Limits of Putinism in Russia and the Need for Themocracy — Duality of Human Nature to be Free and to Serve Something — Why Russia must become a Fascist-Democracy like Israel as National Entity

Vladimir Putin can only do so much and stick around for only so long.
Russian people must mature and learn to become great on their own.
Russia has huge advantages. If Germans or Japanese(or past Anglos) had open access to all that land and resources, Russia would be the #2 or #3 economy in the world in no time.

Russia has:

1. Large enough population with decent enough IQ.

2. Lots of land.

3. Tremendous resources.

4. National pride(something lacking in most white nations).

5. Moral capital(as victors over Nazis, survivors of communism, and resisters of Globo-Homo-mania).

But its economy is on par with that of Spain or Italy and only because of its resources in gas, oil, and minerals. Without those, Russian economy would be that of some third rate Middle Eastern nation. This simply isn't tolerable. Russians need to get their act together, and no leader, however great, is going to do it for them.

So, what do Russians need?

Culture of discipline
Culture of individuality
Culture of accountability
Culture of conscience
Culture of restraint(especially from vodka)
Culture of maturity(such as refraining from wrestling with bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis)


Russia needs a cultural revolution. The Orthodox Church needs to develop an activist wing that trains people like Jesuit cadres to spread and instill values of conscience, diligence, responsibility, and patriotism to ALL Russians.

Russia needs something like Protestant-Work-Ethic cultivation. Its rich elites need to be less lavish and corrupt, and its people need to be more enterprising and less dependent on statism.

A people can be statist and still be productive. Germans were always statist but economically highly productive. The state was always a big feature of France under monarchy and republican rule, but France made great strides just the same. While excessive statism can complicate things with too much red tape & regulations, there have many examples of nations failing despite their lack of 'big government'. The sudden lack of statism surely didn't do wonders for Russia in the 1990s.

In the end, the character of a people will be of paramount importance. Putin has been a good leader(given the alternatives), but he cannot do for Russians what Russians must learn to do for themselves. Granted, a truly great leader can alter the character of his people, but such a man must have vision and iron will. Putin is an able manager and serious statesman, but he's no visionary or prophet. He isn't the Russian Moses... or even a Russian Frederick the Great. A leader who changes the political course of his nation controls the winds. A leader who transforms the national character of his people moves mountains.

In the absence of a Russian Moses, Russians must learn to tell themselves... "WE can do it." For one thing, Russia is one of the few nations that could go it alone if it were forced too. Now, it's good for Russia to trade with the world, but even if Russia were hit by sanctions by the entire world, it could survive because it has enough land and resources. This is not an option for Japan, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and most nations. Germans have human capital but no energy. Saudis have energy but poor human capital and lots of desert.
Russia has people, land, and resources. It could develop great industries.
But there's too much corruption and lack of direction, and so, too many talented Russians prefer to move to other nations, especially in the EU and US. Unless Russian entrepreneurs can be assured of rule of law and a capable work force, they will be reluctant to invest fully in their own nation. For ambitious people, enough is not enough. They want to grow bigger and expand the economy, and this requires a support system of law, work ethic, and reliability. Naturally, we can understand why talented people anywhere would want to move to the US to make a quick buck in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc. Even though the US is culturally and morally decrepit, its Anglo-German-Dutch-American legacy of Rule of Law still allows for the kind of property rights and assurances that attract much capital. (But, it's unlikely that American Rule of Law will last very long given the look of California as the future of All America. With each passing year, the Golden State is looking more like a patchwork of Jewish oligarchy, Asian mandarin drones, white freaks & homo degenerates, and Third World serfdom.)

So, in order for Russia to keep its best talent, it has to ensure that the ideas and investments of the most ambitious/ingenious/industrious Russians will be protected and profitable. Also, Russia must appeal to their sense of patriotism, i.e. that, as patriots, they ultimately owe something to the motherland because, all said and done, dollars and rubles don't constitute the highest meaning of life. Furthermore, since smart people like creative stuff, Russians must create a counter-creative culture that defies the globo-homo-dominant fashions & trends of the West that are poisoning the world, not least by fooling so many that they're 'most evolved' for waving the 'gay rainbow' flags.

Putin was a necessary figure, but, especially as there doesn't seem to be a Russian Moses on the horizon, the next stage in Russian development must come from the Russian people themselves. They mustn't look to Putin as mother-bird who forever feeds the chicks in the big nest. Russians must go beyond nest-mentality and build Russia into a real aviary where every Russian can stand alone as well as together. Indeed, the best collective is one of strong individuals. While a collective of weak-willed people might have advantages over disunity among strong-willed-but-atomized individuals, the ideal is a unity of strong-willed individuals. Anglo-America of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century had both strong individualism and powerful sense of racial-national solidarity.

All Russians should tell themselves... "If Germans or Japanese had our land, they'd do great things. Then, why have we Russians have done so much less with all our blessings and advantages? Why isn't Russia a giant Prussia?" Indeed, if tiny Prussia with all its disadvantages could become so powerful, why has Russia always lagged so far behind? Granted, Russia achieved great things under Josef Stalin, but if a people must be whipped like horses and cattle to do great things, they will more cattle than human. The real question is, "Can Russians do great things as FREE people with a sense of agency and accountability?" That is the million ruble question.

Russians should also remind themselves... "A bunch of Anglos arrived on the East Coast of a wilderness called America. After independence, within a century and half, the US became the most powerful and richest nation on Earth. We have even more land and resources, but we achieved so much less. Why?"

By asking such questions, Russians can identify and fix the flaws of Russian character.

For much of Russian history, there was Tsarism and Orthodox culture that crushed individual initiative. Also, Russian elites, so into French and German culture, sought approval from foreign elites while treating their own people like dirt. Many preferred to speak French while regarding their mother tongue as vulgar and barbarian.
Communism was the great hope of uniting Russian elites and Russian masses, but communism crushed individual initiative and enterprise, and so, communism became like modern Tsarism. Furthermore, as non-Russians were dominant in the original Bolshevik Regime, Russian-ness was suppressed for a time in the USSR.

Because Russians lacked individual initiative and enterprising spirit, they were like deer in the headlight when communism ended. Instead of seeing the new order as a great opportunity for fresh possibilities, most Russians were just dazed and confused as they'd grown accustomed to jobs and benefits from the state. In the ensuing chaos, sharp-eyed globalists easily targeted and looted Russia, a nation where most people were clueless as to what to do, especially under the tutelage of the inept Boris Yeltsin. Implosion of statism didn't lead to the emergence of sturdy & sober individualism but bewilderment and nihilism. For many youths, freedom meant revelry and thuggery. For Jews and gangsters, it meant a fire-sale to grab all the good stuff. Among the decent and honorable, everything seemed hopeless as the new elites were utterly crooked while the masses mishandled freedom like children playing with fire. The end of communism was like the second end of serfdom in Russia, but the result was vagrancy than vibrancy. Especially as Jews grabbed so much of Russian resources, it was as if Russians lost not only their private wealth but national property. If Russians after communism had been more like enterprising Chinese(who were governed by strong leaders), they would have jumped at the chance of new opportunities.

Vladimir Putin and his cohorts restored some degree of political, social, and economic order, and that was for the good. But in the end, Putinism can only be a form of transitionalism. It can only provide a temporary respite during which Russians could take hold of their own future. It is a window of opportunity. But how many Russians have the foresight and fortitude to take advantage of the situation that won't last forever? How many want to step forward and take charge, as opposed to all those who are accustomed to having OTHERS fix the problems for them? As of now, most Russians are faced with two possibilities: The Western Model and the Russian Model. Both are bad.

The Western Model is, at least for now, good for innovation, creativity(except in PC-taboo areas), and initiative. Most of the innovations are coming out of the West and Westernized parts of the East. But the Western Model is too divorced from cultural roots, identity, and meaning. It cannot be sustained because Homomania, Afromania, and feminism cannot be the basis of any healthy civilization. Homomania leads to decadence with fecal penetration and tranny-dick-cutting as new rites. Feminism turns women into bitches or sluts who won't have kids.. or become single mothers. Afromania promotes Negro thuggery and megalomania and egotism. And yet, the current Russian model is too lethargic, turgid, and static to encourage and invigorate the creative, enterprising, and innovative spirit that is so crucial to competition in the modern world.

What Russia needs is a kind of Themocracy, or theme-based-democracy. A kind of fascist-democracy... akin to what Israel has. National Zionism is fascism + democracy — of course, its evil twin, Imperialist Zionism that violates the national sovereignty of other nations is hardly praiseworthy. The fascist-democracy of National Zionism must serve the higher themes of Israel: Jewish state, Jewish power, Jewish destiny. Israel is not some abstract propositional nation but a democracy linked with a certain key theme. Iran is like that too. Iran is a democracy with elections, but its theme of Islamism cannot be violated. Now, I'm not so sure about the wisdom of religion serving as the main theme of a democracy. I prefer the thematics of Israel: Blood and Soil. Israel is open to religious Jews, secular Jews, any kind of Jews AS LONG AS they defend Jewish ethnicity and territory. So, the Jewish mind is free to pursue anything as long as it serves the Jewish body on Jewish land.
In contrast, if all Iranians must bow down to Islam, it restrains what can be thought, debated, and explored. (One advantage of Islam is that it has been an effective bulwark against the new religion of homomania, which is a kind of neo-theocracy of idolatry. And to the extent that moral Jews in Israel have been utterly ineffective in preventing decadent Jews from spreading homomania and turning whole parts of Israel into Sodom and Gomorrah does make us wonder about the legitimacy of Israel.)

Anyway, Russia needs more spirit of freedom and enterprise. More individuality. It needs more democracy. More rule of law. However, these freedoms must be anchored to higher(yet also deeper) themes of blood, soil, and history or identity/inheritance, territory, and narrative. While democracy can be good and useful, it must not be the highest theme.
Any Jew in Israel understands this. If you were to ask a Jew, "Which would you prefer? In scenario A, Israel turns autocratic and rejects democracy but remains a Jewish state for Jewish people. In scenario B, Israel becomes 75% non-Jewish but remains a democracy. Do you go with A or B?"
Any Jew will say he will go with A. After all, even if Israel turns autocratic but remains Jewish, it could one day revert back to democracy(as it's not all that difficult or uncommon for political systems to change). But if Israel becomes majority non-Jewish, it is no longer and will never again be a Jewish state even if democracy lasts forever; indeed, even return of dictatorship will not make Israel Jewish again as the overwhelming majority will be non-Jewish."
Indeed, worship of 'liberal democracy' as the highest good is the disease of the West. By placing democracy, hedonism, libertarianism, money, and economic growth ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, they've lost the will and means to preserve blood, soil, and history. By rules of 'proposition nation', any transformation is 'good', 'necessary', and 'imperative' IF it leads to higher GDP, more celebration of vanity(esp via homommania, Afromania, or slut culture), more 'diversity'(a virtual religion in the West), and etc. So, themes of identity, history, and territory take a backseat to themes of atomization, political correctness, and 'tolerance' & 'inclusion' which comes down to invasion by foreign hordes. Of course, Jews get passover rights as even the most fanatical diehard libertarian or globalist will say Jews and Israel get waivers from what is demanded and expected of all other groups.

What Russians must say is, "We want and need more freedom and liberty, BUT the highest themes of Russia are blood, soil, and territory." After all, even without liberal democracy under the Tsars and Commie-tsars, Russia remained Russia, the homeland of the Russian people.
The trick is to fuse themes of blood, soil, and history with freedom.
That was the source of European and American greatness in the past. At one time, more freedom meant more freedom for the ethnos to do great things for their own people. But over time, the idea of freedom came to be divorced from ethnos and came to be centered around the individual. In traditional myths, the hero was an individual who did extraordinary things for his tribe, his people. In contrast, the modern individualism increasingly came to be about reaching the stars only for self-aggrandizement. And then, it came to see ethnos as an enemy of freedom since radical libertarians don't want to feel restrained/constrained by any obligation to any people, culture, or territory. Libertarians are like bird-folks. They see themselves as having evolved away from land-creatures who are wedded to a territory as their homeland. For globalist bird-people with wings of cosmopolitan-privilege, the notion of walls and borders is antiquated and irrelevant. They want to fly from globo-city to globo-city. Their worldview is migratory. They see every nation as anachronistic nest that must be abandoned in the globalized world where everyone should have wings to fly around all over. No wonder that the migratory globo-bird-people feel most affinity with mass migrations of peoples. Globo-elites see themselves as birds-of-privilege and they see Third World migrants as fish-of-need. (Also, by sentimentally latching onto the poor migratory masses, the rich migratory elites justify their own winged privilege of flying all over and shi**ing on everyone below. Of course, Jewish birds insist on having their iron nest in Israel.) These globo-elites put their individual privilege at the center of everything. Sure, they act like they're for 'social justice' and 'progress', but that's mostly empty talk by people like Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and the like who live in an Elysium Sky world safe from troubles on the ground.
For most people, their land really matters to their well-being. It matters economically and psychologically, culturally and historically. Since they don't have much in the way of private property, they feel 'rich' in the knowledge of at least having a place to call their (sacred)homeland. So, when Third World masses pour into their nations, the effect is like attack of winged monkeys in Wizard of Oz. This is why Polish and Hungarian patriots don't want their nations to be monkey-invaded by Turd World hordes. To patriots, Soros and his ilk are like the Wicked Witch, and the third world masses are like flying monkeys(or sea monkeys as they come by boat to Europe).


The result is massive chaos, but since the main themes of globalism are individuality, 'inclusion', and diversity, the elites don't care what they are doing to the world. And of course, they got their privileges and goodies and remain above the ground on which all hell is breaking loose. Also, they rigged the narrative and ideology so as to have the moral high-ground against patriots. So, if patriots say they want to defend the homeland, the piggish winged elites call them 'far right' and 'neo-nazi'. Elites denounce the patriots for not being 'inclusive' while ignoring the fact that the elite world is the most exclusive domain reserved only for those who 'belong'. While the elite world is also 'diverse', it is the diversity of the moneyed class. In contrast, diversity for the masses means that white people in the West must be pushed aside by grubby morons from Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China, Guatemala, and worst of all, the ghastly continent of Africa with all those crazy Negroes with muscles and aggression. (Look how Africans act in Australia. Ugabuglobalism is the worst.)

Russia must lead the way with its brand of Themocracy that is for more freedom and rule of law BUT in service of the ultimate themes of Russian identity, territory, and history. So, freedom must serve something higher. Freedom serving Freedom is like cannibalism. Freedom needs to serve deeper themes, those with lasting value, like blood and soil.
After all, what is Chinese-ness? Chinese had different religions and cults(Buddhism, Taoism, Maoism), but in the end, what binds all of Chinese history and culture together is a sense of blood ancestry and territory. The deepest themes of Chinese-ness isn't about political systems, economic ideology, or individualist fashions. After all, China no longer has emperors or the concept of Mandate of Heaven. But it's still China because it's the land of Chinese who remember their own history. Now, most people are agreed that capitalism is the most productive system, rule of law & private property are most useful, and republican/democratic system of government tends to be most just. So, it'd be good for peoples to adopt them BUT with the knowledge that those cannot be the highest or deepest themes, which must be blood, soil, and history. Capitalism, democracy, and rule of law must serve something more lasting and deeper in meaning.

Indeed, there are two sides to human nature. One side longs for freedom, but another side longs to serve something. It's like that Bob Dylan song, "Gotta Serve Somebody". This is why even globalists with privilege come to feel empty and hollow and eventually become neo-religious and search for something 'higher' to serve. Clever Jews understand this and urge globalized gentiles to serve holy homos, Magic Negroes, and Israel as the highest goods. Globalists feel this craving to serve something so badly that they go with the officially approved neo-religions that deify Jews, Negroes, and homos. (Why don't they serve their own race, culture, and history? Because globalism has infected their minds that gentiles, especially white ones, who primarily serve their own people, culture, territory, and narrative are 'far right', 'racist', and 'neo-nazi').
People need to serve something. This is why even Libertarians get all weepy about MLK. Even Rand Paul go boo hoo and wets his pants over the thug puncher of women. To serve something is part of human nature, no less than the desire to be free. After all, being free just to be free feels good for awhile but gets vapid and pointless. It's like a novelist or film-maker wants the freedom to express himself but also to serve a story, idea, message, meaning, or cause. Sergei Eisenstein was a great film-maker, but he didn't just make movies to show off his talent. He served the Revolution. SEVEN SAMURAI shows how warriors gain meaning by serving a cause, a noble one of protecting farmers from bandits.
Jews understood this aspect of human nature and came up with the idea of Covenant. It means Jews must serve God. This was a brilliant move because if Jews didn't serve God, their human-nature-desire-to-serve-something might have led to serving another tribe or kingdom more powerful than the Jews(as people tend to worship the powerful). By making Jews serve God, they were immune to serving another tribe or people. And to incentivize Jews to serve God, Jews made God the most powerful and only God in the world. After all, if the Jewish God were a weakling god or just one of the many other gods, Jews might feel tempted to worship the gods of a more powerful people. But by making their God the only God, Jews could only serve God. And through the Covenant, Jews were told that they have a duty to serve this God. But more clever yet, the Covenant meant that God, the ultimate power, had a special duty to help the Jews. So, Jews were to serve God who was to 'serve' Jews, and that meant Jews must serve Jews. Very ingenious arrangement.
When we compare Jews and East Asians in the West, we see how Jews serve their own identity and power because they have this covenant mindset. In contrast, East Asians outside East Asia easily come to serve OTHER peoples, especially Jews, homos, and Negroes, since they have no concept comparable to the Covenant. So, their human-nature-need-to-serve-something can easily be directed to serve the 'new gods' of Jews, homos, and Negroes.

Anyway, Russia needs to ditch the notion of Third Rome. It must think in terms of Second Israel or Zion for Russians.
So-called 'liberal democracy' of the West says the white folks of the West must sacrifice everything for the 'propositions' of globalism. So, even identity/inheritance, culture, history, and territory must be sacrificed or surrendered IF doing so furthers the proposition of 'liberal democracy' that has become all about 'diversity', 'inclusion', and GDP(that, btw, mainly benefits the top 1%). This is an inversion of the old principle that all freedoms must ultimately serve the nation, people/ethnos, culture, and history. This principle still exists ONLY IN ISRAEL. Outside Israel, Jewish elites fear and loathe it as promoting solidarity among gentile majorities of nations that can serve as bulwark against Jewish supremacist penetration. So, Jews rigged the globalist narrative so as to make gentiles feel that their serving their own kind is 'evil'. But Jews love it in Israel because it means consolidation of Jewish power and preservation of Jewish pride of identity.

What Russia must do is promote an order that is democratic, enterprising, and individualist BUT where the highest themes are nation, culture, and territory. Russian human nature is like that of rest of humanity. One part of Russians want to be free. Another part of Russians want to serve something. The magic formula is for Russians to be free to serve their people, culture, and homeland.

Problem of Lack of Individuality in Russian National Character — Communal Sense without Individual Spark means Lack of Reform, Progress, and Growth

Anatoly Karlin wrote about the problems of Russia in The Russian Empire: Too Nice for Its Own Good

I’m thinking that the problem with Russians is the lack of individuality.

Now, some on the Right(esp Alt Right) are skeptical and even hostile to this thing called individualism. They see it as selfish, egotistical, vain, atomizing, and ahistoric. This may indeed be true in cases where individualism is the core of one’s worldview and ‘value’ system.

But individuality can serve something bigger than itself. And any agenda, vision, or order is best served by energized individuals with the will to be bold, headstrong, inspired, ingenious, and innovative. The problem with collectivism is it discourages and dampens individual initiative, and of course, initiative is always a function of individuality. So, even though the collective consciousness emphasizes the good of the whole, the actual good comes from those individuals who make the extra effort to assert their will and make dreams come true. Collective consciousness is necessary for a community of shared identity, values, and purpose. But the collective is about inertia than initiative. In order for things to get started, the individual must provide the initiative. Collective consciousness is like a pile of logs waiting to be lit. But they alone cannot make fire. It takes a spark. Individuality and Initiative are the sparks created by striking of flint stones. It’s like we can create any institution to serve the community in a specific capacity. It can be a center for art, drama, or music. And the members of the community can collectively agree on the purpose of the institution. But that collective knowledge will not create art, drama, or music. It takes individuals with initiative who are willing to pour their energies into creating something unique or special. Collective consciousness is about a general sense of what is necessary. Lots of people can agree that fine music would be a good thing. But it takes strong individuals like Mozart or Beethoven to actually make the music. And this is why the culture of individuality has been so important in the rise of the West in contrast to the Rest where collective conformity suppressed individual initiatives as rude, irreverent, presumptuous, destabilizing, or subversive.
Of course, a fanatical ideology that values radical individualism above all other considerations is bound to be fatal. The paradox of Ayn Rand’s success is that she reached mass readers with a vision that actually held most of them in contempt. Her obsession was only with the BEST, the 1% of the 1% in talent, beauty, and/or wealth. She saw most of humanity as just useless rabble whose only meaningful purpose was to serve as helot-cattle whose menial production and material consumption would sustain an economy that could fund and fulfill the mental vision of the genius. The fantastic element was in the idealized hero who possessed not only great talent but granite integrity and spellbinding beauty. (Reality is, of course, far messier and more complicated, less a myth of heroes than mystery of hustlers and hermits who, often by accident, stumbled on something remarkable.) She railed against middlebrow comprises(as characterized by Toohey), but hers was a middlebrow fantasy of heroic elitism sold to mediocrities. Still, upon arriving in the US, she was quick to notice what was missing in Russia due to Slavic tradition and Bolshevik tyranny. Both provided a general sense of the common good but repressed the independence and initiative of individuality. (On the other hand, Rand failed to understand that hyper-individualism destroys democratic individualism because the hyper-individual comes to believe that he is so great and awesome as a man of destiny that his individual will must trample over the individual wills of others. So, even as Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler came to be associated with anti-individualism, it was because they were hyper-individuals with radical will who felt that their individual vision must quell all obstacles. Not for nothing did Alexander the Great and Napoleon come to be associated with both individuality and tyranny. If every individuality was equal, nothing great can be done. The great individual must trample on the individuality of others and bend them to his individual will. Whether this is done through communism or capitalism, the dynamics is much the same. Still, a capitalist system allows for more than one powerful individual to call the shots, and that allows for more competition and achievement.)

There is collectivism where people conceive of the common good and try to work as a team. The downside of such mindset is passivity. After all, everyone would be waiting around to be told what to do for the common good. He’d lack the individual will to put forth his own ideas and plans. He’d know how to receive and take orders but not how to assert himself and propose/execute ideas to lead others.

There is individualism where the only consideration is self-interest or self-satisfaction. The most extreme type of this kind of individualism is found in gangsterism, vice industry, and globalism. Druglords don’t care what narcotics may do to society. They only care about raking in the bucks. Vice industry casino oligarchs don’t care about the negative impact of gambling on morals and values. They only care about profits. And globalist entrepreneurs don’t care about the peoples of their own nation and around the world. They just play the entire world to maximize wealth and prestige for themselves.

But there is the third option: Individualism for the shared national good. Peter Thiel is partly of this school. He believes in individual enterprise, boldness, risk-taking, and innovation… but he also believes there must be a sense of national purpose and good.

The problem with Russians is this lack of individuality for the national good. Many Russians do have a collective & shared sense of national good, but it isn’t enough to provide the spark for enterprise, innovation, and reforms. And some Russians do have a narrow sense of individualism that only cares about the self. Such egotistic opportunism will even do things that hurts the nation-as-a-whole as long as there is something in it for ‘me’.
Russian(often Russian-Jewish)individualism has taken the form of self-serving egomania. Its only obsession is to become rich by any means necessary and live like a king with yachts and mansions all over the world. (To be sure, Jewish-Russian oligarchs at least have a sense of "Is it good for the Jews?" They are willing to exploit and cause harm to Russia for self-gain, but they will serve the interests of Israel and EOJ or the Empire of Judea.) This kind of pathologically self-centered individualism is harmful to the nation. The powerful, the privileged, and the well-connected only care about themselves. And as fish rots from the head, such excessive vanity seeps down to the masses who, though remaining poor, ape the crass, trashy, and narcissistic. Of course, it’s a problem in the US too, with moronic masses imitating, at least in style and attitude, the decadent excesses of celebrities.

There has long been a sense of communal and shared good in Russian culture, and it goes back to the spread of Christianity… which may explain why so many Russians took to communism, which seemed familiar to Russian sensibility. Russians, lacking individuality and initiative, were used to being told what to do. They were used to others doing the talking for them. This kind of communalism discouraged individuality, spark, adventure, and can-do-spirit. It emphasized conformism to orthodoxy of the righteous and just, whether under Christianity, Tsarism, or communism. Or Putinism.

There is a positive side to communalism but also a negative side. Without sufficient individual spark and boldness, too many communal-minded people remain passive and sit around to be told what to do. In contrast, communalism of energetic individuals will be lit by sparks of initiative and will. In IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, George Bailey is compelled by circumstances to strive for the good of the town, but he is bursting with boundless individuality. He knows how to take charge. He is idealistic, resourceful, adaptive, and keen. He knows how to engage with all kinds of people. He has both communal spirit and individuality. In contrast, the lack of individuality in Russia led to too many Russkies just waiting around to be told what to think or do. Or, the strong individual exerted his precious will to control than inspire others. Consider the Strelnikov character in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He is strong-willed like George Bailey, but he instills fear than inspires freedom.



The difference between assertive communalism(of individuals) and passive(or tyrannical) communalism(of collective mindset) is this: Suppose the electricity goes out in a community. In the community of civic-minded individuals, many will try to contact the company to see what’s up. Each person will try to take the initiative. In contrast, in the latter community, everyone will just sit around trusting or hoping that someone ELSE will do something about the power outage. This makes all the difference.

America used to be both individual and communal. It had civic sense and national unity, and it was composed of individuals who rolled up their sleeves in can-do spirit and went about building and fixing things. In contrast, the Russian lack of individualism meant a communalism that tended toward inertia or lethargy as most people lacked initiative and just waited around for orders from above. And Putinism hasn’t fixed this national character flaw in the Russian mindset.

Indeed, what is striking about the ‘Russian Revolution’ was how non-Russian much of it was. How was it that a small rabble of Jews, Latvians, Poles, and even Georgians gained so much power over vast numbers of Russians who almost overnight became their servants? Those other cultures had a stronger assertive will(though not in the Anglo-libertarian mode). Russian masses had long been inculcated to follow orders and do like others do. (This was why the Whites were doomed in the Civil War with the Reds. The Reds, though anti-liberty, found a way to whip up mass frenzy. The Russian masses were made to feel they were playing a heroic role in history. In contrast, the elitist and reactionary Whites had little to offer but orders and commands that promised nothing but return to the old order.) Unlike Russians, the ethno-minority Bolsheviks came from cultures that produced individuals who were more bandit-like, merchant-like, intellectual-like, and etc. Consider how a tiny number of Jews came to dominate so much of the economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider how a tiny rabble of Chechen cutthroats were able to intimidate far bigger Russian gangs.

So, it's not surprising it took awhile for the USSR to become a genuine Russian Empire. Up to the 50s, it was largely an empire ruled by non-Russians with greater penchant for assertive will. Indeed, Russians gained power only because the non-Russian elites created a system wherein Russians could be educated and elevated up the Iron Ladder. Russians could use a system but weren’t adept at creating one themselves. Consider how Germans had played a pivotal role in the creation of modern pre-revolutionary Russia. Consider how it took many non-Russians to create the Bolshevik system. And after the fall of communism, Russia handed over privatization(that turned into ‘piratization’) to foreigners, mainly Jewish Americans. Russians felt they couldn't do it themselves.

Another problem with Russians is the persistent strain of barbarism that wastes energy on childish things. When Russians do indulge in crude forms of individuality, they are often silly stuff like swilling excessive amounts of vodka, having street fights, driving around like loons, wrestling bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis. Jews don’t waste their core energies on such silliness. If you have a gallon of gasoline, it should be poured into an engine. Russians douse gas all around and set things on fire just to celebrate and have a good time. Total waste of energy and creativity. True individuality is a smart use of energy with focus and sense of purpose.


As Russia looks to the future, the main conflict will be this:

Russian nationalists and patriots with sounder values & nobler spirit but lacking in individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference

VERSUS

Jewish, Homo, and Cuck Globalists with terrible values and subversive mindset but bursting with individual spark and spirit to take charge and make a difference.

It’s like what Israel Shamir wrote of the Lucy Stein gang. Awful people but full of spunk and spirit. A spirited badger can bring down a passive cow. https://www.unz.com/ishamir/lucy-stein-gang-rides-moscow/

Nikolas Cruz Is Small Potatoes Compared to Big Time Sociopaths who Destroy Entire Nations

The Florida School shooting adds yet another bloodbath to the long and depressing tally of individuals going loco and randomly killing people. Many critics blame guns, but guns don’t kill people by themselves. Why has there been a spate of such killings since the Columbine incident? Some might argue that the media are to blame for ‘sensationalizing’ these murders with extensive coverage.
While most sane people care about their good name, the crazy ‘losers’ might crave fame and notoriety instead. While it’s natural for people to be liked and admired, what about those who have no such hope? The ones who are ugly, dumb, or just plain unappealing? If likable and talented people attract the right kind of attention, the unlikable and unappealing either get no attention or get the wrong kind of attention: Mockery, bullying, ridicule, rejection, contempt. Now, most people, even if disliked and ignored, learn to accept their lot in life. They find ways to cope and adapt, and in time, they even find people with whom they can form a community of friends and family.
However, certain people aren’t only disliked but troubled and demented due to traumatic child-rearing or genetic reasons. Granted, likable people can be crazy too. Ted Bundy is possibly the most famous case. He was a reasonably good-looking guy with smarts. He held a nice job and had no trouble meeting women. But he became a serial rapist-and-murderer. Still, sick people who are attractive or smart are less likely to end up like Nikolas Cruz. They have more of an incentive to live within bounds because they have something to lose. An attractive person may lose friends and lovers. A smart rich guy may lose his fortune and privilege. Thus, the attractive or smart people with sick souls do what is necessary to remain respectable and find more creative ways to indulge their sickness, like the Podesta brothers.
But if someone is crazy, ugly, and dumb, he has nothing to lose if he were to embark on a horrible act. If anything, they might finally gain the attention that had been missing all their lives.

Things are worse for troubled youth like Nicholas Cruz because there aren’t any moral norms anymore. What passes for right-and-wrong are PC posturing on current issues, gender issues, foreign policy, and historical narratives. Whatever meaning such subjects may have on the nation or the world, it means nothing to the personal life of a young boy. Children need a solid foundation in family life & community and a sense of culture that provides deeper meaning & sense of morality that is relevant to one’s personal existence. After all, ideology or political positions themselves do not secure a stable and meaningful existence for a child. Suppose a child is raised in a family with all the fashionable PC values. The adults that move in and out of the house are all for ‘gay marriage’, ‘trannies in the ladies room’, ‘new cold war with Russia’, ‘hating Trump’, ‘anti-racism’, ‘interracial sex’, and ‘climate change’ legislation. But suppose the adults don’t act like responsible parents or guardians, there’s no discipline(or if such exists, it’s brutal and arbitrary, thus only traumatizing the child) in the home, cultural experience is composed of watching trash on TV & playing ugly video games(and pornified music videos), and no teaching of fundamental right-and-wrongs when it comes to personal virtues such as honesty, propriety, dignity, and due diligence.
This rule applies to conservatives too. Even if the parents are ‘good Christians’ in ideas and values, if they fail to act like responsible adults in instilling their children with proper mindset and attitudes, the kids may grow up all wrong.
Now, generally speaking, conservative values & ideology are more useful in instilling the right kinds of values in children than liberal values & ideology are. This is because conservatism is more grounded in a culture of responsibility, duty, and discipline. Before kids can learn to be free, they need to be molded into young adults with core virtues. Liberalism has great value as a mode of open-mindedness, inquisitiveness, curiosity, and progress. Liberalism is more free-spirited than conservatism, and that can be a good thing. But unless freedom is grounded in respect, discipline, honor, and experience, it has a tendency to become aimless, decadent, and confused. It’s like an athlete isn’t going to get anywhere just by running like a crazy headless chicken no matter how fast or strong he is. He has to respect the coach, learn to take orders, cooperate with others, and train to gain the necessary skills. An athlete will eventually have to learn to be free and find his own footing in the sport, but he has to follow a path that leads gradually from obedience and discipline to ability and agency.
In the past, even American liberalism was grounded in conservative modes and values. Liberal Education didn’t mean you got to do whatever you wanted or blind yourself to everything except the latest fashionable dogma. Rather, you learned from professors with credentials and experience. You learned from the greatest thinkers, scientists, and artists in history. Even if you found the elders' teachings and methods less than ideal, you built upon their knowledge and appreciated their efforts in their time.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is considered as the greatest liberal president of the 20th century, but he had many conservative concerns about the New Deal. He worried about the potentially negative impact welfare may have on families. It’s doubtful that he would have endorsed the Great Society programs of the 1960s that went about rewarding teenage girls for being pregnant out of wedlock. The New Deal was about lending support to families with solid moral values and to men who wanted to work. America back then had a great sense of shame. New Deal was about offering aid to men and women of virtue who’d fallen on hard times. It was not, as would be the case with Great Society and other programs that followed, the reckless abandonment of culture of responsibility and the soulless rewarding of bad behavior, especially among young black women.
A lot of ‘progressives’ tend to place all the burden of social betterment on rich people and the government — rich should pay more taxes and government should provide more programs — , but the ‘national character’ of a people matter in the outcomes. Indeed, it is THE most decisive factor in the success or failure of nations or communities. Why did Europeans do so much with Marshall Plan while no amount of foreign aid does anything for black Africa or Detroit? What happened to all the money poured into black communities all across America? Why do some nations that receive less foreign aid to better than those who received so much?
And even in Europe, why is there more bang for the government buck among Swedes than among Southern Italians? Despite the current demise of Sweden(entirely due to liberalism-gone-pathological), it was a nice nation for much of the 20th century because most Swedes had civic virtues of diligence, honesty, responsibility, and work ethic. And whatever the ideology, left or right, most Swedes knew how to keep order in the house through proper parenting. As such, most Swedes believed that one should work hard, pay taxes, and take only what is necessary and due from the government. So, there was a culture of give and take between the state and the people. But in Southern Italy, the sheer lack of national character means a lot of people are shameless about lying, cheating, stealing, and acting like the cast of characters in GOODFELLAS.
So, anyone who’d say something like "Southern Italy is backward because the government doesn’t provide the kind of services available in Sweden" is missing the point. Swedes have civic virtue that is taught in every home. (If anything, Sweden’s current problem of Diversity is the result of its virtue of trust & cooperation having been projected onto the whole world. Just because Swedes made a little paradise for themselves, they naively got to thinking that the Swedish model could save the world. And if Swedes failed in exporting their model to African nations, maybe Africans can be made Swedish-like via immigration. In the past, such naive idealism was tempered by rational race-ism that informed most Swedes, even those on the Left, that the races are different, and therefore, most Africans could never be made into nice Swedes. But the rise of PC ideology forbade such rational & sane thinking and replaced it with the reckless conviction that any bunch of African ‘groids’ could be turned into good Swedes. But then, there was another reason for the embrace of Diversity. If one reason was naively idealistic and pro-civilization — the hope of elevating lowly & primitive Africans to the status of advanced Europeans — , the other reason was primitivist. Even though or precisely because Sweden was so nice and orderly, many Swedes grew bored with modernity and civilization. They craved the heat of Afro-jungle boogie-woogie of Afro-pop and American black music. Especially Swedish women developed jungle fever and wanted to have sex with black men and welcome ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. So, the combination of naive idealism and lusty primitivism will destroy Sweden, a nation so far gone that it cannot be saved.)

Anyway, ideologies are about big things. Parenting is not about ideology or big ideas. Whether parents are communist, fascist, Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, atheist, socialist, or whatever, there are fundamental rules that apply to ALL families in the proper rearing of children. Kids need love and affection. Kids need discipline and a basic sense of right and wrong, e.g. "Do not steal", "Don’t lie", "Don’t be discourteous", "Don’t kick the dog", "Don’t bully other kids", "love thy parents", and etc. And for kids to grow up with right values, parents have to be mature adults. But is that possible anymore? With the cult of everlasting youth, we have old people who still act like kids. It won’t be long before we have rappers who are 60 yrs old. We see tattoos and piercings among adults all over. What kind of message is that to kids, to grow up in a family where your own parents are marked with ugliness all over their bodies? In the past, the Church used to provide the family with a sense of community with other folks and sense of continuity with the past and tradition. But what are churches nowadays? Many have closed, some are Evangelical nuthouses whose main message is "Muh Israel" and "Nuke Iran" while Mainline churches are about little more than "Muh holy homo". And the Catholic Church is all about "Muh refugees" or "Muh Illegal Immigrants". It’s all about helping Other peoples but offer nothing to the rooted or existing community. It preserves nothing of tradition in terms of demographic & culture and only seeks to replace the existing faithful with waves of foreigners, immigrants, or illegals. If anything, Diversity made things much worse. Even in affluent communities, diversity tends to undermine a sense of togetherness. When American cities used to be divided along ethnic lines, the Irish in Irish town, Italians in Italian town, and Poles in Polish town had a sense of their own ethnic community. It’s like how Mike Royko used to remember how people in his neighborhood, many of them of shared ethnicity, would to all come out and celebrate Fourth of July together. Especially damaging was feminism because, even in a world of Diversity, there can be the core foundation of family within the home at least. Even if a Pole marries an Italian, there is at least the family, father and mother to raise the child. And for a child, nothing is more important than the unity of man and woman as his parents who are committed to one another and to their children. So, even in a world of ethnic and racial strangers, a child can feel whole and part of an organic unit if he has father and mother. But feminism drove a wedge between this most essential of unions. It encouraged too many women to see men as The Enemy or filled women with the idea that they can raise children alone without the men who should just come and go into their lives as ‘boyfriends’. This had a totally toxic impact on society, but most critics, even conservatives, are loathe to say this because the demented feminist-dominant ideology deems such sane views as ‘misogynist’.

Also, the rise of electronic media meant the erasure of community in many parts of America. In the past, if people in a local community needed the news, they got together in the town square to chat. Or they gathered together at rallies or meetings. It’s like how people act in MEET JOHN DOE and IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But with the rise of TV and electronic media, people can just sit home and get all the news and information. Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if every locality had more autonomy over its own media. But in fact, most of what is beamed to every community, big or small, in the US, is controlled by a handful of conglomerates, all of which are owned and/or controlled by Jewish globalists whose idea of the highest virtue is Homomania.
Worse, the increasing crassness and vulgarity of American culture has made Americans far more shameless. In the 70s, a talk show was something like Phil Donahue. But by the 80s, it was turning into something like Oprah and Jerry Springer. Both were corrosive in their own way. Oprah went from just another talkshow host to an object of worship. This shameless and self-aggrandizing fat black woman was supposed to represent all our hopes and dreams. It was one thing to enjoy Oprah as a TV personality, but it was obscene to elevate her to Magic Negress. Millions of Americans looked to Oprah to be told what to read, whom to vote for, what issues to care about, when to laugh, and when to weep, that is when she wasn’t doing what was she was best at: Interviewing vapid celebrities in love with their own vanity. Being fat, gross, and stupid, Oprah had no discernible talent of her own, but that was the hook with the audience. Most Americans are now fat, gross, and stupid, but they are obsessed with celebrity. When they look at Oprah, they see someone unseemly like themselves — fat, gross, and stupid — dillydallying with famous actors, singers, and athletes. Through Oprah, they also feel connected to the world of celebrity. Also, the fact that she’s ugly, black, and female means that her success is proof of the redemptive power of America. There was a time when someone like Oprah would have been a fat black mammy with kerchief on her head suckling some white kids on her big chocolate titties, but now, here she is with many billions of dollars. Only in America. Though Oprah is stupid, she’s been savvy enough to milk white tears of guilt and joy for all its worth(rather like Obama), with the help of Jews, of course.

And then, there was Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. If Oprah-ism was about elevation of a fat, gross, and stupid black woman as holy Magic Negress, what Springer and Povich did was reduce working class whites and blacks to the state of animals and savages. Now, there were always dumb, stupid, retarded, and trashy people in America. But American society had frowned upon such behavior.
The idea was that such people should watch BONANZA, THE WALTONS, BRADY BUNCH, and LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE and learn to be halfway decent. So, even if they had trashy tendencies, they shouldn’t wallow in them. They should be ashamed of their ways and at least try to raise their kids right so that the kids won’t end up like their stupid parents. But shows like Jerry Springer(in mainly targeting ‘white trash’) and Maury Povich(in mainly targeting ‘black trash’) sensationalized bad behavior into a shameless gladiatorial sport. Soon, entire families watched garbage like that together, and American turned into Amerika. Such shamelessness paved the way to the culture of EXTREMES. So, there were all these shows on TV that featured ‘extreme’ this, ‘extreme’ that, extreme anything. And then, there arose extreme sports where fighters do ugly things to one another. And then, even women were allowed into the sports, and they were bashing each other’s faces like demented chimpanzees.

Now, someone like Nikolas Cruz was born with an unfortunate set of genes. He looks goofy and was probably born funny-in-the-head. But if such a kid had grown up in a more traditional America with stronger sense of right-and-wrong, a sense of family and community, and a culture of shame-and-restraint, there would have been less chance of him turning out like this.
Of course, we can’t just blame the larger culture. Ultimately, Cruz has to face up to what he did as an individual and pay the price. But, our culture is really messed up. Now, I’m not saying all of us should be blamed. Oftentimes, those who blame themselves for what others did are virtue-signaling. Not all Americans played a role in degrading this country into a cultural and moral shithole. It is THOSE people who deserve most of the blame. The controllers of media. The radicals who spread poisonous ideas through the academia. Those who promoted drug culture and loose sex. Those who spread gambling and the idea that anything is justified by profits.

Be that as it may, Nikolas Cruz could only attack one school and destroy the lives of several people. As Hyman Roth said of Pantangeli in THE GODFATHER PART 2 , Cruz is ‘small potatoes’. https://youtu.be/UL6BdiaGaJ8?t=5m20s

What Cruz did is horrible and unforgivable, but it tore up only a local community. He was arrested, and he will have to face the music. He will likely receive the death penalty, surely something he deserves unless it can be proven that he’s seriously mentally ill.

Now, let’s move from small potato Cruz(who will soon fade from the news cycle) to the BIG POTATOES. Let’s look at neo-imperialist US that has destroyed not just random lives but entire nations. Yes, the national elites who condemn and bemoan what happened in Florida seem to be completely blind to their far greater crimes and bloodbaths all over the world.
So, why is the US so pathologically hypocritical and oblivious to what is plainly obvious, i.e. the US has been the main source of Evil around the world since the end of the Cold War?
It’s because the elites(especially the Zionist-globalists) are rabid with power-lust, paranoia, megalomania, resentment & vengeful angst, and contempt for the hoi polloi(both in the US and abroad); they spread lies through the worthless fake news media and engineer falsehoods in collusion with Deep State. Remember CIA and ‘slam dunk’ about Hussein’s WMD? The hubris, the arrogance, the sheer lack of concern for lives, and etc. The vile elites don’t care about American soldiers traumatized in wars and don’t care for the countless people who died, were maimed, or mentally destroyed in the Muslim World. With the elites acting like that, was anyone really surprised when Abu Gharib happened? From top to bottom, Americans have gotten used to the nihilist notion that they are above the law. You see, truth is just an ‘essentialist’ inconvenience. With creativity of spin and terminology, anyone can be made into a ‘New Hitler’ with WMD. And if Nikolas Cruz will be executed or spend the rest of his life behind bars, the globalist sociopaths who used lies to destroy entire nations, peoples, and cultures will do the what villains do in Akira Kuroawa's BAD SLEEP WELL. Hillary and Obama will not be brought to justice for what they did to Libya, Ukraine, and/or Syria. Hillary the mass murderer almost got to be president. Obama got a $60 million book deal. And all the Neocon Jewish globalists who goaded dumb George W. Bush into war in Iraq on false pretext are still not only free but rich and ensconced in seats of power and influence. And the movers and shakers that colluded with the Deep State to spread lies that led to Wars for Israel and New Cold War with Russia still control the media and spread lies all over. As for AIPAC goons who pressure the US to support Zionist imperialism in West Bank, they are invited to the biggest galas and showered with cash by oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson whose genius idea is that the US should drop a nuke on Iran, a nation without any nukes. As for Colin Powell who did his little act before the UN to push for Iraq War, he is still a respected statesman. When he had the chance to choose between integrity/courage and status/opportunism, he opted for the latter. In the end, his position in government mattered more than his moral compass, if he ever had any.

It isn't far-fetched to say that the Deep State, Media, Academia, and elite institutions are filled with more intelligent versions of Nikolas Cruz. They aren’t the types to stupidly go around shooting people, but then, they have bigger fish to fry: To take down entire nations and destroy millions of lives through death, disease, or trauma, and all based on lies to feed the insatiable hunger of this monster called globalism. The US, despite calling Putin a 'new hitler', wasn't averse to recruiting Neo-Nazis to bring down the regime in Ukraine. It shamelessly cooks up lies(like meth) to sustain a new Cold War with Russia, needlessly increasing tensions that may lead to an unnecessary war. (Unnecessary to sane sane people. But then, Deep State psychopaths don’t play by normal rules of decency, reciprocity, and limits. They play for power and more power, and for them, people around the world count for little more than humanity-as-‘fleas’ that Harry Lime sees up in the Ferris Wheel in THE THIRD MAN.) What other kinds of nastiness give the Deep State a hard on? Oh yeah, the taking down of Gaddafi and turning Libya into a total clusterfuc*. I recall Hillary laughing like a hyena at the lynching of Gaddafi. As for pathological egotist-narcissist Obama, he just shrugged his shoulders, smiled, and said , “Oops, my bad.” Destroying an entire nation was just a ‘mistake’, you see. And let’s not forget how the Deep State gave aid to terrorists and Jihadis to tear Syria apart in yet another great bloodbath of the 21st century, once again brought to you by the US and its allies. Priceless ancient treasures destroyed forever, and 400,000 people killed, and millions more uprooted. But who cares? The only concern among the elites in US media, academia, and Deep State is, “Is it good for Israel?” and "Is it good for US position in the Middle East?"

In status-centric globalist America where the elites no longer feel a national-humanist bond with the people, all that matters is their insatiable nihilist craving for power and position. To them, the whole world is just a violent video-game, the difference being that while gamers play in a world of fantasy, the Deep State plays in a world of reality with real people, millions of whom end up being killed, maimed, or soul-destroyed.

The Deep State scum are like the psychopath yuppie in AMERICAN PSYCHO. Sure, they talk the PC talk about ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’, but it’s all just smoke screen for their power games. These elites are so eager to be insiders and members of the Club that they will say or do anything to get in and stay in. Whether it’s Samantha Powers or John Bolton or Nikki Haley or John Yoo or any other bunch of scum-suckers, they are all a bunch of status-obsessed sociopaths whose only compass is whether the needle is pointing to Power.

And if you long for moral values and spiritual meaning in these times, just go worship the holy homo and make sure to convince yourself that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’. Ah, ‘rainbow’ in your eyes. It’s all lies upon lies.
As for you Negroes, never mind that you’re losing out due to globalism, mass immigration, and gentrification. Just watch the bling-movie BLACK PANTHER, make Jewish Hollywood even richer, and distract yourselves with the fantasy of Wakanda, sheeeeiiit. The elites find creative ways to push you out of cities while directing your gaze at bling heaven on the big screen for distraction. But then, what is the culture of blacks? Rap thuggery and ‘twerking’.

Fish rots from the head. We know from the bogus ‘Russiagate’ affair that the whole media complex and deep state are utterly corrupt and will go to any length to subvert Rule of Law and democracy. We know from Charlottesville that the Power will trample on the most fundamental American liberties to silence dissident voices. A completely legal assembly protected by the Constitution was shut down by the Power simply because it didn’t like the message. But the media, which are just part of the Deep State, just ran with the official narrative pushed by the Power.

US is now an empire of lies. Lies about the wonders of homosexuality and tranny nonsense, lies about BLM, lies about Russia as new ‘nazi nation’, lies about War on Terror(because it’s the US that’s actually allied with terrorists to wreck nations like Syria), lies about Iran, and etc. US has gotten so evil and demented that even a nutball regime of North Korea sometimes sounds rational in comparison.

We need a new nationalism, a real nationalism. The people of America and other nations need to come together and demand that the elites serve, lead, and guide the people. It must be a People Nationalism. A nation exists for the leaders to represent and serve the People. But the current elites of the US give the middle finger to Middle America and call for its replacement by endless tides of foreigners bribed with gibs. David Brooks, Max Boot, and Jennifer Rubin would never go on a killing spree like Nikolas Cruz, but if the likes of them get their way, Real America will have been murdered for good. You don’t have to actually kill people to kill a nation. Sufficient demographic changes will bury and erase a nation-that-had-been and replace it with something else. Jews didn’t kill a lot of Palestinians in the Nakba of 1948. There was no genocide in the sense of what happened in Ukraine or WWII. But Palestine as a nation was effectively murdered by massive demographic transformation. Israel was born because Palestine was murdered. And today, the Zionist-globalists are hellbent on murdering White, European, and Western nations via massive-invasion-immigration. Cruz shot up a school and killed 17 people. Jewish-Globalists plan to bulldoze White America & White Europe and replace them with Third World masses as their divide-and-rule helots. Cruz is indeed small potatoes.

In our time, is National Renewal even possible with the kind of leaders and elites we have whose soulless minds were molded by decades of degeneracy, decadence, and pseudo-intellectual PC garbage that reduces morality and ideology into empty slogans about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ that can be twisted to mean just about ANYTHING? Too many Jewish elites are fueled by animus, hatred, contempt, and vengeful emotions vis-a-vis Muslims and white gentiles, though Jews are also working to destroy Japan by pressuring it to take in more ‘refugees’(even though Israel takes in none). For too many Jews, everything they don’t like in the world is boiled down to hysteria about Pogroms or WWII all over again, so much so that they are blind to the fact that their kind now constitute the New Power that is acting like the Russian imperialists and German warmongers of old.

Now, I’m not saying that if we have good elites and a culture of truth, there won’t be sickos like Nick Cruz. But he would be the exception in such a social order.
Why are there now so many instances of sociopaths like him acting as if they are above the law? One key reason is our culture is one of nihilism from the very top. The fact that Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with so much gross behavior while rubbing shoulders with the most powerful people in the world should tell you what kind of nation we are living in.

Granted, fish rots from the gut as well as from the head. The most corrupting gut-rot force in America has been blacks. Naturally savage and prone to psychopathy, they’ve given us a culture not of the mind and heart but of the fist, genitals, and butts. In the current year, the symbiotic alliance between elites minds and black butts have degraded culture beyond moral recognition not only in the US but around the world.

Lies have always been a part of America as in any other society. But now, lies have been institutionalized as the New Truth. Americans are so poisoned by lies that they are blind even to the ugliness of homo fecal penetration. Instead, they support massive homo parades, drape churches with homo colors, support ‘gay marriage’, and believe bakers ought to be destroyed for having moral courage. This is a sick sick society.

Libertarian types will say ‘homomania’ doesn’t kill people, but it murders something far more essential: Truth. Homomania murders the truth because it not only tells lies but canonizes lies as the holy truth. If the norm of a society is to murder truth in this manner, then the cancer of lies will grow and poison all of society.

It’s like what Merlin said: