culturally hollow, dissipating, and suicidal. Therefore, China seeks a balance of tradition and change, of international relations and national sovereignty. Same could be said of Russia. If rule under the Tsars was too reactionary, the rule by Bolsheviks was too radical and traumatizing. Also, mere communism held back initiative, enterprise, and economic growth, and then, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surrender to unfettered globo-capitalism led to Jewish economic rape, which dwarfed even the horrors of the Weimar Period in Germany. Vladimir Putin, for all his faults and limitations, have tried to steer Russia toward a balance of tradition and modernity, of markets and socialism. His method too is essentially fascist though he would be loathe to admit it in public.

At any rate, what Russian and Chinese neo-fascisms have in common is the conviction that power must be consolidated and constructed toward nationalist goals. Power must ultimately be about what is good for the nation and the people, not only for here and now but into the future. Therefore, even though Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin can act like gangsters at times, they do have some qualities of statesmen and genuine national leaders with a sense of patriotism and common good. Putinism is about what-is-good-for-Russia in Russia that is overwhelmingly Russian, and Xi-ism is about what-is-good-for-China in China that is overwhelmingly Chinese. Those are national-humanist fascisms. In contrast, Jewish supremacist fascism is purely tribal-gangsterist, indeed even worse than British and French rule over their colonies.

Nominalism(useful term invoked by Michael Lind) explains why so many people are fooled about the true nature of what's really happening. They are fooled by labels. Take 'gay rights'. It gives the impression that the globo-homo agenda is about allowing homos the right to be 'gay' and do their 'gay' thing. But that is not what the Agenda is about. It's about forcing everyone to celebrate and revere homos and even trannies. It's about official promotion of Anno Sodomini as the new faith for the educated elites, the 'more evolved'. Nominalism is used alongside symbolism, e.g. the 'rainbow' homo flag. So, even though homosexuality is about gross bung-donging inside the dark and dank anus, many people associate it with bright colors.

So, all this talk of 'democracy' vs 'autocracy' is BS. The current world is really about autocracy vs autocracy, except that Jewish Power hides behind labels of 'democracy', 'liberalism', 'tolerance', 'diversity', 'equity', and 'inclusion'. Right, Jews are so into diversity that New York Times is full of Palestinian-American writers - not. Jews are so into equity that.... now, that is too funny. Jews, the richest and most privileged people into equity, ROTFL. As for 'diversity', what is it really about? It's about White Preferism, Capitalist Greed, Jewish Supremacism, and White Cuck Saviorism.
It's White Preferist in that non-whites prefer to move to white nations and live with white majorities than with their own kind. If Diversity is so great, why don't browns stay put as all of Latin America is pretty diverse? India is said to be very diverse along cultural, ethnic, and linguistic lines, but all these Hindus wanna move to white nations. Diversity is White Preferism.
As for businessmen, they just want cheap docile workers who complain less than native folks. We can understand why they'd rather hire newcomers than blacks, but it goes much further. Big Business would rather hire cheaper inferior foreign workers to superior American ones just to cut costs.
There is also a Jewish Supremacist angle: Increase non-white numbers and use them against whites. Also, more diversity among goyim means more division among them... which ensures Jewish Power.
As for white cuck savior complex, so many whites are not only stupid enough to fall for Jewish Diversity BS but subconsciously hanker for a kind of white supremacism. They feel that nonwhites are too dumb to take care of themselves and must live under paternal white guidance to see the light and enjoy the fruits.

So, beware of nominalism.

After all, what is 'racism' really about. It's not about treating all races equally and rejecting racial favoritism. No, it means the 'moral' necessity and even sanctity of treating blacks as our superiors in every way. In reality, blacks are the biggest thugs and pose the gravest threat to white people, but in stupid Hollywood horror movies, whites are hunted down by space monsters or flesh-eating goblins(or Evil White Males) and must rely on heroic and/or saintly blacks as their protectors or saviors. ROTFL. When Paul McCartney was accused of possible 'racism' for having badmouthed Pakistanis in the UK, his defense was he can't be 'racist' because his favorite people are blacks. If 'racism' is racial favoritism, isn't it 'racist' to favor blacks over others? But then, the agenda around 'racism' is to favor blacks for sympathy and consideration, even admiration and reverence. It's not about racial equality but superiority of blacks.

And what is politics around 'antisemitism' about. It's not about treating Jews the same way as the rest of humanity. No, it's about the obligation that Jews be treated better, always be favored, always be forgiven, always preferred. It's not about treating Jews and whites the same way. No, it's about Jews dictating to whites as to what's what, what is right or wrong; and whites must nod along without debate. It's not about treating Jews and Palestinians the same way. No, it's about letting Jews act as they wish with Palestinians. Even when Jews are clearly in the wrong, we must support them over Palestinians, and to say otherwise is to be an 'anti-semite'. So, the politics of 'antisemitism' is really about Jewish Supremacism, not about the need to treat Jews like everyone else, i.e. neither more deserving nor less deserving of justice and fairness.

But people are blind to this because of nominalism. 'Racism' gives the impression that it's opposed to ALL forms of racial hatred. But if so, why is there total silence about non-black victims of black mayhem and violence? 'Antisemitism' gives the impression that Jews are especially targeted by irrational haters and that we need to treat Jews as human beings deserving of equal justice. But 'antisemitism', as framed by ADL, SPLC, and Jewish-run media & deep state, really boils down to Jews having the divine right to control everything and do as they please as the 'made men' who cannot be questioned. In other words, its actual practice is Jewish Supremacism. The hell with nominalism and say yes to ACTUALISM.

We need to reject nominalism and accurately describe and name what is really what and what is really happening. The problem isn't 'racism' but black-thug-supremacism. The problem isn't 'antisemitism' but Jewish supremacism and Zionist gangsterism. The problem isn't that homos are denied 'gay rights' but that Gay Rites are pushed as the new mandatory cult in the West and that anyone who won't bend over to this devil-god and take it up the ass is blacklisted and destroyed by the Power.

CHINA'S WAR AGAINST "SISSY-MEN," GAMERS & WESTERN HYPOCRISY

Can Russia Survive the Neo-Barbarian Onslaught of the West under the control of Satanic Jewish Supremacism? What must Russia do to revive the culture and push back against Globo-Homo lunacy? — Notes on Anatoly Karlin's argument for Russian counter-censorship against Jewish-Western-Media

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/will-russia-block-jack-and-zuck/

It's a question of Big Idea vs Little Ideas. Big Idea subsumes little ideas. Big 'Truth' redeems small lies.

Also, of the Big Conviction and Small Criticism. Nothing is perfect and can be criticized. During the Cold War, there were plenty of faults with both US and USSR. One could pile up countless things wrong with the US, the West, capitalism, and liberal democracy. Same with the Soviet Union. And yet, some Big Ideas and Big Systems, despite all the problems and imperfections, are better than other Big Ideas. Take Freedom vs Slavery for example. One can find much that is wrong with freedom and find some advantages to slavery. So, when it comes to nitpicking, one can find bad things about freedom and good things about slavery. But as Big Ideas go, most people prefer Freedom to Slavery. 

Communism, as a big idea, argued that capitalism is just a form of exploitation and doomed to failure. It argued the state must control everything to prevent one bunch of people from gaining all the wealth and power to exploit the rest. Capitalist liberal democracies argued that capitalism can reform, the democratic process allows for checks/balances, and only a market economy can function properly, create lots of wealth, & lead to innovation. In both argument and delivery, capitalist democracy won over communism — what Francis Fukuyama called the 'End of History'(or Conflict among Big Ideas). But then, what Fukuyama failed to understand was that, as liberal democracies are essentially plutocracies(where politicians are vetted and selected by the rich), their character reflects that of the ruling elites. Lucky for America, the Anglo-Germano-American ruling elites, for all their faults and hypocrisies, were among the best the world had ever seen. They had some sense of common good and higher principles. And some sense of shame and honor. In contrast, when elite power passed to Jews, many of whom turned out to be utterly shameless in their hypocrisy, megalomania, and paranoia, the Jewish character came to shape the direction of democracy and capitalism in the West.

In Russia, the unfettered extreme Jewish kind of capitalism led to the crazy 1990s when a handful of oligarchs, mostly of the Tribe, took control of much of the Russian economy while leaving most people destitute. And as 'democracy' is a plutocracy, the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin merely did the bidding of Jewish oligarchs.

 Though the US has been much richer and better prepared to weather economic storms, something similar happened there. The increasingly financialized and monopolized economy became less principled, less fair, and less rational. It led to ever greater concentration of wealth, especially as globalism undermined the checks-and-balances among the classes, i.e. globalism gave capitalists access to cheap labor all over the world and pretty much destroyed the US working class that had once been a real political force. Moral Hazard totally went out the window; if anything, the 'experts' smeared it as hypocritical hand-wringing by economic illiterates. And the media, another corporate entity, became a total propaganda machine. When the internet promised to spread the power around, the Jewish monopolists and their allies used all manner of dirty tricks to shut down free flow of information and debate. And of course, Republican politicians, shills of plutocracy, haven't done anything. (There is a 'libertarian' argument for letting the rich do as they please, but notice the so-called libertarians are oddly silent about the state's role in shutting down BDS. Shouldn't libertarians at least be opposed to STATIST suppression of activism and discourse?) At any rate, even though Fukuyama focused on the value of Big Ideas, he failed to understand that any set of ideas, big or small, is shaped by the character of those with the power. Indeed, the failure of Latin American democracies is ample proof that worthless elites lead to worthless democracies. Freedom is better than slavery, but Freedom controlled by rotten scum can be as bad or even worse than slavery(dominated by enlightened tyrants).

Anyway, the Big Idea and Big Conviction works like an umbrella against the storm of small ideas or small criticisms. People with a clear sense of Big Idea can weather the storm of small criticisms. (Same goes for Big Feeling vs Little Feeling. No family is perfect, but the deep wells of emotion keep the family united against threatening forces, like in THE GODFATHER.) But people without such conviction can easily lose faith and go with whichever side is making the Most Noise. The question is, do most young Russians have a Big Idea/Conviction about Russian people/culture, history/culture, and destiny? If they do, they could brush off subversive foreign efforts to undermine Russian unity and power. If they don't, they will likely be swayed by whomever has the means to make the most noise(as most people cannot think for themselves and allow others to do the thinking for them).

Among the primary ways of persuading people are the means of associative ideology and associative idolatry. Globo-Homo spread by both means. The elites associated 'gay'-this and 'gay'-that with 'equality', as in 'marriage equality' even though the notion of homosexuality being of equal value/worth with real sexuality is ludicrous. But in a political culture that lionizes the notion of 'equality', it did the job in persuading many people that homos are deserving of 'marriage equality'. But there was also associative idolatry. Homos were made sympathetic, 'cool', joyous, colorful, wonderful, and even sacred by endless propaganda in movies, TV shows, advertising, 'gay pride' celebration days/weeks/months, and etc. They were made 'iconic'. And of course, as the West is most associated with power, wealth, and status, many around the world seek to burnish their image by being pro-'Western'. It is the Polish Disease — Pathetic Polacks are Slavs who want to be thought of as being part of the West, not the backward East — , and it is spreading in Russia as well. Ireland is falling apart because it too has the Polish Disease.

Another example of associative ideology can be seen in the West's coverage of Ukraine and Hungary. Even though Ukraine is run by Jewish gangster oligarchs, it is associated with 'liberal democracy', whereas Viktor Orban's style of governance in Hungary is associated with 'autocracy' or 'anti-democratic' impulses. This may seem odd when Orban came to power through free election whereas the current Ukrainian regime is the product of US-backed coup or 'color revolution'. But for many fools who rely on the media, such ideological sleight-of-hand tricks do the magic. Of course, many wanna-be-elites and would-be-educated rely on New York Times, The Economist, New Yorker, and the like for status-reasons. Though ostensibly about 'freedom of the press', their main value is as status-signalers. They offer fashion-news, or the kind of ideas one must espouse IF he or she is to be accepted into Elysium, if only 'psycho-virtually' — even those who come nowhere near elite bastions of power/privilege like to smugly feel that they belong to the 'better kind of people' because they get their information from stuff like The Atlantic, a journal read by 'important' people.

As for another example of associative idolatry, there is the cult of Noble Negro, what with some European nations being even more enthused about BLM than the US is. The idolatrous idea or 'idological' notion is that blacks are 'cool', badass, noble, awesome, and etc., therefore anything is made better if associated with Negroes. Why is that taco better than this taco? Because it has been advertised as 'BLM'. BLMour(or blamour) is the new glamour.

Vladimir Putin has been around for some time, and he's been a good manager. But has he supplied Russia with a Big Idea or Deep Conviction about Russian Civilization? Being a good manager is important but not enough. In the end, managers serve the idea. Without a Big Idea about the worth of Russian Civilization, many young Russians will just become minions of Pop Culture and silly memes. Their worldview will be mostly that of associative ideology and associative idolatry pushed by the West, which isn't even Western anymore but Judeo-Afro-homo or JAH-ist. It is ironic that Anatoly Karlin is worried about the West's infection of Russia, but he bought the Covid-hysteria nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Covid was never going to be a mass-killer, and Jews pushed it to destroy Trumponomics and to restore power to globalist governments to shut down populist-nationalist challenges.

If Russians have a Big Idea about the Motherland, they will be able to weather the storm. For all its faults, they will see Russia as worth preserving and defending against the globalist tide. If not, Russia will become a big Ireland or what Poland is destined to be, as its young are total minions of JAH-ist garbage. Russia must articulate its role in history. How it came to be, how it survived(sometimes against impossible odds), and how it is unique. A sense of how Russia overcame communism and Jewish oligarchic capitalism.

Also, Russia must be honest about Jewish Power. The current US and EU animus against Russia was cooked up mostly by Jews. Russians must know this. Russians must know the Jewish Mind, i.e. that Jews believe that they are so smart and Russians are so dumb, and therefore, Jews deserve to dominate Russia and Russians deserve to be helots of Jews. In a way, the Jewish vision of Russia isn't much different from the Nazi vision of German 'Aryans' lording over Russian Slavs as helots. Russians must understand that most goyim in US and EU are puppets of Jews.

The reasons are twofold. Naturally, most politicians whore out to Big Money, and Jews are the richest. But the other reason is Jewish Power replaced Christianity with Holocaustianity. Therefore, white goyim not only serve Jews-as-oligarchs but Jews-as-god. Now, Russians make a big deal of how Russia defeated Nazism and saved Jews, and that is a legit historical and moral argument. But, Russia must also understand that Jewish radicalism and subversion did great harm to Russia prior to rise of Nazism and, if anything, led to Adolf Hitler's rise because Germans(among others) had enough of crazy Jews. Furthermore, Jewish craziness is buried deep within the Jewish Core. Karl Marx thought communism would cure Jews of greed, but Jewish communists turned out to be bloody greedy for power. Libertarians and conservatives think capitalism and Zionism will cure Jews of radicalism, but today's super-capitalist Jews are pushing insane radical agendas. (But the lesson of Nazism is one shouldn't fight craziness with more craziness.) Russians must also understand that Globo-Homo is the proxy tool of the Jews. Jews relish the sight of the vast-majority of straight people groveling at the feet of homos and even trannies. (Homos went from liberation to inquisition. First, they were liberated from traditional restrictions and could do their homo thing. But that wasn't enough for their vanity and vengeance. They weren't content to be homo and distorted the law and other means to FORCE straight people to comply to homo demands or else be purged. In other words, straight society had to swallow the notion of 'gay marriage', and we must make-believe that a tranny is a 'woman' or some guy is a 'they' than a 'he'. Of course, Jews love the sight of this. Just as they relish the sight of hapless goyim groveling at their feet, they just can't get enough of the vast-majority of straights being kicked around by a bunch of trannies. Jews or homos/trannies, it's a case of elite-minority supremacism over the majorities.)

Russians must also realize the threat of the Cult of Negro. So far, most Russian athletes are Russian, and Russians look up to Russian idols as 'national heroes'. Russians must realize that the promotion of Negrolatry is to rob the white race of their own idols and heroes. In the US, white boys and girls worship Negro stars in pop culture and sports. And this is spreading all over Europe. Presence of Negroes leads to white cuckery. Look at the Africanization of France and UK. Why would anyone want this? Well, Dumb Polacks want it because they have the Polish Disease and are so eager to be petted by the West as 'good doggy'. But Russians should not play this game.

Of course, it is tempting to play the Noble Negro card. The USSR did it during the Cold War by spreading propaganda that Noble Negroes were being oppressed by Evil Whites. And Europeans who felt moral inferiority-complex vis-a-vis the US(especially because of WWI and WWII) played the same game. But what is the result of this? Tug-a-Gro(or Tug-a-Negro) where all sides pretend (1) Negroes are so special and (2) they love Negroes more than others do. "With Negro on our side." What kind of moral argument is this? Elevating the most savage and destructive race as sacred/noble and premising one's moral value on the extent of slavishness to Afromania and BLM. Russians and Chinese who, cynically or sincerely, brandish BLM memes need to understand that it is a Jewish Ploy against the National Majority. Jews rule the US, and Jews spread BLM to morally browbeat the white majority. Russians and Chinese must stop believing that US is run by whites who oppress blacks. US is run by Jews who oppress whites by invoking black holiness. So, if China and Russia really want to counter Jewish Power that controls the US, they are better off with PLM or Palestinian Lives Matter.

How many Russians know that Russia is a world unto itself and has so many potential(and that Russians are the biggest under-achievers around the world)? If Russians got their act together, the sky would be the limit. But they do so little with what they have and look to the outside world(that is dominated by Jews, homos, and white cucks) for meaning and purpose. This is truly sad. For all the rottenness of Jews, imagine the things they could do if they were the majority group in Russia. In some ways, Jews have done more for Israel than Russians have done for Russia. Too many Russian elites are corrupt, and too many Russian masses are stupid 'white trash'. They really need to clean up their act. While Putin made things more efficient and streamlined, he hasn't altered the essential character flaw of Russians. He hasn't cultivated a new crop of visionary and inspirational leadership. All around him are flunkies and hangers-on. This is why when Putin eventually leaves the scene, Russia could become a big Poland or Ireland. The Polish Disease is spreading.

The value of the Big Idea can be appreciated by using land as analogy. Big Territory is harder to conquer than Small Territory. If Russia had been the size of France or Poland, Germans might have  prevailed over the Soviet Union with its Blitzkrieg attack. But the sheer vastness of Russia allowed the USSR to move its industrial base to the east while Germans became over-stretched across vast territories to the point where their logistics broke down, especially with rain and snow. Likewise, China was able to weather the Japanese invasion because of its vastness. In contrast, Taiwan and Korea were easily swallowed up by Japan. 

Same goes for Big Ideas. They are much harder to conquer than small ones. Now, a people don't need a Big Territory to have a Big Idea. Jews are a prime example of this. For much of their history, they had no territory to call their own. But they preserved their identity and culture because they had a Big Idea, that of the Covenant that linked the Jews as a special people to the one-and-only God. This is why Jews, among all the immigrant groups in America, were not conquered by Anglo-American-ness but, in time, came to conquer and reduce the 'Wasps' into pathetic puppets and tools of Jewish Power centered around a Big Idea. In contrast, all other groups, from Germans to Filipinos, have been utterly conquered by Anglo-American-ness and are now being converted to globo-homo cuckery to Jewish Supremacism and Afromania. The ONLY group that may follow the Jews in their identity-insistence is the Hindus who, like Jews, are ethno-religionists, or identity over ideology. In contrast, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists are credo-religionists, or ideology over identity. Russia has been able to survive due to Big Territory, but does it have a Big Idea that can fend off the slings and arrows of other ideas, hostile and foreign? Of course, many foreign ideas can be useful and productive, but they're usually in the fields of science and technology. Especially in the post-modern world, there have been no great new ideas. Indeed, we are living in the Age of 'Idology', or idolatry-as-ideology, and Russia need to develop its own 'idology' that resists that of the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Negroes.

Jews want all the world to worship the Holy Holocaust uber alles. Jews want all nations to replace its national idols with Negro athletes and stars. Jews want all houses of worship of whatever faith to hoist the 'gay' flag and celebrate sodomy as globo-homo-mania is the proxy agenda of Jewish Supremacist Power. Do most Russians understand this and realize what is at stake? If Russians lack the Big Idea of what their people, culture, and history are about, they do not understand, and it's only a matter of time before they will succumb to the Polish Disease.

Now, there are smart and dumb ways to spread the Big Idea. Russians need a Big Idea about Russia, and to some extent, Putin has tried to bring this about. He built more churches and promoted more nationalism. But building more churches is only symbolic. Most Russians will not visit these cathedrals and won't care. In our age, people are persuaded by electronic signals, not stone objects. Electronic signals are the 'spirit' of the modern world. Also, a generic kind of nationalism isn't enough. A nationalism needs a clear sense of 'who we are' and 'who hate us'. While Russians are clear about their enemy during World War II — the Nazi Germans — , they aren't about the New Enemy, the Jewish Globalists. Now, this doesn't mean Russians should bash all Jews. Just like not all Germans were enemies(and Russia and East Germany could be friends after the war), not all Jews are enemies. Still, Russia needs to spell out what is really happening. The problem isn't EU or US per se but Jewish control of US that controls the EU. And why do Jews hate Russia? Jews look upon Russians as vodka-swilling dummies who should serve the smarter/superior Jews. All Russians need to understand that the current Jewish animus against Russia goes back to the 1990s and even earlier. In both the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution and the gangster-capitalist 1990s, Jews nearly had Russia and are still livid with rage that the big dumb Russian fish slipped out of their grasp. But Jews are like Captain Ahab and won't give up until they get their whale. If Russians understood this basic fact, they would see foreign anti-Russian sources of News for what it is. While anti-Russian news/opinions may well have kernel of truth to them, it would be understood by most Russians that the PRIMARY purpose of these news isn't to spread truth or serve justice but to turn Russians into deracinated globo-homo minions who worship Negroes(than their own national idols/heroes), thereby easing the path for Jewish Supremacists to take over Russia. Such a Big Idea of what Russia is up against would weaken all the small ideas/criticism of Russia by outsider and Russian cucky-wucks. Putin's style of nationalism has been the Silent Majority kind. Building churches may have some symbolic value but lacks dynamism. Byzantine Empire built many churches but couldn't prevent the enervation and decline. Under Byzantine rule, Christianity became a dogma controlled by corrupt elites into court intrigue. In a way, as bloody as the Catholic vs Protestant conflict was, it might have been good for both and for Western Christianity that it fostered competitiveness. Neither could take things for granted as a monopoly. The Protestant challenge also meant that Western Christianity couldn't just be a bureaucratic labyrinth. Individual conscience mattered. Even as Catholics denounced Protestantism, the threat from the New Church forced them to reflect and make reforms. In contrast, no such challenge compelled the Eastern Church to make reforms and revivify itself as the soul of Byzantium. It became the mummified religion of the elites behind the walls. Against the threat from Muslims who, for a time, had all the youth, excitement, and energy, the Byzantium World only knew conservatism, wall-mentality(against Muslim war mentality), and status quo. When one side pushes to gain new ground while the other side stands only to hold territory, the former will eventually win. Against the pusher, one must push back. Byzantium failed to push back. And today, Russia won't push back against the Jews. Even as Putin took measures to restore some degree of nationalism and restrain out-of-control Jewish Power, he hasn't taken up the necessary challenge. 

Also, Russia has failed to offer anything of itself to the Western World. For example, RT News doesn't convey Russian ideas, Russian values, and Russian grandeur. Rather, it just hires Western SJW types and 'leftists' to offer 'progressive' assaults against Western Imperialism. It's like the 'conservative' game of 'Democrats are the real racists', i.e. it accepts the enemy's platform as the main moral premise. Now, if this was just a facet of RT, it wouldn't be so bad. But it's about 99% of it. Even when Russia gains access to other nations, it does little to impart Russian ideas, culture, and values. It just hires 'leftists' with somewhat more integrity than the usual 'liberals' in the Western Media. So, Christopher Hedges and Rick Sanchez have shows on RT. Now, this isn't entirely a bad strategy: Use Western Left to attack Western Liberals. Also, whereas the educated class in the West may scoff at Russian culture and values, they might listen to True Leftists or Dissident Progressives who've been fired, purged, or blacklisted by Jewish-dominated 'liberal' mainstream media.

Still, it's just Russians offering an alternative Western viewpoint against the 'mainstream' or official Western Agenda. America is now a satanic and crazy empire(with both its elite and mass culture in a state of total retardation), BUT what it has to offer still excites people all over the world. Something always seems to be 'happening'. It's an 'event'. It's 'cool', 'badass', and/or 'awesome'. Whether it's comic book movies, rap concerts, globo-homo-mania, BLM, or whatever, the West seems to be always 'rocking'. 

Now, there is pro and con to the current 'Western' Way. It is highly effective because it's so well funded and charged. It's abuzz with energy as the Jews control all the hype machine. Also, the West's shamelessness means that it will promote and disseminate ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous(or more outrageous the better), that might have mass appeal or immediate sensory excitement. Like 'twerking'. It's demented, but it has spread all over because, by the lowest common denominator, people are hairless apes. But there is a downside to all this. It's the Disco Factor. At one time, Disco ruled and was everywhere. It seemed like it would last forever... except it vanished almost overnight. What had been so 'cool' was deemed clownish and insipid. People were embarrassed that they had anything to do with Disco. Usually, something sensational has a short shelf-life. And so much of current 'Western Values' or 'Western Causes' are like fireworks without the fire. They are so much about hysteria, outrage, thrill, orgasm, or etc. When fireworks are over, they are really over. This is why the West has to keep generating sensationalism and excitement to keep up the thrill-level or outrage-level. Nothing it puts forth has any intrinsic value except as hype or Da Bomb. Whether it's the buzz over the new blockbuster or new video-game OR hysteria for something about homos, BLM, illegals-are-dreamers, or Covid lunacy, the Western Media have to keep injecting new doses of sensory overdrive. Thus, there's a lot of energy but almost no meaning. 

Take the hysteria about J.K. Rowhling and trannies. Sane people would not attack a woman for saying 'man with balls is not a woman', but so many young people in the West are so charged with 'moral' outrage and hysteria about holy homos and precious trannies that they can't think straight. Of course, they can't think at all, and their 'morality' or 'ethics' is just a matter of celebrity-worship and Political Correctness. Celebrity Worship makes them agree with whatever Hollywood and Music Industry pushes at the moment, and PC molded their minds to think in terms of holy vs taboo. Despite its term, 'Critical Theory' is the most anti-critical tool in the academia. It says certain groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos, are sacred, whites are especially guilty & wicked, and the rest better side with Jews, blacks, and homos against whites. This is why there is no rhyme or reason to current 'progressive' thought. Leftism used to be premised on class ideology, mostly of Marx. Liberalism used to be based on either the theory of individual rights or universal justice. But current 'progressivism' is mostly about idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks. Antifa and billionaire oligarchs chant the same mantras about trannies being treasures or BLM even though all facts show blacks kill blacks(and non-blacks). And if Jews are truly liberal, why do they insist we support Zionism and Jewish imperialists over Palestinians? Jews used to bleat about socialism or individual rights, but now, most are totally okay with super-capitalism(that made Jews the richest people) and into globo-homo, which lionizes homos as the favored pets of the ruling elites class. And this is being broadcast all over the world in a kind of new cultural imperialism.

Now, Russia could stand for Nationalism against Imperialism. The problem is many people all over the world are mesmerized by the cultural imperialism of globo-homo, rap music, Hollywood, celebrity culture, pornography, and etc. Why don't they stand for their national culture against imperialist junk culture? Because most people around the world are unimaginative folks with nothing to say or express. They are passive than active creatures. As people are easily bored, they crave distractions. It's like a dog wants someone to throw sticks so it can play fetch. Most people need others to toss them the stick. They can't create their own culture. It's no wonder few religions dominate the world. If most people can't create their own stuff, they will gravitate to whatever has the most mass appeal or generates the most buzz. If someone had to sit in a theater without anything on screen or stage, he'd be bored to death. He wouldn't be able to entertain himself with his own ideas and imagination. But if there's a fun movie on screen or show on stage, he could sit there for 3 hrs, even 4 hrs, in pure delight. He wants his heart and mind to be captivated by another. Most people around the world feel like bored nobodies sitting in a theater with nothing playing. So, they are grateful for ANYTHING that grabs their attention. Anything to stave away the boredom. It's like sitting on a sofa for 5 hrs is a boring notion, but you forget all about the boredom if the TV is on. It doesn't matter that most stuff on TV is dumb. At least, Dumb isn't Boring, which people hate more. Now, if people are bored, shouldn't they create their own stuff? Shouldn't they try to be creative and seek truths? But most people want others to do it for them. This is especially true of conservatives. Even as they bitch about 'liberal' domination of movies and music, they hardly create their own. 

It's been said the US is very creative, but there are just few centers of creativity. Most Americans in most of America are passive and do nothing. It's just a few centers in cities that make most arts, culture, entertainment. 1% of America is 'New York', rest is 'Nebraska'. It's just a few universities that create new ideological trends. This is why people sound like clones. Ministry of Information says "trannies are holy", and soon, just about everyone is spouting the same nonsense. It is why most US conservatives are such servile dogs to Zion. GOP as standard-bearer of American Conservatism says it's one's God-given duty to support Israel(even though Jews hate Christians and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah). 

Most Russians are not creative. They just like to get drunk, dance on tables, and curse. They would wrestle bears too, but there aren't too many bears around Moscow. Just about the only happening place in Russia is Moscow, but not much happens there compared to any major city in the US. Also, despite their small number, Jews do far more thinking, speaking, and creating in Russia than Russians do. Now, most Jewish ideas may be crazy or harmful, but they are saying something. Meanwhile, Russians are just getting drunk and acting dumb. To be sure, this 'dumb' quality, along with corruption, may have allowed Russians to become relatively more independent of Jewish Power. Anglo-Americans, being better educated, more sober, and more conscientious, could be easily baited and cajoled into looking up to Holy Holocaust Jews as the ultimate moral arbiters. In contrast, the more slovenly and rule-breaking Russians are less likely to be conscientious, therefore less likely to be morally baited by Jews. (You can fool a well-meaning person but not a gangster who cynically believes EVERYONE, even the so-called 'good', are up to no good.) Indeed, one key difference between the Russian Revolution and Jewish takeover of the US is that Jews had to pander to Russians in the former whereas goyim ended up sucking up to Jews in the latter. Though it's true that the Bolshevik Revolution put many Jews in power over Russians, Jews themselves had to de-emphasize Jewishness and speak up for the common good for all those in the Russian Empire. While Russian chauvinism was suppressed, so was Jewish identity. This may be why Jews eventually lost out in the Soviet Union. In contrast, Jewish takeover of the US after WWII was premised on elevating Jews as a specially holy and tragic people. The Holy Holocaust People so full of woe, wit, and wisdom. The idea was the US had to support Israel because the ultimate truth is about Holy Jews vs Their Evil Enemies. Anglo-Americans were well-meaning and conscientious enough to fall for the moral bait. (A cynical Sicilian would have seen right through the BS.) If Jews are holy, their demands are godly. And if Jews are godly, those who displease Jews are ungodly and must be crushed. Look at today's US. Jews shit on Donald Trump day and night, but Trump's big message is "I love Jews, I serve Jews." If Jews cut off one of his legs, Trump would say, "I will hobble around on my remaining leg to serve you holy Jews and give you anything you want." Is it any wonder this country is so screwed up?

Against all this, what can Russians do? Against the insane fireworks of the New West, what can Russia offer? There is nationalism to be sure, but it must be substantive than symbolic. Parades and pageantry are nice, but such didn't save the USSR. And they won't save Putin's Russia. Also, while military parades and big rallies have a galvanizing effect, they can also become routine and boring, especially with young people. Of course, young people eventually turn into old people, but as the young are more active than the old, nationalism must have the hearts and minds of those who are young. Karlin wonders maybe Russia should censor like China to win over the young, but that is a form of retreat. In the long run, it won't work because the young will feel that the ONLY way the system can win is by shutting down speech and availability of information. To truly win over the hearts and minds, the System must offer the better vision and solution. 

1. Russian youths need to be instilled with a deep sense of Russian-ness. Such depth has been lost in the US, UK, and EU, replaced by PC and Pop Culture. Deep Nationalism requires family life and its connection to history and heritage. Consider the film SIBERIADE by Andrei Konchalovsky. What that film teaches us is that family, community, and personal memory are the glue between the individual and the nation/civilization. In the West, there is a sense of the individual and a sense of history/civilization but hardly any sense of family, kinship, and memory. It's almost as if the individual is independent of or separate from the civilization. No wonder then that anyone can become anyone. An African can become a Frenchman or Briton. Now, if a European had a personal, familial, and ancestral consciousness, he would know that he is bound to his nation by blood of relatives and forebears. Without such mindset, a civilization is just a bundle of ideas, and that means ANY individual who applies for citizenship and learns to speak the language is part of the nation. Such is recipe for national suicide and decline. Today in the West, young people are taught history, but they are not encouraged or guided to cultivate a personal link to the story of the past. What links an individual in a deep personal sense to history and nation? He is linked by ancestry. People were aware of this in the past, especially as their cultural outlook developed in close proximity of family and community, independent of the constant distractions of TV and pop culture that make young ones primarily identify with pop idols, most of whom are shallow dolts or freaks. A Briton had an ancestral and cultural sense of who he was. But today, Britain is just an idea. Anyone can become 'British', and even British history no longer belongs to the ancestors of the White British. Rather, it's a just a bunch of narratives that can be molded by BBC to feature past Britons as some multi-culti polygot. Now, Britain is diverse in the sense that it was a coming together of various ethnic groups, some of whom to this day have a sense of distinctness. Still, they have deep roots in that land, real ancestry of blood and soil. For this reason, no people can survive for long if they just focus on the individual and civilization. It must focus on familial ties and ancestry as the binding element between individual and civilization.  

2. Russia or any civilization that wants to survive in the long run must prioritize organicism over individualism. This doesn't mean individualism should be quashed. It is valuable for freedom, enterprise, and creativity. But just like the body isn't a collection of individual/independent cells, a civilization cannot simply be about individuals. The fact is individuals are different and serve different roles. Imagine if liver cells decided to serve as pancreatic cells. This doesn't mean a return to serfdom where people are strictly bound to occupations or obligations. But it does mean one should think of one's place in society than merely "whatever I want to do". The individual must ask, "how does my ideas and my actions serve the nation well?" Also, men and women are fundamentally different. True, women are equal in intelligence and, especially in our mechanized age, can do most jobs men can do. Women can be good doctors and accountants. But any healthy society must prioritize jobs for men, especially well-paying jobs for men. Whereas men will marry women without jobs, vice versa is rarely true. So, if women take jobs from men, far fewer men have incomes necessary to attract wives. Therefore, most key jobs should go to men. Now, women may call this 'unfair', but this is because they prioritize individualism over the common good. Favoring men in the economy is a form of biological socialism. If men and women are allowed to pursue jobs as individuals, men with good jobs will marry women with good jobs, and most of the wealth will accrue to such people. Meanwhile, men who can't get good jobs will have a hard time finding a wife, and many women without good jobs will end up single. There is something to be learned from Islam. A people must work for the common good. They must have a sense of what is good for most people than just 'myself'.

3. As for arts, culture, and entertainment, Akira Kurosawa presented the best formula in HIGH AND LOW. There must be both substance and style. Not just hardy boots or flimsy high heels but a shoes of quality with measured style. The kind of work that can bridge the elites and the masses. Kurosawa's films certainly did that. They were serious and entertaining. They were unique to Japanese culture but had universal appeal and reach. Russians need to follow this model to revive culture and gain soft power around the world. 4. Russia should promote a kind of universal nationalism that respects the differences and particularities among nations in history, culture, values, food, attitude, and etc. Now, there are universal values in our day and age. We don't want a culture to practice human sacrifice, slavery, or torturing animals as blood-sport. Still, one-size-fits-all globalism must be countered with true appreciation of diversity. When PC globalists claim to celebrate 'diversity', they show no interest in other peoples, cultures, and values. Rather, they mean the diverse peoples of the world should all listen to rap music, worship the Holocaust & praise Jews, and wave the homo flag. It's McDiversity where all groups must go for Happy Meal of Jewgromo-centrism(Jew-Negro-Homo-centrism). There are so many peoples and cultures in the world. The world is truly diverse. The best way to preserve and honor diversity is for every nation to secure itself against the threat of mass-invasions(aka immigration) and to respect the uniqueness of other peoples. Of course, there should be trade and travel among nations but never to the point where it leads to the Great Replacement and Deracination(as preparation of the satanic globalism that would have everyone bow down at the altar of sodomy, black thuggery, and Jewish gangsterism). There was a time of national cinema. The world came to appreciate the films of other nations in a spirit of mutual respect and curiosity, but each nation produced its own movies with uniqueness and distinctness. But look at French and British culture today. French are now like Americans who speak French, and the British might as well be members of the 51st state of America. And just look at the state of Polish and Japanese cultures. All globo-homo and Negro-worship.

Now, it's a tall order for vodka-swilling Russians to sober up and get off their asses to do what's right. But this looks like the repeat of the Roman Empire. The Western Empire fell but Eastern Empire survived. Western Europe seems about to fall to host of diseases like feminism, globo-homo, BLM, and etc. If things continue, Russia will be the last remaining bearer of European Civilization. Now, Byzantium, even as it survived the fall of the Western Empire, failed to achieve much and just slowly rotted. Can Russia survive the new Western Fall and also avoid the fate of the Byzantines who lacked the dynamism necessary to keep the fire going? THE OFFICIAL COVID NARRATIVE IS FALLING TO PIECES

Liberalism has Genuine Value but Not as Centrism or Foundation of an Order or System — Liberalism must serve Something, and It must be something bigger than the Individualist 'Me' — How the Liberal End-of-History led to Tyranny of Identity

Words matter, and in the contest between ‘liberalism’ and ‘conservatism’, both have taken on the cachet of political labels. ‘Conservatives’ see ‘Liberals’ as the bad guys, and vice versa. As such, Conservatives reject the notion of ‘liberal’-ness along with the so-called Liberal Camp. ‘Liberals’ do likewise with ‘conservative’-ness. The end result is something akin to a community divided between those who believe only the left hand/arm should be used and those who think only the right hand/arm should be used. Of course, a person needs to use both left hand/arm and right hand/arm. The binary mentality in Western Politics is one of the most toxic and indeed idiotic developments in the World. So, to be liberal means you must be anti-conservative, and to be conservative means you have to be anti-liberal. A more sensible approach would be to ask how liberalism and conservatism can fit together like two pieces in a puzzle. It’s like Yin and Yang are complementary in Taoism, and the meaning of life and life itself are founded on the complementary unity of man and woman. Current ‘liberalism’ is like feminism, a stupid ideology that appears to regard women as a separate ‘race’ apart from the men when, in fact, neither men nor women would exist if not for the unity of men and women. (Of course, Jewish Power that rules the West is all for man-woman union when it comes to ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. What Jews really hate is the sexual unity of white men and white women. Jewish men see white man as rivals for power and see white women as their sexual commodity to buy and sell. And Jewish women are so envious of white 'Aryan' beauty that they want it to be destroyed via race-mixing with blacks.)

Now, when so-called Conservatives decry Liberalism, a good many of them know that they are not opposed to liberality per se. Even most Conservatives will admit there are positive and beneficial things about liberalism: Greater tolerance, curiosity, creativity, openness to sensory delights, intellectualism, willingness to take risks, and etc. Indeed, even much of the canonical ‘conservative’ ideas and values of today were once considered ‘heretical’, ‘radical’, or ‘dangerous’. Who can deny that the reason why the West move ahead of the Rest owed something to the rise of the liberal spirit for adventure and discovery? The Rest wasn’t held back by too much liberalism but by too little of it. The Ottomans, the Chinese, the Hindus, and Arabs were far more conservative than the West that caught the spirit of movement, exploration, discovery, and revolutions in thought. One of the reasons why the arch-conservative Byzantium East fell into stagnation, stasis, and then utter ruin had to do with the lack of liberal spirit for change and revitalization. Excessive conservatism is like a mausoleum with decay and stale air. It's like a algae-infested pond without inflows of fresh water supply. Arch-conservatism can only sustain itself by freezing the status quo. But frozen things are barely alive. It’s like the Ancient Egyptian civilization became one big mummy. It was so obsessed with preservation of the status quo and 'sacred truths'(invested in the ruling dynasties) that it lost the sense of time, backward or forward. While there are timeless values, timeless existence is rather like being stuck in a forest without a compass or sense of direction. Forward and backward become one and the same. Byzantine civilization may have considered itself in harmony with timeless truths, but such mindset sucked the vitality and virility from the empire. It lasted a long time but died a sure, steady, and dreary death as it lacked the foresight to awaken from its doldrums and speak the truth.
A useful metaphor for arch-conservatism is the Chinese practice of foot-binding where a girl’s feet weren’t allowed to grow beyond a certain size. This kind of Conservatism is anti-natural and defies the organic process of birth, growth, death, and rebirth. Even though it claims to defend and preserve the sacred, it breeds a kind of sick decadence because it goes on and on like a broken record with the same mantra and same set of memories, as with the father & the sickly child in THE SECRET GARDEN and Ms. Havisham in GREAT EXPECTATIONS. (In SECRET GARDEN, the father cannot let go of his late wife's memory, and his son is confined in the house for the sake of his health when, if anything, fresh air would do him some good. In contrast, the young girl, though orphaned by a tragedy of her own, has the will and spunk to carry on with life. Holding dear of one's memory is good but not to the point of shutting oneself off from life and future. The good side of liberalism is it has the audacity to forget to forge ahead or has the curiosity to revisit the past to understand it from a different angle.) Ironically, communism was brought down by its own dogmatic ‘conservatism’. What had energized a generation with hope and promise grew wearier by the year with the same chants, catechisms, songs, spectacles, rituals, and etc. The Party, once dominant in power, wouldn’t allow much in the way of change and renewal. Just like no one wants to eat the same thing morning, noon, and evening day after day, year after year, people grow weary and enervated in a culture that insists it has everything it needs from the dominant theology, ideology, and/or iconography. It’s human nature to want to experience new and different things. It’s like dogs and cats feel especially alive when they are allowed to venture outside the house to see, smell, and hear new things.


This is why ORGANICISM is a better concept than ‘conservatism’. While conservatism emphasizes the need to keep things the way they are, organicism is about regulating the natural processes of change and development that are a healthy part of every system, biological, social, spiritual, and conceptual. Just like religions have changed over time and sciences must develop with new findings, it is natural for society to change and grow. In organicism, both conservatism and liberalism have their place, sometimes in conflict but ultimately complementary IF the organic whole is to survive and thrive. Conservatism is the grip/cling principle, and Liberalism is the release/leap principle. A mountain lion is always anxious to cling to the rocks so as not to fall off cliffs. And yet, an extreme scaredy cat that only clings(like the Cowardly Lion in THE WIZARD OF OZ) wouldn’t be able to do anything. So committed to self-preservation against all risks, it will fear any movement lest it might lead to falling off the cliff. But, such a cat will likely starve to death because it can’t run around to catch the prey. But then, a mountain lion that is utterly released from fear and leaps around dangerous cliffs will likely fall off sooner than later and end up dead. This is why cats are optimally calibrated for grip/cling mechanism and release/leap mechanism. They have the artful balance of caution and daring.

Now, the ‘liberal’ principle gets more attention and admiration because it seems more exciting. There is always more thrill in the Risk than in the Preservation. At the end of PAPILLON, our hearts are with the eponymous character who takes the leap off the cliff even though our sober heads know that the character(played by Dustin Hoffman) who chooses safety and security decided more sensibly. Many sensible Western folks chose not to go on ocean voyages to the unknown as there was a good chance of horrible death in the high seas. (To be sure, in some ways, the conservative principle can be more adventurous, at least in the physical sense, because it is more masculine and dominant. Many men have been known to participate in risky endeavors to prove their manhood. Even if lacking in liberal curiosity, they were fired by the need to play out their traditional role as tough dominant males. In some ways, liberalism can be risk-and-action-averse due to its higher levels of anxiety and ambiguity. The liberal-mind is more likely to empathize with the Other side and question if 'our cause' is always right. Also, many liberal types tend to be more cerebral than physical, thereby limiting their spirit of adventure to the world of ideas and institutions than physical risks. Of course, liberals can also be more aggressive and war-oriented when they fall into the save-the-world crusade mode. Conservatives generally like to fight for what-is-ours, whereas liberals generally get the biggest war-fever over what-is-right, which is why they will often support wars premised on 'just causes'.) But the glory belongs to those who managed to break through the unknown and discover new lands. It’s like we are more fixated with our senses than with our inner organs. Even though or precisely because our organs such as hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, bladder, and etc. silently and steadily work to keep us alive, we hardly think about them, that is unless they begin to grow sick and begin to malfunction. No one thinks about his/her bladder until he/she gets bladder stones. No one thinks much of his/her lungs unless he/she gets lung cancer or emphysema. At most times, people are fixated on their senses such as eyes, ears, tongues, and nose. The more sensually-oriented liberal types care more for genitals, and the more cerebral-oriented liberal types care more for the brains. Jews are a strange group in that they seem equally obsessed with matters of the pud and pen. Philip Roth, one of the most highly regarded Jewish-American writers of the post-war era, wrote thoughtfully but also obsessively about the life of his pud.
We tend not to appreciate what we take for granted even though they are the most essential factors for our existence. Because people take the health of their lungs for granted, they turn to smoking for sensual pleasure. So often, sensual pleasure of the surface overrides organic health of depth. Because even the lungs of a heavy smoker tend to be hardy enough to last for a long time, the smoker disregards what is good for the lungs and inhales toxins for pleasure. Most of what we FEEL operate on the surface-senses of sight, hearing, taste/smell, and touch. We FEEL the 'cruciality' of the inner-organs only when they grow sick. It is only when the smoker comes down with cancer that he or she is finally reminded of how foolish it had been to fill up the lungs with tobacco smoke. Especially in our electronic-sensory pop-cultural world, ‘conservatism’ is seriously disadvantaged against ‘liberalism’ because we are bombarded with more sensory stimulation than ever before. Indeed, many kids now grow up with electronic gadgets as their first ‘toy’, and it’s not unusual for black toddlers to learn to ‘twerk’ by watching Youtube even before they understand what sexuality is. Part of the reason why globo-homo-mania is taking over christian churches is because it is so sensory-directed whereas Christianity’s spirituality is deep and essentialist. The deep conservative aspects of Christianity is too boring, dark, and heavy for those in our age who are addicted to sensory overload. Homos with their shameless flair and flamboyance sure know how to get the crowd going with shameless fanfare, celebration, and spectacle, and given that so many people(even old people nowadays) grew up with electronic media, their highest value is associated with glitz, distractions, and celebrity. Since homos are the masters of pop cultural vanity and narcissism, their self-worship has become the object of worship for so many people whose main culture is now really pop culture. It's like a world where amphetamines have become the New Vitamins.

The important question for us shouldn’t be a matter of Conservatism versus Liberalism but how the two may complement, support, and serve one another. If we come to an understanding of this equation, then there might be less feuding between those who call themselves ‘conservatives’ and those who call themselves ‘liberals’(especially among whites who have foolishly put ideology before identity, the very opposite of what Jews do). In a way, the most admirable aspect of American History(before it finally went off the rails under the power of Jews) was the careful balancing act that allowed the rise of US to benefit from both the conservative imperative and liberal impulses. Whereas ‘Latin’ civilization in both Spain and New World empire became overly conservative and reactionary, the Anglo-American Civilization of the United States found a way to form a social order that both emphasized continuity, memory, & tradition AND dynamism, liberty, and innovation. It was in this way that American Civilization grew big and sturdy like a great tree. The founders of the American Civilization were aware of the need for roots in the ground and leaves reaching for the sky. Look at any church, and there is a need for both foundation and spire. Only an idiot would argue as to whether a church should be about foundation OR spire. Church obviously needs both but has to know which goes where. Using the spire as foundation and foundation as spire would be most ludicrous. It’d be like planting a tree upside down by putting leaves in the grounds and the roots on top. Such a tree couldn’t last long. In a similar way, what is called ‘conservatism’ must serve as the foundation of any stable social order, and liberalism must be the spire on top. Given its libertine spirit, achievements of liberalism often soar higher than the properties of conservatism, but just like the top of the pyramid needs its main body, liberal heights must be founded and rooted on conservative grounds. Liberal elites may believe themselves to be better-educated, more intelligent, and more creative, but just like the brains cannot function without the body, high-achieving liberals cannot last long without the solid foundation in deep identity, core values, and moral populace.

Jack London was a leftist and socialist but also a most excellent race-ist who loved his own white people.

Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery, but he was also an awesome race-ist who said, "Slavery is bad, and we should free the slaves, but as blacks are tougher, meaner, and could kick our white butts and take our white women, we need to give them a separate nation after Emancipation."

When the US was a white-ruled and white-populated nation, this was more-or-less well-understood, but ever since Jews took over as the new elites, the US has faced the problem of being ruled by a people who feel little or no organic connection to the masses below them. Jews are ‘white’ but don’t really regard themselves as part of the European race because their own identity is deeper and more ancient than any European identity or culture(especially those of Northern Europe). As such, Jews don’t seek to connect with white goyim as racial brethren(if only out of fear of losing their Jewish Tribal essence by excessive assimilation) but regard white goyim as an alien body that might reject Jews as New Elites like the host body often resists the implantation of another person’s organ. Jews are like wandering brains without a body. They seek to take over the brain centers of a Goy Order, but the problem is they don’t feel organic unity with the goy majority. Jewish immigrants to Palestine didn't strive to be New Palestinians or leaders of the Palestinian people. Jews felt that the Palestinians would reject the Jews, and they in turn resolutely rejected the Palestinians as long-term national brethren. In the US, Jews did everything possible to take over as the New Elites by toppling the Wasp elites(who were traditionally the brain-center of America) but feel no organic connection with white goyim. They feel as conquerors than as consecrated with the task of serving as the new leaders of the white race, not least because Jewish history in the White World has often been contentious, troublesome, and problematic, even leading to traumatic events like Jewish role in communism(that led to deaths of millions of Christian Slavs) and the Shoah(in which Nazi Germans killed millions of Jews). But then, white people were also stupid to allow Jews to take over as the new elites. To be sure, MOST white people had nothing to do with the transition of elite power to the Tribe. Jews took over because the Wasp elites lost their will, confidence, and resolve to keep power for themselves in the name of the greater white race. Just like the horse doesn't decide whom it belongs to, the great white majority didn't choose Jews as new elites. Rather, Wasp elites sold or surrendered the title to the Jews, and that key decision put ALL OF AMERICA under the control of Jews.
Of course, Jews had artfully manipulated the rules of the game set forth by Anglo-Americans so that they would benefit most with their higher IQ, pushier personalities, deeper identities, and tribal networking. Anglo-Americans had made a big deal of America as the land of freedom, fairness, justice, and meritocracy, and this was something Jews could toy with to mess with Wasp minds. Jews or BUGS(busy urban globalist semites), with their higher IQ, sensed that they could use the Anglo-American-made system to expose the failings, hypocrisies, and contradictions of Americanism. Jews, by hyper-idealizing Americanism as a Utopian vision, de-legitimized White Power by demonstrating that it had failed to turn the US into a ‘perfect union’. It’s like how Ayn Rand hyper-idealized American capitalism and threw tantrums about how it failed to live up to the ideal of perfect private enterprise and total individualism. Jews of all stripes, from left to right, effectively damned White America by praising it. By praising it as the New Eden founded on shining principles, they had reasons to find fault everywhere as no society can come close to perfection. A nation is real before ideal, and most white Americans had known this as they weren’t radicals. They took pride in America being an improvement on the Old World in many ways, but few believed that America was or could be a Nation of Perfection. In contrast, Jews came to the US with fulsome praise, and initially such flattery made a positive impression on the Anglo-American elites. In some ways, these enthusiastic dreamy-eyed Jews seemed to love America even more than white Americans did. Jews seemed to idealize and romanticize America beyond what it was about. What Anglo-Americans failed to realize was that it was a Jewish Hustle, conscious or subconscious. By overly praising America as an ideal nation, Jews were laying the grounds for exposing the myriad ways in which White Americans(especially the Anglo-American elites) had failed to create heaven-on-earth. And as Jewish criticism got ever more vicious and venomous(especially after World War II when Jews felt that immigration-restriction and FDR's foot-dragging had prevented the saving of more Jewish lives from the European conflagration), successive generations of white elites lost confidence and pride in their history. They would have been less upset with faults found in a Real Nation, but as Jews pushed the template of America as an Ideal Nation, every American failing became magnified as especially tragic, sinful, and unforgivable. Thus, the Anglo-American elites were softened up for the kill.
It’s like an octopus injects enzymes into a crab and turns its flesh into liquid before sucking it up. Likewise, Jews injected a ‘tenderizing’ substance into the crab-minds of white elites, and once white minds were turned to mush with ‘white guilt’, the Jewish octopus sucked it up and took over. It’s like that film UNDER THE SKIN in which space aliens lure humans into a trap where their inner flesh and blood are sucked out. Jews are expert-hustlers and con-men, and one needs to be especially vigilant when they come bearing gifts and favors. Jews never give just to give for the sake of generosity or magnanimity. Jews give to take back much more. It's like the fisherman offers worms to fish only to catch the fish. It’s like business of money-lending. You are not really giving the money but only loaning it to get back More Money. When Jews shower you with gifts, aid, or flattery, it is almost never out of good-will, compassion, or respect. Jews are acting with expectations that you will be hooked to their scheme and end up forking over much more back to the Jew. When Jews sold opium to the Chinese, did they really care about the well-being of the users? No, the users were offered visions of bliss and peace, but they were really being addicted to the drug and thus willing to hand over all their money to the Jews to get a another dosage of false paradise. So, one must be most wary and suspicious when Jews act kindly and generous. Such Jews are really up to no good. If anything, one reason why even genuine goy goodwill toward the Jew makes so little impression is because Jews think (1) the goyim must be like us Jews and offering gifts merely to trick us OR (2) goyim must be really dumb to waste sympathy on a people as cunning and sneaky as us Jews. A most useful rule of thumb is NEVER TRUST JEWS. Remember how Google hustled all of us? Google Jews said they would never do evil and would be fair and neutral. Trusting the Jews, so many people around the world opted to use Google as the best, most honest, and fair-minded search engine. But once Google gained monopoly position, it began to rig algorithms and manipulate results so that the entire world would be shaped by Jewish supremacist and globo-homo bias and agendas. What a vile people: A bunch of vipers and hustlers. No wonder Jews came to be loathed in so many nations. It is about time for Americans to wake up and admit that they also made the mistake of giving Jews a chance because, as recent history has shown, when Jews get the upper-hand, all principles go out the window in the game of "Is it good for Jews?" Just ask the Palestinians if Jews act with any decency or principle on matters regarding what they really want? If Jews want it, they will do just about anything, no matter how lowdown and dirty, to get it. Long ago, Jews settled on 'gay marriage' and pulled every shtick to bend the laws and subvert the culture to make globo-homo-mania as the new reigning faith of the West. Sadly, dirty Jews lead, dumb goyim follow.


Often in life, what really matters is not Either/Or but Which/Order. While some things must indeed be discarded, with other things it’s really a matter of which goes where. For example, sardines don’t belong on a hamburger, but there is a place for the buns, burger, lettuce, pickles, tomatoes, and onions in an hamburger. So, making a good hamburger is a matter of putting the ingredients in the right order and in the right amount. Should the hamburger patty go between the buns or should the bun go between the patties? Should the vegetables go on top of the patty or below? When it comes to liberalism and conservatism, a similar dynamics apply. We need both, not one or the other. The real question is what goes where? While a horse in front of the buggy and buggy in front of the horse have the same components, one will work while the other will not.
The problem with our current world is what might be called Inversionism, i.e. the natural order of things have been inverted. Liberalism must be like the horse that pulls the buggy, but we have a situation where the buggy is expected to pull the horse. Or imagine the solar system where the planets are at the center while the Sun is expected to revolve around them. In a sane and sober world of both conservatism and liberalism, the sexual deviants should be at the periphery of society and culture. As most people are normal-straight-male-female-real or NSMFR, they should constitute the CORE of society. Still, as some people are indeed born with weird deviancies, a society should be liberal and open-minded enough to accept them for what they are. At this point, it should be obvious to all that some people are born homosexual and have tendencies at odds with most people. Conservatism must insist on the dominance of straight society as the backbone of life and morals. But liberalism should urge people to be open-minded and tolerant enough to accept that some people are born with sexual deviancies, and it’s not their fault. But we have now gone way past that. In our Jew-run Globalist World Order, we are to believe that homos and trannies deserve the central place in sexual politics, morality, and even spirituality. (We went from 'God hates fags' to 'god loves fags'.) Under globo-homo regimen, all of straight society must revolve around such deviants and freaks.

Sex change surgery (Transsexed). pic.twitter.com/W5jQk5dMqO

— Learn Something (@EarnKnowledge) August 14, 2019

We must elevate homos and trannies as the true paragons of virtue. According to the new globo-homo theology, instead of homos seeking redemption by repenting their sins before the eyes of God, we are to believe that god and jesus value nothing more highly than a bunch of men who indulge in fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting. But then, the domination of Jews is itself the central problem of the Current West. In the US and other Western nations, Jews are just a tiny minority. Proportionately, the US has more Jews than most European nations, but even in the US the Jewish population constitutes only 2% of the population. And yet, we’ve been told that the principal purpose of America is to serve Jews, obey Jews, admire Jews, appease Jews, and worship Jews. Is it natural for a society that is only 2% Jewish to hyper-emphasize Jewish interests, Jewish power, and Jewish privilege to such degree, especially when Jews are known to have a 'jealous' personality for whom enough is never enough(just like the Jewish God could tolerate no god before Him)? This is especially galling since the US bills itself as a liberal democracy of equality under the law. If so, why does American Power operate in the Imperial mode, not unlike the British minority elite rule over India and other parts of the world? Why are Jews above the law, rules, and principles? Indeed, Jews even piss on the very rules that they push on everyone else, especially whites.

Jews say whites must forgo and even denounce any semblance of white identity because there is no place for such mindset in a nation that is all about individualism and universal values. And yet, the FIRST thing that Jews demand of whites once whites give up their own identity is: "You whites must do everything to serve us Jews, our Jewish interests, and secure our Jewish supremacist hegemony around the world." Once again, it’s the con-game of the Jewish Hustle. If indeed whites must abandon their own identity and interests as deracinated individuals committed to ‘universal’ and/or ‘cosmopolitan’ values, why are they then pressed upon to support Zionist tribal-supremacism against Palestinians, Israeli imperialism against Iran, and Jewish globalist hegemonism against Russia? Just think about this. Imagine if the Jew and you both have a gun. The Jew calls for disarmament, and so, out of goodwill you put your gun on the ground... but the Jew still holds the gun and then orders you about. THAT is how Jews play the game. Jews tell others to lose their tribalism while clinging to their own tribalism even harder and demanding that all goyim serve, obey, and worship the Jews as god-men.

This is why white people need to conceive of and forge their own formulas for conservatism and liberalism. Don’t let Jews decide what ‘conservatism’ or ‘liberalism’ should mean for you. In the US, Jews got to define the meaning and purpose of both through their control of media, academia, think-tanks, and the Deep State... and guess what? Both the GOP and Democratic Party tell us that Americanism, ‘right’ or ‘left’, is essentially about praising Jews, serving Jews, obeying Jews, promoting Zionist imperialism, and worshiping Israel.
But then, why should it surprise anyone that Jews defined ideologies in such manner? As a people who put identity and tribalism before ideology and values, Jews were bound to mold either ideology, ‘left’ or ‘right’, to mainly further the agenda of "Is it good for Jews?" Then, the most important thing for white people is to define their own ideology and values as being grounded in their own identity, heritage, and culture. Letting Jews define your politics and values would be like the US letting the Soviets build the US embassy(or the Soviets letting the US build the Soviet embassy). Jews are going to rig the game, just like the US embassy built by Russian workers in the Soviet Union was bound to be riddled with bugs and espionage devices. Would you trust your rival or enemy to design your weapon, vehicle, or fortress? Of course not. He will surely game the design not to serve you but to serve his own advantage is getting the better of you. Even if YOU may not see the Jews as the enemy, the fact is Jewish Power sees you as the enemy. You can love the enemy all you want, but if the enemy insists on seeing you as the enemy, you will be marked for ruin and all your love would have been wasted. Jews see white goyim as either enemy or slave. Any free, independent, and confident white person is regarded as an enemy because such a person may notice Jewish power and challenge it. Such a white person must be destroyed in will, mind, and spirit. He must be eliminated or turned into a slave, and then and only then can the Jew accept his existence.

Anyway, is it natural that Jews, who are only 2% of the US population, should rule the US? Isn’t it an inversion of the natural way? Shouldn’t the goy majority have power over the Jews? In a way, Jewish rule in the US is both natural and unnatural. It’s natural in the sense that quality often beats quantity. It’s like there are many more community colleges than elite Ivy League colleges, but the latter make far bigger impact because they attract the top talents. And a handful of humans can control entire herd of cattle. In a similar way, Jews have lots of power in the US due to their talent, will, and power of personality.
And yet, Jewish Rule is also unnatural because Jews have power beyond what their talent would merit. Lots of Jews have been favored up the ladder by nepotism, tribalism, and gangsterism. Also, too many criminal Jews have been let off the hook by other tribesmen in high places. More problematic is the fact that Jews are dishonest about the extent of their power. Unlike Wasps in America and British imperialists in India, Jews don’t admit that they have the ruling power in the US. So, we have a situation where the most powerful group in the US acts like the most pitiable victim group. This is very unnatural and very unhealthy for the state of the nation. Not only power but truth itself has been inverted. Once lies become cancerous, they spread and spread. Then, it is any wonder that New Feminism has come to prioritize the ‘needs’ of tranny men who claim to be ‘women’ over the needs of real women? We are now to believe that a man-pretending-to-be-woman should be allowed to compete in women’s sports even though, on the bio-physical level, women cannot compete with men in any meaningful way. How did such lies become the ‘truth’? Because fish rots from the head, and the culture of lies emanates from the Jewish elites who now govern and disgrace the once great US of A. In EXCALIBUR, Merlin says, "When a man lies, he murders some part of the world." When Jewish elites lie, they indeed murder the world in more ways than one. And much of the murder is literal as so many innocent lives have been wasted by Wars for Israel cooked up by vile and disgusting lies of Jewish supremacist cretins.

Finally, liberalism must emanate from something. On its own, it loses in value real fast. It’s like aroma must be attached to something. Smell of coffee without coffee is useless. Smell of bread without the bread leaves people hungry. And even the spirit must emanate from the human body. While Christianity believes in life-after-death for the soul/spirit, each soul/spirit is brought into the word in the first place with the emergence of the body. Just like sensations cannot exist without the body, liberalism will soon wither and die without conservatism to serve. Why have Western universities become such a joke? Because their liberalism has become detached from conservatism. Universities are by nature both a conservative and liberal institution. It is the repository and conveyor of the best of human knowledge, histories & narratives, and ideas & values. Every generation of students learns about the past, heritage, and history in college. But if colleges only stuck with existing knowledge, they wouldn’t broaden one's horizons and come upon new ideas and possibilities. Thus, universities offer conserved knowledge in constant discourse with new critiques and perspectives(often liberal in spirit). But in recent times, the universities(especially with the advent of Jews, boomers, and radicals) have mostly dispensed with respect for history and heritage — apparently, there are too many ‘dead white males’ among the giants in the history of ideas, inventions, and creations — , and the end-result has been a liberalism that has been severed from conserved knowledge and the culture of respect. Such liberalism may initially feel liberated but soon feels confused and listless as it has lost a particular perspective from which to broaden its vision. For there to be subjectivism, it must be grounded in objectivism. Each of us has our subjective view of things because we objectively exist. So, even though our subjective reality stumbles upon new things, it is always through the objectivity of one’s existence and biography. Likewise, Western universities used to be about the Western perspective. They were about learning more about the wider world and deeper reality, but it had a sense of its own origins, interests, vantage point, and experiences rooted in the Western Experience. It’s like every idea has special meaning because each person comes to it in his or her own way. It isn’t merely the idea that matters but how it’s come to have meaning for each person with his/her own realizations and reasons. Because the Western university is the product of Western history, it was only natural that it has been about the story of the West gaining knowledge of the bigger and wider world. Then, it made sense to trace back into Western history to understand why the West came to believe what it did and how those beliefs shaped its historical adventure in the discovery of more about humanity, the world, and the cosmos. It's like the study of space and the universe has special meaning to us only from the vantage point of our human-ness. While objective reality of the universe is independent of what WE think about it, the fact is mankind came up with stuff like mythology, science, and astronomy because it is the nature of man to ask questions and seek the unknown to better understand the world around us. Universe doesn’t need us, but astronomy has no meaning apart from mankind’s need to know the universe. Universe pre-existed mankind, but astronomy developed from mankind’s perspective on the universe. It’s just the way of things.

Likewise, liberalism is the curiosity or sensuality that extends from the core conservative essence of man. In a way, every life is conservative in this way: Everyone tries to remain alive by doing what is necessary to self-preservation: Food, clothing, shelter, and etc. Even the most proggy ‘liberal’ expends most of his or her energy on self-preservation, on conserving himself or herself(even if he or she may not be aware of it).
Now, if it’s natural for an individual to prioritize self-preservation, it’s only natural for a particular society to preserve its characteristics because it is a unity of individuals bound together by shared identity, culture, and/or history. And until recently, what gave Western liberalism meaning was as a furtherance and expansion of a people, culture, and heritage whose roots extended back to Europe. Just like, no matter how adventurous and far-traveling a man may be, he is nothing more(and less) than what he is, liberalism has meaning only as the extension of a particular entity rooted in and shaped by its own past, memory, and perspective. Take a mountain. Suppose there’s a man who’s always lived near it and another man who came upon it from faraway. Objectively, it’s the same mountain to both individuals, but it has entirely different subjective meaning to each. For one, it’s the same old mountain he’s known since childhood. It is part of 'home'. To the other, it is a great discovery, a thing of thrill and excitement. To understand the ‘meaning’ of the mountain, we need to understand the perspective of those who know or come to know of it. This is why it’s stupid for people to complain that Western Liberalism has been Eurocentric. No kidding. Even as the West came to seek the objective truth via hard sciences, the story of knowledge is necessarily the story of how a people came to know the world, themselves, and the universe in their own way. Perhaps, because the West has done the most to unite the world and dominate so many fields of knowledge for all of humanity, much of humanity came to expect white folks to have something akin to super-human powers to rise above all particularities and subjectivity. Therefore, when they realize that Western Knowledge has been shaped by the ‘Eurocentric’ story of discovery, they see nothing but fault.
What this illustrates is that we need to realize that, while there is an objective world out there independent of what we think, all people are bound by their own stories and perspectives. In this way, every society has a core conservative component in its self-definition. No society can be expected to conserve or preserve everything. Just like it’s up to Hindus to preserve Hinduism, white people must preserve and defend what is uniquely theirs. (Liberal impulse can be either objectivist or subjectivist. It can be about breaking free of one's particularist/narrow culture & customs and examining the world with reason, logic, and facts to arrive at an objective materialist understanding of the world. But it can also be 'romantic' in its subjectivist insistence on the need for the individual to follow his bliss and seek his own personal truth based on creativity, imagination, and dreams regardless of limits imposed by morality, materiality, and logic. The latter kind of liberal impulse is especially fascinated with Nietzsche and Heidegger who favored subjectivism over objectivism.) Also, liberalism has long-term value only as an extension and expansion of something with a core. Liberalism is like the atmosphere around the Earth. It is vital to life, but it cannot exist without the Earth’s core and main body. Atmosphere envelopes the planet; it cannot be the core of the planet. Often, liberalism is a feeling, an impression of things. It isn’t merely about dry knowledge but a want of release, a love for adventure, a certain curiosity. All such are passions of sorts, and passion emanates from life itself. Even though passions seek to go beyond the norm & mundane, they are doomed unless they preserve the life from which they emanate. One may have a passion for sky-diving, but he better be sure the plane and parachute are all in order. In the end, the passion must serve the life, the body, not the other way around. While passion takes risks, it can lead to new sensations and knowledge that enrich the life of the body. But if it takes risk to the point to grave self-harm or death, it will perish on the altar of its mad whimsy. In the current (dis)order, liberalism is so decoupled from conservatism that it has become, for so many, the game of passion-for-passion’s-sake or pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake. It’s fallen into a tailspin of its own delirium. It’s sort of like the Burt Lancaster character in THE SWIMMER who spent his life chasing after fun after fun, delight after delight, joy after joy, until he has lost everything and doesn’t even have a home to return to... but he’s so divorced from reality that he fails to even realize that he no longer has a home and family.

Liberalism without anything to serve becomes a kind of nihilism. It’s like passion run free. Passion for passion’s sake. But without anything to serve, passion loses its nobility. (It's also like youth that fails to understand
that it is a stage in life and a learning process for adulthood and more meaningful & maturer existence. The youth-centrism of the 60s has been especially damaging as so many boomers failed to grow up and remain stuck in their youth-centric mentality. Thus, youth has gone from a time of learning and basis for future growth to the cult of forever-young. Is it any wonder that there are now so many pathetic men and women who age disgracefully and seek to remain or regain relevance with youth-centrism by dyeing their hair green, getting tattoos, or jumping on the latest faddish bandwagon wheeled out by the powers-that-be in media and entertainment? Among the Pussy-hatters were so many older women in vagina-suits who should have known better. So many people seem to be aging backward, growing more childish and insipid as they grow older. Unable to handle maturation as they are stuck in youth-dom, they desperately try ever harder to be forever-young. It's like the now sorry sight of Mick Jagger still romping on the stage as hot stuff. In the end, boomers were far less dangerous as youths than as elders. When they were goofing around in the 60s, the US still had many people who were older, sober, and mature enough to maintain the core culture and values of the nation. But as they died off over the years and boomers took over as the Old Generation, we have immaturity across the age demographic from youths to seniors. A truly sorry sight.) In a way, it even loses its reason for passion. Passion is exciting because of the sense of release from our limitations. It’s like flight was marvelous when mankind had been bound to the earth. Perhaps, because so many people take so many essential things necessary to life for granted and don’t worry about survival or self-preservation, their liberal energies have grown decadent: No longer in service of the essential core but merely a means to have fun or seek thrills. This is true of all modern peoples, but Jews and Hindus have been able to somewhat counter the decadence of liberal energies by constantly reminding their members of the absolute importance of preserving the Covenant or Dharma.

Just like a soldier has to serve a nation or cause, liberalism has to serve something. Also, it cannot serve everything as nothing can. Even universal ideologies demand that its adherents stick to a narrow and specific set of values and principles. Islam is open to all, but all must submit to Islamic dogma. Communism was a universal ideology but insisted upon all comrades to conform to the ideology of class struggle as the central force of history.
We can have a world where each people stick with their particularist identities/cultures OR we can have a world where all peoples agree upon a narrow universal dogma. In a way, particularism can be universalist in the sense that all of humanity can mutually agree with the principle that each people have its own culture, mythos, narratives, and land worth preserving. Thus, the various peoples remain distinct but universally respect and acknowledge these differences. Or, universalism can be particularist in the sense that all of humanity may come to agree that all peoples must submit to a narrow set of ideological or theological principles.
After all, universalism is impossible as unifying political system if every group insists on believing their own stuff as one unified people. Rather, all peoples must be forced to adhere to the a set of shared icons and narratives, and in order for those themes to have the power to unite all, they must be narrow and rigid, compulsory and mandatory. Whether Christianity, Islam, Communism, or PC(with its neo-trinity of Jew Worship, Negro Worship, and Homo Worship), the universalism that is disseminated is not an anything-goes mind-set but the unity of minds in their submission to rigid set of doctrines, iconography, and/or narratives. One can universally tolerate a world of distinct & separate paritcularisms, or enforce a particular dogma as a universalism upon a humanity forced to live as ONE people. Universalism simply cannot allow all ideas for all peoples as there would to be too many differences and dissensions.

Liberalism is useful as an extension of conservatism, as something that emanates and expands outward from conservatism. It must not serve as the central defining principle of any society. Just like a diver needs a diving board and a rocket needs a launch pad, liberalism needs something from which to spring. And even as it leaps high, it must come back to ground. It’s like astronauts go into space but only to return to tell us about what they learned about what is OUT THERE. Atmosphere, as a periphery, does wonders for Earth, but we know the center of Earth cannot be made of atmosphere. The whole thing will just implode as gases don’t have the power and mass to support the structure of the planet. The fatal mistake of the West has been putting liberalism at the center of its organizing principle. Liberality must serve something that is deeper, harder, and more stable. It's like the experiments in space in the movie GRAVITY are possible only because humanity is grounded on Earth that is hospitable to life. There is a will and drive within us to venture further and know more, but we must ultimately come back down to ground, and that sense of 'home' is conservatism. Just like a person feels most at ease and peace at home, a people and culture need a place to call home where they can feel as the makers, owners, and claimants without apology or justification. Jews sought to regain their lost homeland because they'd been 'neuroticized' and even traumatized by having no place where they could lie down and relax with the sure knowledge that it's their home. Now, Jews have such a place, but their greed isn't content with homeland and must totally erase what is left of the Palestinian homeland. Also, Jews not only want a world of their own in Israel but want the World as their oyster and go about fulfilling this mad vision by undermining the claims of homeland for goy nations.

So, while all societies have much to gain from liberalism, liberalism must serve what is particular to that society. So, liberalism for Germany, liberalism for Japan, liberalism for Turkey, and etc. will all differ. While all societies, despite their differences, will gain something from an attitude of tolerance, curiosity, creativity, adventurous spirit, and even a bit of radical will, the ultimate question rests on, "How can we use greater freedom and tolerance to ultimately serve OUR people and enrich OUR culture?" Jews understand this, which is why Jewish Liberalism ultimately serves Jewish identity and culture. The problem is not Jews being mindful of their own identity and interests(to the point where their use of ideology is molded to serve identity/interests) but (1) Jews urging goyim to forgo their identities & interests in total commitment to absolute liberality and pure universalism, ALL THE WHILE urging the then deracinated goyim to support Jewish supremacism & Zionist tribalism and (2) so many goyim falling for this BS shtick, which only convinces Jews further that goyim are so stupid that they deserve to live as mental-chattel of the Jews. What is worst about the Jewish peddling of ‘liberal cosmopolitanism’ and ‘culture of tolerance’ is the sheer dishonesty and hypocrisy, the ONLY underlying consistency being "Is it good for Jewish Supremacism?"
While placing liberalism at the center of worldview and value-system is unwise, we could at least appreciate Jews for their honesty and commitment IF INDEED they themselves practiced what they preached unto others. Jesus preached and then practiced what He preached, dying a terrible death as sacrifice for the redemption of humanity, or so the Christian theology says. But Jews never practice what they preach to others. Surely, many have observed that Jewish moral logic revolves around goyim being mindful of having wronged the Jews and Jews being mindful of having been wronged by goyim; there is precious little about Jews being mindful of having wronged the goyim; it's almost as if Jews regard themselves as a perfect god-like race that never does wrong unto others while always being wronged by others. With their god-complex, Jews feel they are above the law, and therefore, their violation of decency against goyim is okay because anything that makes Jews feel good must be good because Jews are godly in relation to filthy goyim; in contrast, nothing the goyim do for the Jews can be good enough even when they go out of their way to appease the Tribe because Jews, being god-like, always deserve more and better. Jewish Morality is a Master Morality whereby they are owed everything by the goyim who, however, are owed nothing by the Jews. Jews own, goyim owe.
Jewish idea of universal moral consensus is both goyim and Jews being conscious of goy guilt. You see, then Jews and goyim can 'universally' agree on something: Goy Guilt and Jewish Innocence. Notice there is NOTHING about Jews, let alone goyim, being mindful of Jewish Guilt. That being the case, how can we expect any kind of truth & sincerity from Jews? Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, Jewish individuals who are mindful of the problems of Jewishness and Jewish power, but by and large, most Jewish Power is incredibly disingenuous. Brother Nathanael is one righteous Jew.

If you try to point out their hypocrisies, Jews either throw tantrums or act like they have NO IDEA what you’re talking about when, in fact, they damn well know deep down inside. "Jews control the media? Hollywood? Wall Street? Deep State? Huh? Where did you get that idea? Why... you must be a paranoid, delusional, and crazy Anti-Semite." It’s like Jews brag about how they push for agendas to replace white people in Western nations, but if whites finally bring up this issue, Jews act like they never heard of such idea.

Jews may be smart and intellectual, but all those years of haggling as merchants and hair-splitting as Rabbinical scholars didn’t do much for their integrity and honesty. Most merchants will lie and cheat to maximize profits, and Rabbinical scholarship rested on trying to figure out the mind of God who was never really straight with humanity. In being so obsessed with the mind of God, Jews developed a god-complex when it came to goyim. (But then, what is the Jewish God but the projection of the difficult Jewish personality onto the entire universe? Jewish God is the reflection of the Jewish ego onto the sky as mirror.) What God is to Jews, Jews are to goyim... or so the Jews think. So, just as, no matter what Jews think of the difficult & mysterious God, they must honor, trust, and worship Him at the end of the day; it follows that no matter what goyim think of the difficult & deceitful Jews, they must honor, praise, and obey the Tribe at the end of the day.

Anyway, because liberalism is too thin, flimsy, and shallow as a central thesis of society, it only creates conditions for its own implosion and demise once it becomes detached from its conservative foundation. Now, when I say liberalism is ‘thin, flimsy, and shallow’, I don’t mean it is inherently bad or useless. Rather, the worth of something depends on how and where it is used. It’s like icing has value on top of the cake, not on the bottom. Same goes for liberalism. Because liberalism-as-centrism is a weak formula, it craves for something more substantive, tangible, and ‘hard’ to serve as support system, anchor, or new foundation; it's like dandelion seeds may float around freely but ultimately seek moist soil in which to spread its roots. This is why, in the West, the so-called triumph of Liberalism as the ‘end of history’ has led to what is really an illiberal order where the central themes are Jew-Worship, Negro-Worship, and Homo-Worship. As Liberal ideology was too weak as guiding, governing, and organizing principle, the real power came to be defined by Jews who formulated the ideology of ‘liberalism’ toward mainly serving Jewish Identity. (Even Negro-Worship and Homo-Worship have been engineered by Jews to indirectly and ultimately serve Jewish interests. Jews use blacks to push ‘white guilt’ and white cuckery, and Jews use vain & narcissistic homos to concoct globo-homo-mania as substitute for Christianity and goy family values. For those in the know, it’s no mystery that the ‘gay agenda’ has been the proxy tool of Jewish supremacists from day one. Jews set their eyes on a long-term target and then go about doing everything, by hook and by crook, to get what they want. Long ago, Jews decided that Queertianity would replace Christianity, and day after day, year after year, decade after decade, they changed the goal posts until they finally got what they wanted. What is truly pathetic is not only the silence among Christians who are too afraid of Jewish foulness but their numbnut embrace of globo-homo as the highest value of christianity, indeed as if jesus died on the cross to elevate homo-fecal penetration and tranny-penis-cutting as the highest values.)

What is called ‘liberalism’ in the West of the End-of-History is anything but. What now defines the West is not universal liberality(that too many people find confusing, alienating, and overly generic) but identity politics centered around Jewish Power. Even in the field of Identity Politics, we know some identities are ‘more equal’ than others. Just ask the Palestinians in the US and Europe. They will tell you that all these so-called ‘liberal’ white politicians almost always favor Jewish power and Zionist agendas over the most basic human rights of the Palestinians. So much for End-of-History where liberalism is triumphant against all forms of tribalism. And if the New Liberal Order is about freedom of individuals over the interests of the Tribe, why is blackness prized over other identities? Why does the West make such a big fuss about Mandela while ignoring the lifetime of struggle of Yassir Arafat? Why so many narratives about blacks in America while almost nothing about American Indians who suffered the greatest tragedy by far: Whereas blacks still have Africa as their homeland, American Indians truly lost their homeland forever to whites, Jews, and masses of immigrant-invaders. If End-of-History is all about individualism, why do the Jew-run media make a big fuss about black thugs killed by cops while enforcing near-total silence about so many whites and non-blacks who’ve been robbed, raped, and murdered by blacks? And why are homos favored over incest-sexuals and other degenerates? Why makes homo-and-tranny perversion so special and precious compared to other forms of sexual deviance?

Francis Fukuyama is really just a shill of Jewish Tribal Supremacism. He's hardly different from Fareed Zakaria who cheerleads the Zionist supremacist destruction of much of the Middle East.

So-called End-of-History is not about the triumph of individualism in the sense that every individual is regarded equally. No, it’s about the Power of Individuals who achieved the most in money and influence, and as many such individuals happen to be Jewish in many elite fields, blacks in sports & pop music, and homos in various fields of design & creativity, the End-of-History has resulted in the elevation of three particular identities above all others. Now, it’s theoretically possible that successful Jews, blacks, and homos could have just acted as individuals than members of particular groups, but that is NOT how the game panned out. Successful Jewish individuals colluded with other Jews to lobby for Jewish and Zionist interests. Blacks in sports and music don’t merely regard themselves as successful individuals who happen to be black but as BLACK individuals whose success represents cultural prestige for the black community. And homos are never about mere individualism but how all the fruitkins of the world must work together to spread Globo-Homo-Mania as the mass cult of every nation.
Francis Fukuyama the fool may think and act like an absolute individual, a cosmopolitan with no allegiance to anything in the world but freedom, liberty, and rule of law. But that is not how Jews, blacks, and homos regard themselves in the New World Order(or Jew World Order). Also, even Fukuyama is really just a shill and tool of the Jews because his shtick is full of hypocrisy in remaining silent about Zionist oppression of Palestinians, supporting Israel’s supremacist agenda against Syria & Iran, and pandering to Jewish tribal animus against Russia(that was economically raped by the Jews in the 90s, something Fukuyama almost never discusses). Indeed, the case of Fukuyama perfectly illustrates how liberalism, being too generic and directionless, ends up serving the New Boss of strong identity.

Liberalism is like a world with so many pathways. All those choices may feel liberating, but they're also perplexing and disorienting. The human body can take only so many paths, and the human mind can hold only so many ideas. In a world where a hundred schools of thought are allowed, most people will eventually settle on just a few and then maybe just one as the human mind simply cannot hold 100 different contending and/or contradictory ideas. And more often than not, the strongest idea is one that happens to be attached to a powerful identity with the will to spin a persuasive narrative. For example, the theme of freedom, justice, and liberation can be found among any people. Palestinians surely dream of freedom, justice, and liberation. But how come we care more about those themes as related to Jews? Because Jews got the more powerful personality and got the more power of intelligence & imagination to spin and spread their narrative-of-identity far and wide. Or take the Immigration Narrative. On matters of justice and freedom, one can associate immigration with brutality, imperialism, and genocide because, after all, masses of immigrants from the Old World came to drive out and replace the American Indians who were indigenous to the land. But one can also associate immigration with opportunity, growth, and freedom because so many immigrants in the US found better material lives and more freedom. The issue of Justice can be applied to both narratives, anti- and pro-immigration, but how come it is currently more associated with pro-immigration triumphalism than with anti-immigration tragedy-ism? Why do we care more about how Jews benefited from immigration to America than about how American Indians experienced 'genocide' at the hands of immigrants? The answer is the same as the one that pertains to Zionism. Why does America favor what Jews gained from immigrating to Palestine(that was turned into Israel) than what Palestinians lost as the result of Jewish immigration? Why do we care less about justice for Palestinians than freedom for Jews? It's because Jews amassed the power to attach certain positive themes to their identity and narratives.

Identity is essentially conservative. It is far less mutable than ideology, which is essentially liberal. Even conservative ideologies are ‘liberal’ in the sense of their abstraction, i.e. they can apply to any people. And even identities associated with liberalism are ‘conservative’ in the sense that they’re about ‘us versus them’, the ‘immutable us’, and ‘our unique experience’. When blacks yammer endlessly about justice and freedom, they are not only speaking as liberals in favor of more social equality for all of humanity regardless of race, color, or creed but as 'conservatives' who insist upon the BLACKNESS as the main owners of the themes of justice and freedom in America, thereby implying that BLACKS deserve more recognition and rewards as a people of unique identity and narrative.
In the end, as Identity-centrism that unites a people is more powerful than individual-centrism that atomizes members of any given group, the End-of-History has led to the triumph of powerful identities over weak individualities. For example, compare Jewish-Americans and Japanese-Americans. Jewish-Americans have succeeded as individuals but hold Jewish identity as more important than any single Jewish individuality. Thus, at the end of the day, Jewish individuals unite to serve Jewish identity. In contrast, Japanese-Americans, despite having done well for themselves as individuals, have no sense of greater Japanese-American identity. Indeed, Francis Fukuyama is a good example of this. So, who wins in the game of Jewish-American Identity-centrism vs Japanese-American Individual-centrism? The former of course, but what is truly amusing is that Fukuyama also mainly serves Jewish Identity than his own generic individuality. (Jews, despite having been separated from the Holy Land, feel a stronger connection to
Israel than the likes of Fukuyama feel toward Japan even though Fukuyama himself is separated from his ancestral homeland by just a couple of generations.) Despite all his liberal yammering about ‘end of history’, his heart is with the strong horse of Jewish Identity that controls all the institutions that can make or break someone like him. You won’t hear from Fukuyama about how Jews must forgo their tribal identity in favor of generic individuality, thereby allowing true justice for Palestinians. Fukuyama put liberalism at the center of his world-view, but the end-result has been his servility to the powerful Identity of Jews(and to Homos as proxies of Jewish supremacist Power).
The sudden implosion of Wasp power is a good indication of how liberalism and individual-centrism lose out to the crypto-conservatism of identity-centrism. It’s been said Episcopalians have IQ equal or even higher to that of Jews. So, why did their power and prestige fade so fast vis-a-vis Jews? They acted as mere individuals under generic liberalism, whereas Jews bonded together as a Tribal Identity that furthermore justified its hunger for more power on the Narrative Hegemony of Special Tragedy. Identity is powerful, but one that is consecrated by tragic sympathy is even more so. Justified Identity has decisive moral advantage over Judged Identities. In the West, Jews have made themselves, blacks, and homos the three most Justified Identities, whereas white goyim became mired with the most Judged Identity, and that explains why even rich and powerful white goyim are loathe to do anything for their own race and culture that are under judgement. Even Jewish Liberals are crypto-conservatives in insisting on the importance of their identity uber alles. Indeed, notice how these Liberal Jews berate Donald Trump for his ‘racism’ but complain least about where Trump is most bigoted and hateful: Preference for Zionist imperialism against the hapless Palestinians living in poverty under Jewish supremacist-imperialist tyranny.

The reason why Liberalism ends up betting on the strong horse is because only such a power can hold the peace in a world of so many divergent liberties and contentious individualities. Only such a force can generate enough gravitational pull to create some semblance of order, structure, and pattern. Identity unites by adulation and animus. In the British Empire, the diverse non-white subjects were united in their awe & reverence for the mighty Great White Man and in their sanctioned hatred against whatever the Empire deemed to be the Bad Guy. British Identity decided what the diverse subjects must respect and revile. So, when the British Empire said the Germans are the BAD GUYS, plenty of non-white subjects fought for the Queen against the 'Huns'. The current Jewish globo-homo empire operates in much the same way. It unites the various goyim in their awe and reverence for the Jews and in their hatred against what the Jewish Power deems as especially evil: White National Liberationists, Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, and Christian Conservatives.
We know order is impossible in a classroom where every student is allowed to do his or her thing. The only way to ensure any order is by having a teacher lead the classroom or by having the top bully terrorize everyone until all the classroom looks up to him as the defacto ‘leader’(like how the alpha kid anoints himself leader and enforces his will in LORD OF THE FLIES). The big lie of liberalism is that its triumph will create a world of freedom where every individual will have his say and do his thing. In truth, it will result in excessive disorder than hankers for any kind of order. Furthermore, most people are incapable of thinking for themselves and need to be told what to think, how to feel, and what to believe(and whom to follow). Sad but true, which is why so many 'dittoheads' relied on Rush Limbaugh to be their voice while so many others looked to Rachel Maddow to speak for them(even when it came to something as ludicrous as Russia Collusion Hoax). Also, in a world of individual freedom, some individuals will gain far more wealth, power, and influence than other individuals; and in cahoots with other powerful, influential, and/or well-positioned people, the super-successful individuals will create an agenda that is pushed on the entire population via media, academia, advertising, and other organs that are mostly monopolized by the oligarchs and their agents.
The closest that the so-called Liberal West came to something like true liberality was with the rise of the internet that allowed so many different voices to have their say and speak truth to power. But when the Powers-that-be felt threatened by such liberal freedoms, what did they do? They used their monopoly muscle of social network, finance, and distortions of the law to shut down BDS and counter-Jewish-supremacist voices as ‘hate speech’. In the current West, courageous white people and goyim speaking truth to Jewish supremacist power is ‘white supremacism’ or ‘hate speech’. When it comes to Jewish feelings, even blacks will not be spared if they dare to speak about the Jew. https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/marc-lamont-hill-politically-lynched-telling-truth-about-palestine I wonder... did cosmopolitan liberal Francis Fukuyama raise his voice in support of Marc Lamont's right to speak up on behalf of the much-maligned and oppressed Palestinians?

So much for End-of-History being the triumph of Liberalism. Even though Jews gained top position in the US by taking full advantage of liberal freedom and meritocracy ensured by Rule of Law, once ensconced as the ruling elites, they were more than willing to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to consolidate, keep, and further expand their power. And even though most liberals should be angry with such power-play on the part of Jews, they mostly go along with Jewish power because (1) they prefer any strong horse in a world of excessive disorder & chaos wrought by liberalism (2) they’ve been bribed by Jewish power & don’t want to lose their sinecures & prizes or (3) they are so stupid and shallow that they've sincerely swallowed the Jewish BS that true liberalism is about sucking up to Jews, blacks, & homos at the expense of the rest of mankind and silencing all voices that are critical of Jewish power, Black idolatry, and Homo deification as ‘hate speech’.

In the end, liberalism cannot tolerate everything as each and every idea is inherently intolerant. The monotheism of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are intolerant of atheism or polytheism. Also, true Judaism must be hostile toward Christianity, and vice versa. Jews believe they are the Chosen and that Jesus was a heretic traitor. Christians believe Jews killed the Son of God and refuse to share God with all of mankind. Muslims believe that both Judaism and Christianity were corrupted and it was Muhammad who laid down the final word on Allah. All three religions are virulently intolerant of sensual decadence of the kind found in the current neo-pagan West. They are totally anti-homo, and yet, liberals assure us that Christianity and Islam can happily co-exist with globo-homo garbage that now desecrates so many churches and even encroaches upon mosques via cuck-Muslim homos and trannies whose highest value is vanity and self-worship. If we sincerely and carefully consider every religion, every philosophy, and every worldview, they are intolerant because they must be. Every idea is, after all, a proposal for a Better World, and in order for its agenda to be realized, counter-ideas must be crushed, banished, criminalized, or sidelined. At best, counter-ideas could be tolerated but they must also be marginalized, like in the current US where criticism of Zionism is officially tolerated but effectively muted by the sheer power of the Zionist power bloc. You can decry Zionism in the name of free speech, but you will be denied entry and success in most fields and occupations by Jewish neo-gangsters of ADL and SPLC that threaten any business or institution with defamation and ruin if it were to harbor 'anti-semites'.
Zionism could not prevail in the US if BDS & Palestinian Rights got equal hearing from most Americans, especially the powerful ones. Thus, even if liberalism allows a hundred schools of thought, one or few schools invariably come to dominate and effectively silence other schools either through suppression or marginalization. The White Identity School of Thought in the US is not yet illegal and it has the protection of liberal tolerance. But it’s been effectively sidelined because Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, control most of the channels of information and discourse and made it very clear to all would-be successful people that THERE IS A SERIOUS PRICE TO PAY for those who dare to consider the validity of white identity and interests especially in relation to the demands of Jewish Supremacism(that pretends to be ‘liberal’ and for ‘equality’). Well, just ask the Palestinians how fair-minded Jewish power is.