The Unreality of Leftism — Leftist Underpinning of Western Progress — Goyim as NPC's in the Jewish Dream — Jewish Way vs the Greek Way — Surreal 'Logic' of the Current Dream

EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg

https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-interpretation-of-left-dreams/

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’
...if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.

There's some truth to this but not quite. There's always been a Rousseau-ean aspect to the Left. As an Mexican elder says in THE WILD BUNCH, "We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us..." But the Left also developed as a movement of reality check. The modern left originated with the intention of waking history out of its slumber. The masses were trapped in the dream of the Divine Right of Kings, God & Heaven, and virtue of meekness. But in fact, kings and noblemen were merely human like everyone else. They weren't special or innately superior despite all the pomp and posturing. And was there proof of God & Heaven? Should the clergy have power and influence when their institution is based on a myth? And why should the people be meek and humble when the vain elites live in opulence and feel contempt for the unwashed(contrary to Christ's teachings)?
Much about the French Revolution was meant as a reality check on the state of things. It told the people that the regal monarch is just a man, like you or me. So, why should he be blindly revered and obeyed? And why should his heirs take power and hog privilege? By what right should they rule over the people? The Left also spilled the beans on religion and clergy. The rise of reason and science called for demonstrable proof, and there was no evidence to Biblical claims. Furthermore, even though the clergy preached the Christian message of meekness, many were corrupt status-seekers catering mostly to the rich and powerful. In ANY institution, it is usually the opportunistic, cunning, and shrewd than the honest, principled, and scrupulous who make it to the top.

So, the Left was trying to wake people up from the slumber of history dominated by kings, aristocracy, and the church. What did Napoleon mean when he said, "China is a sleeping giant. Let it sleep"? He meant it's better for China to remain 'rightist' and static than go 'leftist' and dynamic. It was conservative China that was asleep in its own Middle Kingdom conceits. So sure of itself and its civilizational values, it refused to wake up to the reality that the West had surpassed it in every measure of power and wealth. Before Western Imperialists ventured into China, there were obvious clues that China must fundamentally reorder society to remain a great power and deter foreign threats. But it kept on sleeping in its smug 'rightist' conservative dream of superiority and security. It was the introduction of Western Leftism that forced many young Chinese to wake up and smell the coffee(than the usual tea). It was this materialist perspective that urged them to break out of Confucian conceits(of the useless literati) & Taoist musings and accept the material dimensions of reality: Facts over Feng Shui. It's no wonder communism was appealing to so many young Chinese in the early 20th century. It spoke of history as hammers and nails than brush and ink.

Karl Marx argued the people should wake up to the truth of history. He called religion the opiate of the masses. He argued that the main engine of history is not Great Men, Spiritual Ideas, or Philosophy but the struggle for the control of material reality. Throughout history, the elites found clever ways to exploit the masses and hog most of the wealth EVEN THOUGH it was the masses who did the heavy-lifting. He regarded capitalism as both a liberating revolutionary force and an exploitative form of new oppression. Capitalism was liberating in that it was totally materialist, something it shared with socialism. It accepted matter as the true basis of power. Titles such as king or duke meant nothing to capitalism. Neither did God or spirituality. Capitalism was about property, investment, factories, and technology. It was about the buying and selling of materials and labor that turned raw material into manufactured goods. To facilitate investment and transfers of wealth, capitalism relied on ever more elaborate schemes of finance. Because capitalism focused on the material world and real results, it revolutionized technology and profoundly transformed the landscape, along with human relations based on production and distribution. However, because it was focused mainly on profit and finance(that managed and manipulated the profit), capitalism had two problems, one moral and the other economic. Capitalists didn't care how much the masses suffered as long as their own profits increased. Even though finance is supposed to serve the material economy, it could take on a life of its own and create a form of economics that defies material sense — today, Wall Street and globalist banks cook up ever more surreal ways to increase wealth. Jews as 'made men' with insider information grow ever richer and buy up everything.

So, in that sense, Marxism was to wake people up from the dream of kings & queens, myth & religion, and the 'virtues' promoted by the powerful to hoodwink the masses. It also warned that 'liberalism' and 'individualism' were smoke-and-mirrors used by the propertied class to justify their exploitation and wealth. Their real power owed to control of materials via capital, not abstract ideals about 'freedom'. Also, it was the freedom of power that mattered. Most people without power had useless freedom.
For the exploited masses, 'freedom' was meaningless because they lacked the material means to ensure their own interests. So, true freedom for the masses could only come by gaining control of the material means of production. Why did so many Russians join the Revolution? The horrors of World War I and its social impact woke them up to the realization that Tsar Nicholas wasn't some wise grand patriarch, the father of his people, but a half-wit, fool, and weakling. Nicholas, the biggest rightist force in Europe, had been asleep about reality and history. He thought the people would remain loyal to him no matter what because he regarded himself as the loving father of his people; he loved them and they loved him, or so he thought. What a rude awakening for him.

So, there was a side to leftism that was about waking up to reality and seeing the light. The Left grew out of the Enlightenment. Let there be light and let us look upon reality with a clear eye. Let us be critical of power than just obeying it. Let us ask questions than accept the old answers as sacrosanct.
But the Left had its own problems arising from arrogance, ignorance, ur-spirituality, and limitations of man. Some on the Left were so sure of their truth(supposedly based on science and reason) that they became intolerant of and even murderous to those who disagreed. Despite the conceit of true knowledge and reason, mankind can only know so much. An expert in one field knows nothing of other fields. And even experts often turn out to be wrong(or they cravenly cater to the Power). What was 'certain' in medicine a hundred yrs ago, or even fifty years ago, may be null and void today. And there is the 'spiritual' nature of man. Even those who claim to be totally rational and materialist(or secular) have a secret need to divide the world into the holy and the unholy. Consider the Holocaust, Globo-Homo, and the Magic Negro. Holocaust should be treated as a historical subject, but it's become a religion where one must not question the numerology of the sacred six million. 'Gay rights' became Gay Rites, a cult of sodomy as the wonder of the ages. Homos used to push their cause on secular grounds of individual rights. Now, they insist that religious institutions fly the 'gay' banner. And if anyone says homo fecal-penetration is gross, he or she must be purged, shamed, and blacklisted. It's the 'inqueersition'. Indeed, anyone critical of the homo lifestyle has no chance of making it in higher echelons of government or industry. Globo-Homo is the official faith of the Deep State and Big Capital. You better get on your knees, take it up the arse, and BELIEVE... or else be cast into the purgatory of demotion or unemployment. And consider the BLM nonsense. Most blacks are murdered by other blacks, and if anything, cops save a lot of black lives. But as blacks are now holy objects, ANY instance of a black thug killed by cops is an act of blasphemy or 'blaxphemy'. Michael Brown was a thug who got killed in Ferguson. He never said, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", but that has become part of the Sacred Narrative among blacks and white progs. Why all such nonsense among people who claim to be rational, secular, and modern? Because human nature is 'spiritual', and that means even those who reject God and Church will find new icons, idols, and causes to worship. Notice how all these white progs kneel at the feet of MLK, Mandela, and Obama(and Oprah too). These people claim to be moral or righteous, but theirs is a form of fanta-morality, or morality based on fantasy. True morality must be based on reality. In the Current Year, there is so much moral outrage based on so little truth.

Of course, the choice of Jews, blacks, and homos as the holy trinity is largely the result of Jewish Supremacist control of media, academia, finance, and most whore politicians. Jews naturally promote themselves. Jews value homos as useful allies in turning Leftism from Mayday to Gayday. In the past, many Jews were of working class background or starving intellectuals. They were sincerely on the Left. Today, 50% of Jews make over $100,000 a year. Jews are the richest people on Earth. Jews want to keep the brand of 'leftism' and 'radicalism' but in service of wealth and privilege. So, why would Jews favor traditional leftism when something like communism would be devastating to Jews?
Indeed, even in the Soviet Union where many Jews had an auspicious start, they eventually lost out to non-Jews. Jews are arch-capitalists who cling to the 'leftist' brand because it acts as a shield — they grow ever richer through capitalism but are accused of being 'socialists' or 'communist' by the Idiot Right. When billionaires are lumped with 'communists', it works as moral cover for their wealth and privilege in the eyes of disgruntled 'progressives'. Look how Bernie Sanders runs as a 'socialist' and then urges all his herd to vote for Hillary or Biden(who serve super-rich Jews). Maybe Sanders was once a true socialist, but now, he's a Jewish Supremacist first and socialist second. There are commie-types among Antifa, but they are useful to Jewish Capitalists because Commie Thought says, "Greatest Evil is Nazism and Racism." So, as long as the Jewish Capitalist Media tells the 'commies' that there are 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazis' afoot, the dummy 'commies' are too busy attacking whites to ever get around to attacking capitalism and the oligarchy. (Traditional communism argued that capitalism, not fascism, is the biggest enemy because Fascism and National Socialism are merely fake-revolutionary movements used by capitalists to capture populist sentiments. In other words, fascism is merely iron boots capitalism. But most of today's commies are the product of pop culture. Their ideology is based more on TV shows, rap, and punk/grunge music than true understanding of the history of the Left. If German capitalists protected and funded the fascists to beat the communists, Jewish capitalists today use the 'commies' to beat down the 'nazis'.) Of course, US politics is pro-elitist on both sides of the aisle. The priority of both Democrats and Republicans is to prop up the elites in the 'center'. Democrats appeal to non-whites & white proggies for votes, and GOP appeals to whites & conservatives for votes. But once elected, politicians of both parties serve the oligarchs and grow fat themselves. Democrats are about suckering the 'leftist' masses to serve the rich and become rich, and Republicans are about suckering the 'rightist' masses to serve the rich and become rich. Donald Trump was hardly different but was loathed by both parties because his style and rhetoric accused the 'swamp' of hoodwinking and manipulating the masses.

If Leftist Ideology is based on 'what ought to be' than 'what is', could one argue that capitalism is leftist? Or that the West has been leftist even prior to the French Revolution, perhaps going back to the Renaissance? After all, capitalism has been about 'what ought to be'. It's been tireless in coming up with new and better ways of production, transportation, communication, and etc. Take the invention of flying machines. Most of humanity had given up on such dreams as impossible. Birds can fly, man cannot. But Western Man was not content with the reality that man is a terrestrial creature. He had to keep striving for 'what ought to be', and it was realized. So much that seemed impossible, ludicrous, or fantastical 100 yrs ago, let alone 200 yrs ago, have been realized. Back in the 1980s, only rich people had portable phones, which were cumbersome. Now, people have slick cell phones even in the slums of the Third World. When I was young, I didn't expect something like the internet to arrive suddenly and revolutionize the world.
The West advanced so much faster than the Rest because it got into the habit of pushing for 'what ought to be' than 'what is'. People during World War I were amazed by new technologies, but they were obsolete in a mere two and half decades in World War II. And who would have thought something like nuclear power was even possible? And yet it came to fruition because the West pushed for 'what ought to be'. Steve Jobs came to greatness in the second chapter of Apple by imagining 'what ought to be'. A declining company became the biggest in the world. Granted, 'what ought to be' is more sensible in science/technology than in social 'progress' as objective than subjective standards apply, but ever-competitive capitalism is always fixated on 'what ought to be' than merely 'what is'. So many companies operate on the basis that 'what is' now will be obsolete in the future when there will be products that come closer to how it 'ought to be'.

Leonardo Da Vinci made illustrations of flying machines. He failed to create one, but his mind was certainly in the mode of 'what ought to be', and this attitude did much to stimulate the West beyond the barriers of the 'possible'. And in time, so much that seemed impossible became possible. Leftism seems to share this spirit but in the field of social science. And in many areas, there have been key reforms and successes because of leftist pressure and visions of a better society. But then, this drive for more, the better, or the further emerged in the West prior to the rise of the Radical Left. Columbus had this spirit when he went on his voyage. Otto von Bismarck was a rightist-conservative but committed to creating a modern prosperous Germany with social services. And 'right-wing' autocrats of Asian nations after WWII were all invested in creating new orders; they embarked on tasks that seemed forbidding and impossible at the time.

Granted, even as both the 'right' and 'left' in the modern world keep pushing for new possibilities and improvements, it's generally true that the Right has a better sense of limits than the Left does. So, while rightists will adopt certain socialist policies, they don't believe in panaceas. They are less puritanical even though puritanism is usually associated with the Right, not least because modernity rebelled against the moral teachings of the Church, not least on sexual matters. But when it comes to holier-than-thou fulmination, the left is far more puritanical. The Right is judgmental and repressive but not concerned with uprooting all evils. It accepts the sinfulness and imperfection of the world. It's like Franco's Spain tolerated the Left as long as it didn't make trouble. In contrast, the Leftist order seeks to weed out all crime-think and seed the mind with correct ones. It's why George Orwell became so alarmed about the Left. And Jonathan Haidt finds the leftist mind to be more arrogant and intolerant in its outlook. It's not enough for the Left to control society; it must take possession of souls. Protestantism began as a proto-leftist puritanical challenge to the Catholic Church that seemed overly compromised with the reality of power and wealth. The current 'left' is deeply problematic in that it's radically perfectionist in its imperfectionism. It especially denounces Nazism as an evil obsessed with 'Aryan supremacist perfectionism' and urges all people to be more 'inclusive', or tolerant of differences. But then, it also insists that sodomy is some holy act and that trannies must be celebrated and lionized. And the 'body positive' movement doesn't merely say we should tolerate fat or ugly people but hail them as 'beautiful'. It is the narcissism of the ugly. The Imperfect is the 'New Perfect'. Also, it fetishizes blackness as a supremacist heroism that all races must idolize. Forget about the 'Aryan superman' but believe in the Afro-Aryan-superman who is so awesome that white men should cuck at his feet and offer up their daughters to. Arno Breker is out but Afro-Breker is in. Indeed, Leni Riefenstahl went from fetishizing Aryan supremacism to Afro-supremacism, which was noted by Susan Sontag.

The left vs right dichotomy is especially confused in the West because of Christianity. As the official faith of the West, it became a symbol of establishment and conservative values. But Jesus was a rebel-heretic-maverick Jew who pissed off Jewish Conservatives. And His message is eternally radical(though not a radical call to arms). All of Jewish History was about the children of men and women who, in turn, became fathers of sons and daughters. So, despite all the spiritual content, it was grounded in the reality of biology and history. In contrast, the Christo-myth says Jesus is the miraculous Son of God. Though born of Mary, she was only a vessel. And, He didn't have sex or get married and have kids. He lived the life of the Perfect Man and died and defeated death. This fantastical story and message are more suited to leftist than rightist thinking. Also, whereas Rightism tends to be particularist — our tribe, our culture, our people — and hierarchical, the universal and egalitarian thrust of Christianity is closer in spirit to Leftism, which is universalist.
But Christianity became the religion of the rich and powerful in the West. And the Enlightenment associated Christianity with kings, noblemen, corrupt clergy, superstition, reaction, and etc. But the meaning of Christianity never favored the rich and powerful. (One might say the development of the Roman Church was a betrayal of Christianity as it welded the pacifism of Christ with the militarism of the Romans. Furthermore, inspiration became an institution. Granted, all things need institutions to survive and propagate, but Catholicism turned worship of faith into worship of an institution. But, Christianity exists with or without the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. All one needs is the New Testament.) And there were many Christian progressives who believed the Faith must be on the side of the powerless than the powerful. Many Italians were both Marxist and Catholic. Still, one might say Christianity is conservative or rightist in its moral judgmentalism. It calls for social order in admonishing people to be sober, solemn, and pious. Leftism, in contrast, has a libertine streak. Many anarchists and early Marxists spoke of Free Love and other sexual experimentation. Some tried to fuse Marxism with Freudianism. And to that extent, Leftism was neo-paganist at odds with the moralism of Christianity. Ancient Greeks were certainly more libertine than the ancient Jews and Early Christians. But then, to the extent that the pagans were more cold-eyed about power and reality, they could be said to have been more 'rightist'. The Romans saw the world in realist terms of winners and losers. If your side won, they were winners; if they lost, they were losers. In contrast, Christianity said the material winners of this life could be spiritual losers in the afterlife. Paganism's no-nonsense view of power could be construed as 'rightist' in contrast to Christianity's abstract view of power as it 'ought to be': The meek and powerless in this world could be(as they ought to be) the powerful in the next life(while the rich and mighty in this world are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity). Perversely, current 'leftists' have the puritanical mindset of hard-line Christianity and the puerile sensibility of paganism at its most degenerate. It's as if the characters in FELLINI SATYRICON got 'moralistic' in celebration of debauchery: "I'm holier than thou because I take my kids to Drag Queen story hour." It's as if we are living in a dream because strange things happen in dreams, and the Current Year is very strange indeed.

According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds.

But it's also because most people lack the power to dream, therefore they want to be part of the bigger dream. Perhaps, MLK's (I Have A)Dream. Dream in the literal sense is what we all do when we sleep. Dream-as-metaphor is what we inhabit in the real world. There is no such thing as absolute living-in-reality as our understanding of reality is subjectively shaped by our senses. When we walk down the street, we are often just barely aware of the surrounding so as not to trip over or get hit by a car. Otherwise, we hardly acknowledge or think about the reality before and around us. We don't think, "I'm walking on concrete sidewalk, this is a parking lot with those cars, that is a tree, that is a person with a grocery bag, that is a cat, etc." Instead, our minds process what holds most meaning for us. It could be about personal relationships, but it's often about things that interest, stimulate, and provoke us. And these are often narratives, stories, images, idols, and issues, not least because people with smart phones are always 'hooked' to their favorite 'channels'. These function as something far more than mere knowledge. When someone watches the umpteenth show about hapless innocent noble blacks terrorized by the KKK, one doesn't coolly think, "There was a time when certain white groups used violence against blacks in the South." Rather, those images linger in the mind as dreamlike ghosts. They haunt and lurk the soul. Thus, they function as dreams than mere knowledge. In this sense, we are all living in a dream, and mankind always has.

Among primitive folks, a shaman or storyteller who tells the tale or narrative infects the listeners with heroes, villains, images, and visions that take on a life of their own in the hearts and souls of the listeners. Thus, the listeners come to partly live in the dream of the storyteller. Why do Jews now want to clamp down on Free Speech? They want to control the Dream Machine. They want all of us to be characters in their Dream Play, just like every instrumentalist in an orchestra plays a socially subordinate role to the conductor who, in turn, is 'spiritually' subordinate to the composer. So, even though we all exist as individuals in the physical sense, our minds are often NPC-like in the Dream of another. Under Stalinism, so many Soviet citizens were NPC-like minions of Stalin's Dream of Power and Justice. Under Maoism, so many Chinese youths were NPC-like minions of Mao's grand dream. All those Germans under National Socialism fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler, a great orator who could pull people into his dream of Germany.

It may well be that conservative types are less dreamy than those on the left. This element could keep them closer to reality, but it could also mean that conservatives become more dependent on the dreams of others who have the power to dream. Why can't conservatives create their own Hollywood, their own dream-machine? Even as they complain about the Liberal/Leftist control of Hollywood and other dream-centers, they rely on the Other for visions and narratives. The fact that so many German conservatives and rightists threw caution to the winds and surrendered to Hitler's dream suggests that one's inability to dream doesn't necessarily lead to more reality or clarity but to reliance on the dream of others.
This may explain why American Conservatism sucks so bad. Without the power of dreams, it has adopted the dreams of the other side: 'Diversity Is Our Strength', 'MLK was awesome', 'Gay Marriage is a conservative value', 'Muh Israel', 'Women in the Military', and etc.

The problem with reality is it's difficult and inconvenient. The mind finds dreams more appealing than reality. This is why truth upsets so many people, especially if the Dream has elevated certain ideas or groups to holy status. So, honest talk about Jewish Power or black crime or homo degeneracy upsets people who've come under the spell of the Schlomo-Afro-Homo dream of Tri-Supremacist Holiness.
Granted, what is currently 'acceptable' depends on the nature of the Dominant Dream. At one time, even most Liberals believed that homosexuality was a mental sickness, even a disease. In either case, pro-homo or anti-homo, it wasn't merely cold knowledge about homos but a mythic vision of them as either darkly corrupting pathological villains(as they were portrayed in so many movies even up to the 1980s) or pure-as-snow angels of 'rainbow' wonderment.

We are living in the Jewish Dream. Even those who are cast as villains and deplorables in this Dream are part of the dream because they explain themselves in accordance to the dream logic. For instance, most 'conservatives' will say "I'm not racist" or "I'm not homophobic". They are morally defensive than morally autonomous. They accept the rule-book of the Dream that says 'racism is evil' and 'homophobia is wicked'. They don't ask why it's called 'racism' when Ism simply means belief. If Ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. Of course, race is real because evolution is real, and different groups evolved separately. But even if we accept 'racism' to mean 'racial supremacism', isn't it obvious that Jews are supremacist because they demand the West favor Jews uber alles and Israel over Palestinians(and Muslims & Arabs in general)? For the sake of moral consistency, it is wrong for Jews to say that privileging whiteness is evil BUT favoring Jews is wonderful. However, such illogic can be 'logical' in a dream, a Jewish Dream, one in which Jews blame whites of 'racism' but practice 'racism' to the hilt for their own power and privilege. And yet, white conservatives who are demeaned as 'racists' by Jews go out of their way to prove they are NOT 'racist' by sucking up to Jews and praising Israel that is so blatantly 'racist' to Palestinians. It's like Jews say Donald Trump is Hitler but Trump goes out of his way to prove he's not 'racist' by totally supporting Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians and imperialism against Iran/Syria. So, even white conservatism operates within the hegemony of the Jewish Dream. It has no moral autonomy. It is essentially an NPC that plays according to Jewish Dream Logic that is illogical by any rules of moral consistency. How is it that Jews can denounce whites as Nazi but then ally with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine? How is it that Jews can condemn supremacism but demand governments to shut down BDS, a movement that calls for equal justice for Palestinians?
Or take 'homophobia'. Any conservative who says "I'm not a homophobe" is an NPC in a Jewish Dream because, by his denial, he accepts the reality of 'homophobia'. But Jews made up that bogus concept to imply that anyone who counters the globo-homo agenda or makes fun of homos is suffering from a psycho-pathology. In fact, 'homophobia' doesn't exist. While some people hate homosexuality or have strong antipathy to homo behavior, it is not a phobia which specifically means extreme fear and panicked response to something harmless. 'Homophobia' exists as an article of faith in the Jewish Dream.
In truth/reality, homos do indeed exist as some people are born homo, and this reality must be accepted, and social policy should be based on this fact. But it's also true that homo-fecal-penetration has no biological or moral worth, and it makes no sense to celebrate sodomy with 'rainbow' colors. And now, we are told there's 'transphobia' because many people still insist Bruce Jenner is a man and not a 'woman' or because they object to penis-and-balls-cutting as medical practice. What kind of sane medicine mutilates and removes perfectly healthy organs because some nut demands it? Also, if truth is a matter of subjectivity — "I'm a woman because I feel that I'm a woman even though I got penis and balls" — , what happens when such 'logic' is applied to race and other attributes? Is a dumb person a 'genius' because he says so? But maybe we are there already because so many mental midgets are now promoted as public intellectuals, especially if they're black or tranny. All such craziness are allowed because we live in The Dream that is Jewish. As Jews control the media, academia, deep state, and the megaphone, they get to weave The Dream. What they show on TV, teach in classes, print in papers, and allow on platforms come to determine the narrative, the myth, idols & icons, and the Current Year map of Good vs Evil. No wonder then that, even though Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom & Gomorrah and dump on white Christians all the time, most Evangelicals are always shouting "Muh Israel".

The world is like The Dream because most people lack the power to dream. So, they rely on the dream of others. Much of the film MULHOLLAND DR. takes place in the dream of a woman, but her dream unfolds according to the dream logic of Hollywood fantasy. So, even her own dream is part of a bigger dream, the myth of stardom and cult of celebrity. In TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN, David Lynch's character meets Monica Belluci in a dream who says, "We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives inside the dream. But who's the dreamer?"

Who is the dreamer of The Dream we are all part of? In that dream, we are mere phantoms because our 'thoughts' and 'actions' all follow the 'logic' and sub-will of the dreamer. We are free only like NPC are 'free'. Jewish Power is the Dreamer. All of us dream little dreams when we sleep but our waking life is part of The Dream of Jewish Power. In that dream, we are programmed to feel and behave in accordance to the 'rule'. In whose game are we effectively NPC's without true autonomy of thought, freedom, and liberty?
But then, is liberty an effective counter against The Dream? Libertarians tell us so, but what if most people are incapable of being free and independent? In that case, The Dream can be countered only by another Dream. It means history can never be about dream vs reality but dream vs dream. Reality is too harsh and dreary for most people. No wonder then that even fat ugly women go to hair-dressers and cling to the fantasy that they are attractive. Indeed, things have gotten worse. Well, if a man can be a 'woman', who says a fat ugly woman can't be a beauty? This anti-essentialist subjectivism all points to how dream-ism has infected so much of society. Such lunacy is intrinsic to The Dream pushed by Jewish Power. REQUIEM TO A DREAM. You may be nothing and have nothing, but YOU ARE SPECIAL because you're part of The Dream.

'Reality' and 'logic' in The Dream is as Jewish Power programs it. So, even though blacks are the main thugs and killers, we are led to chant BLM and cry for precious black lives being 'genocided' by white police. We prefer fanta-morality than real-morality. It's utterly absurd as a claim in the real world, but countless people who've been sucked into The Dream keep the faith. The Dream is so powerful and pervasive that all of us are, in one way or another, part of The Dream, if only because we must always remind ourselves and others that it isn't real. Thus, no one is really fully awake. Either you go along with The Dream or you're a lucid dreamer who knows you're in The Dream but can't really break out of it. As we are all social creatures, we can't help but be part of the prevailing order. So, if much of society is still in The Dream, we are also partly in it because we are part of society. It's like even anti-Hitlerians under National Socialism couldn't fully escape The Dream. It became too much of the life and culture.

The dream is sort of like a game, especially a con-game. Cons work because the con-man slips something with a distraction. Thus, the conned fail to see the reality of what is happening as he or she is fixated on what is shown. It's why the woman falls for the con in HOUSE OF GAMES. That the woman is 'too smart to be conned' is actually part of the con devised against her.
Dreams work in a similar way. We believe in the unbelievable in the dream — dead people alive in front of us and etc. — because the dream turns off the mechanism of verification and detection. Furthermore, the dream keeps streaming new 'information' to the mind that is too distracted to process anything for verification. While what happens in a dream isn't logical, there is a logic behind the process of the dream that keeps the dreamer hoodwinked. And even when a person becomes a lucid dreamer, he is in the dream.

What is true of a single mind is true of an entire society, especially when everyone is connected electronically. Electronic media are like collective neurons of society as a hive-mind. But who's the dreamer or game-creater? Who is the 'user' and who are the 'programs'?
People's minds are colonized by the electronic-neurons beamed by media, the Dream becomes their dream, and they become part of The Dream Empire or Dreampire as envisioned and programmed by Jews. So, even though Sigmund Freud failed as a scientist(as current psychology believes he was wrong about most things), his obsession with the power of dreams could have served as the blueprint of takeover of power. Marx was utopian but concentrated on the materialist reality. But all the talk of labor, production, and etc. got pretty dreary and boring to most people. Capitalism beat communism not only in the material sphere(of producing more) but in creating the Empire of Dreams, which Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion. No wonder Jews were so eager to acquire Disney and then STAR WARS. Walt Disney and George Lucas had the power to create dreams.
Dream as metaphor for power is explored in EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg where goyim move inside a maze created by a Jew. Even as they identify the Dream-Maker and kill him, they're not sure if they're in reality or still in the Dream. Even the Anti-Dream could be part of the Dream. And such is true in our world. Even those opposed to Jewish Supremacism are marked by the 'logic' of The Dream. If you oppose Jews, you must be 'nazis', 'white supremacists', 'anti-semites', or etc. Of course, there are neo-nazi types who can't oppose Jewish Power without resorting to 'Muh Fuhrer', but this is because they lack the autonomous power to dream. Therefore, they must borrow the dream of Hitler to combat the Jewish Dream instead of creating a new and better Dream from scratch.

How do a people replace one Dream with another? A New Dream in which most people become figures in another Dream. They become NPC's in another people's game. US politicians, 'conservative' and 'liberal', are little more than NPC's in the Jewish Dream. One way to replace one Dream with another is by invasion. US defeated Japan, erased the myth of the sacred Emperor, and installed the new Dream of Japan as a peace-loving democracy, which, however, must take orders from the New Empire that invades and destroys other nations. (Incidentally, blaming Japanese Militarism for Japan's woes is disingenuous. After all, Japan embarked on its imperialist ventures BEFORE the military takeover and with the support & even encouragement of Western Imperialist powers. Furthermore, the leading imperialist powers in the world were all 'democratic': UK, France, and US. Also, most militarist governments were generally less imperialist, and more often than not, a nation turned to militarism as last recourse against foreign domination or total chaos. Franco and Pinochet were military leaders, but they didn't invade anyone, and they came to power to defend the order from International Communism, a form of ideological imperialism. But as the US-dominant Narrative governs the world, Japanese are to believe that they were saved from bad old militarism with defeat and democracy. Such is the power of the Dream.)

The Dream can be replaced by outright invasion. Still, invaders without a strong Dream may fall under the Dream of the vanquished. Mongols invaded China but fell under the spell of the Middle Kingdom Dream. The Romans, for all their military glory, were weak in the power of Dreams. So, they fell under the Dream of the Greeks and worshiped a fusion of Roman and Greek gods. Their art imitated Greek imagination. And later, Romans and the Greeks fell under the Dream of Christianity even though Christians had no means to conquer them militarily. They became figures in the Dream of Jesus and Paul, Jews rejected by Jews. Later, the Germanic barbarians invaded Rome, much like Mongols would invade China later, but as the barbarians were weak in the power of Dream, they too fell under the sway of Christo-Roman Template.

The Power of Dreams come in two forms. One where the Dream takes on a power all its own independent of its originator and the Other where the Dream is used by a people to control others. For example, all of the West fell under the power of the Greek Dream. Especially the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and 19th century archaeology prized Greek culture as the shining ideal. Still, it was the Greek Dream without Greek power as the Greeks had long declined and fallen. And Greeks were okay with this: The Greek Way conquering the human imagination around the world WITHOUT Greeks having power over the world.
In contrast, Jews felt differently. Via Christianity, there was the power of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power. Christians read the Sacred Texts of Jews, and Jewish spirituality and historiography had great impact on the West. But even as Europeans fell under the sway of the Jewish Dream(as Jesus, Disciples, and Paul were Jews steeped in Jewish tradition), they were independent of Jewish Power and even hostile to Jewish People. And Jews took umbrage at this. Perhaps, the relation between Jews and Christians would have been better IF Christianity didn't insist that Jews rejected the Messiah and murdered Him. But, there was bound to be hostility between Judaism and Christianity because Jews couldn't help but feel that Jesus and Paul laid the groundwork of smuggling the Jewish God to other peoples, the dirty gentiles. It was a violation of the Covenant, and therefore, Jews could only feel hatred for Jesus and the heretical Jews. As Jews were anti-Christian, Christianity could only develop as an anti-Jewish religion.

Anyway, if Greeks were resigned to the prestige of the Greek Dream being independent of Greek power(that was non-existent at any rate), Jews couldn't tolerate Jewishness as an abstraction for other peoples without the input of the Jews themselves. Jews felt that all who adopted the Jewish Way must come under Jewish Sway. As both Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism, Jews must control the West and Near East. So, Muslim nations must be battered with Neocon militarism to teach them a lesson of who's the real Chosen of God. Because Islam is a proud militant religion, Jews know it's difficult to take over the Muslim Soul. But because Christianity is a religion of humility, guilt, and sin, Jews knew they could worm into the Christian Soul and re-code it for self-destruction. Alter the Christian Guilt Code toward feeling most ashamed of the Holocaust and Antisemitism(and 'racism' and 'homophobia') and then watch the dominos fall. As most Christians are craven, shallow, or stupid, their Sin Complex could be manipulated in algorithm. Do it like the guys in INCEPTION by Christopher Nolan. Enter the White Christian Dreamscape, locate and unlock the soul-safe Houdini-style, and alter the main object of worship from God and Jesus to Jew, Negro, and Homo. Replace Virgin Mary with Anne Frank. Replace God with bellowing Negro. Replace angels with homo fairies. Thus, Christianity became cucked and worthless, a mere NPC program in a Jewish Dream of Dominion.

Jewish Power seeks to Greek-ize the West. Just like the Greek Way became divorced from Greek Power(whereby even non-Greeks took Greek ideas and idols with no regard for actual Greeks), the Western Way is to be divorced from Western Folks. We are told that Western Civilization is an Idea. It's not a people and their land. It's an idea or ideal that can be adopted by anyone. So, the power of the West should be an abstraction. Even if whites lose their lands and become minorities in their own nations due to mass immigration-invasion, there is no need to worry as Western Civilization will remain powerful as a Dream for all of humanity. White people having power isn't what the West is about. All that matters is the propagation of the Western Idea. As long as the Idea lives on as the Dream for others, the West is still #1. And what is this Western Idea: A Universal commitment to liberty, individuality, rule of law, and property rights(and sucking up to Jews, blacks, and homos). So, even if white people were to vanish from the world, the West would be alive and well as long as people are into 'muh liberty' and property rights. Following this logic, Chinese need not worry if China vanishes as long as people enjoy Mooshoo Pork. Chinese culture still alive, you see.

But of course, Jews would never want this for themselves. If someone told Jews, "Hey, don't worry if Arabs or Muslims take over Israel and if you Jews vanish off the face of the Earth because the Jewish Idea will always be with us in the form of the Bible and the achievements of Jews such as Albert Einstein and Steven Spielberg." And even the Koran could be said to be partly Judaic since Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Texts. Now, would Jews be okay with a world of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power(and People)? Of course not. Jews want to use their Dream as their hegemonic power over others. The Dream must never be independent of Jewish Power.
Jews weren't content with Gentiles adopting and worshiping the Jewish God. They wanted to gain control over those who adopted the universalized form of Yahweh. Indeed, Jews even wanted to take God back from those people. What is Globo-Homo Queertianity but a bait-and-switch Jews are pulling on the Christians? By making Christians worship the inanity of Sodomic Globo-Homo, Jews effectively turn Christianity into a junk-religion devoid of God. Of course, Jewish Rabbis pretend to go along with globo-homo, but it's just a ruse for the rubes. After all, the Talmud teaches the Jews to use all forms of deception to hoodwink and destroy the goyim. For Jews, a jealous people(like their God is jealous), Jewish Power must always command the Jewish Way. If Greeks are flattered that non-Greeks took the Greek Way and came to greatness(and even surpassed the Greeks), Jews are not happy about non-Jews having taken the Jewish Way and come to greatness. Deep down inside, Jews hate Christianity and Islam even as they take pride in the fact that all those hapless shallow goyim fell under the power of the Jewish Dream. For Jews, the respect for the Jewish Way must be accompanied by supremacy of Jewish Power. Jewish Way must not become independent of Jewish Power. Muslims must be hammered into submission by the Chosen People of Zion. Christians must be manipulated into changing their religion to suit the outlook and sensibilities of Jews. So, how dare the Russians not fly 'gay' flags in Orthodox Churches to appease the Jews... like the Catholics are finally on the verge of doing, what with the poop-pope Francis blessing 'gay marriages'.

White people have two paths: the Greek path or the Jewish path. Greek path says your civilization will live on as a great idea but minus the power(and even the survival) of the people who created it. Jewish path says your civilization must live on as an idea that is inseparable from the survival, security, and power of the people who created it. Jews believe that even though non-Jews can learn and take from Jewishness, the Jewish Way really belongs to the Jews who are its real owners. But Jews tell white people that the Western Way cannot in any way be claimed by white Europeans. It is to be a dream independent of the dreamer... so that it will succumb to The Dream Empire of the Jews.

BIDEN & BIG TECH'S FEAR & LOATHING OF HUNGARY

What is a Conservative Movie? Notes on Conservatism and Nostalgia in the Arts and Cinema.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/08/the-leopard/

The discussion of THE LEOPARD(link above) reminds me of National Review's list of BEST CONSERVATIVE MOVIES: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls000074133/ http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.moviedetail/movie_id/19 https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2009/02/23/best-conservative-movies/ https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/feb/20/1

What a philistine list by hack ideologues with no sense of culture. Works like THE LEOPARD weren't listed. Instead, there was PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, THE PATRIOT, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, and BICYCLE THIEVES.

PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS and PATRIOT, which I haven't seen, are surely crap. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and BICYCLE THIEVES are great works and one can find conservative elements in them, but it's disingenuous to call them 'conservative' because IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has too much that could be called 'liberal' and the script of BICYCLE THIEVES was by a Marxist-Humanist. One can say the family values element is conservative(but back then, the left wasn't anti-family like it became under increased Jewish, family, and homo influence), but its social critique is essentially leftist.
As for LIVES OF OTHERS, its anti-communism isn't necessarily pro-conservative. If anything, it is an example of Liberal Anti-Communism as the real message of the movie is that inferior hoi polloi like you and I should risk everything, even our lives, for the well-being and privilege of cosmopolitan artists who are surely our superiors.

The National Review list was petty, predictable, partisan, and jingoistic. It lacked imagination, movie knowledge, and bigness of heart. Hardly different from 100 best list you'd find in Premiere magazine if published by GOP hacks.
A genuine list should not favor films simply because conservatives tend to like it. Nor should a movie be chosen because it was made by a conservative, a rare breed in cinema. Movies that could just as easily be labeled liberal should be excluded, like WONDERFUL LIFE. (Indeed, the most ridiculous aspect of the National Review list is the tortured logic that deigns certain works as 'conservative' because of their social policy implications in the Current Year, e.g. if the movie has a high-spirited individual go-getter, maybe it's about libertarianism and lower taxes. There is an air of exaggeration and even desperation in National Review's list because there are so few card-carrying conservatives, let alone Republicans, working in the movie industry here or elsewhere. So, National Review twists logic to argue that certain apolitical or even liberal movies are really 'conservative'. As for films with genuine conservative pedigree, National Review has no interest because, being a hack journal of establishment conservatism, it dares not go near a work that might displease its donor base and philistine readership. Notice there is no mention of Andrei Tarkovsky, the greatest rightist film artist of the 20th century. Too Russian for the NR crowd, it seems. And of course, no mention of THE BIRTH OF A NATION by D.W. Griffith, the father of cinema, because NR is afraid of being called 'racist'. Maybe Dinesh D'Souza can argue that THE BIRTH OF A NATION is really a communist movie.) We must keep in mind that a leftist can make a conservative film just as Jew or atheist can make a Christian film. Some of the greatest Westerns have been made by Europeans who knew little about the real West. Each film need to be judged on its own merit. One must also dispense with the notion that a movie is deserving simply because it's conservative. Too many movies on the NR list aren't all that good but overrated for their presumed(or imagined) ideological content. For a list that bills itself as the BEST Conservative Movies, the works have to be conservative and excellent.
Also keep in mind that because some of the sentiments in the movie are conservative or sympathetic to the conservative viewpoint, it doesn't follow that the movie was conceived or intended to be conservative. Indeed, this applies to THE LEOPARD as well. Luchino Visconti was not proposing the restoration of Sicilian aristocracy. He made it as an elegy to the beauty and majesty that were lost with progress and development; for every gain, there is a loss.

We need a clearer meaning of 'conservative', especially when we are dealing with something as multi-faceted as the Arts. Firstly, it mustn't be confused with reaction or fascism. Both reaction and fascism are activist whereas a certain gentlemanly or dignified passivity is at the core of conservatism. Reactionaries single-mindedly seek to turn back to clock, to reclaim what was lost. They see the past as a golden age. They seek to destroy or suppress innovations whether they be economic, political, technological, or whatever.
Fascism is trickier for it incorporates elements of both right and left. It combines reverence for the past with excitement about the future. It fuses the virility of primitive nature worshiping paganism with transcendental aspirations of higher civilization.
While reaction, conservatism, and fascism can be said to belong on the right of the social or political spectrum, they are not synonymous. This gets even trickier in our age because what passes for conservatism is free market capitalism, the most dynamic and transformative force in the world. Marxists can dream up utopias all they want. In truth, all truly lasting revolutionary economic, social, scientific, and political innovations and changes have arisen from capitalist forces. Even social-democratic nations have economies mainly fueled by capitalism.
So, how odd that today's 'conservative' espouses the most dynamic and uprooting force the world has ever known? A modern conservative basically conserves the most powerful engine of socio-economic change. Take China and India. Since they've adopted global capitalism and free markets, their societies have been changing and growing at breakneck speed. Ideologically, they can be said to have gone 'conservative' in having abandoned their socialist or communist ways. But, capitalism is changing those nations like nothing ever before.

More meaningfully, one can define conservatism thus: The outlook that stands for reverence for the past, preservation of cultural heritage, longing for what may be lost, and etc. A conservative is different from a reactionary in that the former ultimately accepts change even while mourning what will be lost. Reactionaries doggedly cling to the past or struggle to restore it. A conservative understands that change is either necessary or inevitable even as he is threatened by it.

Now, what sets a conservative apart from a liberal(despite the conservative's acceptance of change) is that the former is less willing to simply dump or forget traditions or established conventions as the world changes. His feelings are more invested with the past or the status quo; it's not just a matter of his own power or privilege; he may actually be a poor person but sentimentally attached to the 'old ways'; in this sense, a poor Evangelical in America or poor Italian Catholic woman who feels a sense of loss from change(even though it may economically benefit him or her) can be said to be conservative; he or she doesn't define meaning of life simply on basis of materialism but on cultural norms of what constitutes virtue, sacredness, nobleness, etc. Even if a liberal says "I'll give you $1,000 a month in welfare if you support 'gay marriage'", a poor Evangelical or Catholic will refuse. For many people, a vision of society is as or more important than economic status or power.

Another way to define conservatism would be a search or longing for some core values(in the absence of such), a desire to set down firm roots, to possess a moral compass in life. In this sense, 'Amores Perros' can be said to have conservative themes — though it's certainly not blatantly so and is questioning of globo-capitalism(that prior to 'woke capitalism' was associated with the 'right') — in its rejection of moral relativism and a world defined solely by radicalism or materialism. This isn't to say liberals are immoral or amoral vis-a-vis conservatives. The difference is liberals are less interested in the idea of Core Values. They often take core values as stuffy and rigid or 'essentialist'; they favor fluidity of truth(albeit with rigidity of self-righteousness of the Current Year) in moving away from what society has traditionally deemed as core values, though they tirelessly establish new faddish orthodoxies via political correctness. This venturesomeness can be daring and useful, but it can go off the rails and lead to a world where there is no strong core meaning to guide the individual or unite a increasingly alienated people. Therefore, there lingers a longing for firm values, which is what conservatism(the real kind) offers.

Also, conservatism, though antithetical to relativism, gains special meaning within a relativistic context. In a way, a nostalgic communist in the Russia of the early 1990s could be said to be conservative in the sense that he sought to preserve what had been built up and passed down during 70s yrs of communism. At one time, Christianity was a peripheral and defiant(and even radical) faith; then it became the official dogma and thus 'conservative'. So, conservatism isn't merely about ideology. It can also be a state of mind, a sense of not wanting to let go of what has defined a community and individuals within it. A man can be of leftist ideology yet of conservative personality/mentality/temperament or of rightist ideology yet of liberal personality/mentality/temperament. The mother in GOODBYE LENIN is a diehard communist but also an emotional conservative who clings to what has become familiar to her.

We are largely defined by the ideology we grew up under, yet our personalities and inclinations define how we deal with handed-down spoon-fed values. Newt Gingrich is ideologically conservative but has a somewhat radical personality. Even when conservatives adopt something radical-crazy like 'gay marriage', they try to give it a trad-moralist spin. i.e. "It's conservative cuz 'gays' are adopting family values."
There were Democrats like Richard Daley who were ideologically liberal but had the personality of a conservative family man and head of Irish clan. A conservative is less likely to look down on the past and feel smugly superior; of course, he may feel smugly righteous with established norms(like Archie Bunker). Some conservatives feel it's their duty to counter the rapid pace of change demanded by liberals. As such, they aren't so much anti-liberal as anti-accelerationist. At their best, Liberalism is the accelerator pedal, Conservatism is the brake pedal. There are times when history must be slowed down to make change more cautious and palatable. When Liberalism and Conservatism work together, history works well. Obviously, a car doesn't move forward with its brakes. But then, a car without brakes will soon crash and burn. Today, when Liberalism puts pedal to the metal and Conservatism just cheers it on, we have the currently crazy West of degeneracy and Great Replacement. Of course, most of today's so-called Liberals are white dupes of Jewish supremacist globo-homo power.

In more respects than one, modern conservative reacts against the official ideology of the so-called 'Right'. Though a free market capitalist, he may realize that his favored economic system is overly dynamic and uprooting, therefore needs to be balanced by core values, timeless themes, and even a bit of socialism. (Consider how Tucker Carlson is sounding lately.) He values conservatism precisely because he values change. Because change + change is too much for humanity, he opts for change + balance. He may feel that a counter-power system is necessary to tame the bull-like nature of capitalism. In this sense, a modern conservative is at war with his own party. It's like sailing. To harness the shifting winds to move from place to place, the mast has to be strong and steady. A conservative may feel that extreme liberalism is eager to surrender to the winds whereas his own kind seeks to use them for the ship. He appreciates the power of winds but as something that serves the ship than vice versa. Today, those on the Right want to use the international system for the good of one's own nation, whereas the so-called 'progressives' want to offer up one's nation to the global system. It's 'use the world for the good of our nation' versus 'lose the nation for the good of the world'. (Granted, 'progressives' are really tools of Jews whose secret motto is 'use all the goy world to ensure Jewish supremacist rule forever.') Western Expansion could be said to have been an artful combination of liberal and conservative principles. There was the curiosity to find new lands and go where the winds carried the ships, and yet, there was also mastery of machinery and methodology to ensure that the forces of nature served man than man surrendered to forces of nature. Thus, the West could expand far and wide but still maintain their ways, manners, and values far away from home.

Conservatism has a certain sentimentality for the past, traditions, established conventions, long standing rituals. But, conservatism doesn't have a clear agenda like reactionary-ism nor does it have the quasi-radical edge or the fighting spirit of fascism. Conservatism in the modern era is essentially bourgeois(especially in Europe) or about the Common Man(especially in the US). Conservatives come in different shapes and colors. Some resemble reactionaries. Some tend to be liberalish. But even liberal-ish conservatives who realize that change is necessary may lament that something grand, beautiful, or meaningful will be lost, perhaps for good, with the necessary change. There is a sense of elegy with the resigned acceptance of progress. It's there in MAKIOKA SISTERS and MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. Neither film suggests the past was preferable, but they do invoke a sense of what's been lost, forgotten, and paved over by progress. Also, there is a subjectivity to nostalgia. Those without memory of what had once been won't understand the poetry and melancholia. It is why the ending of MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is doubly sad. Not only is something lost but there is no one around to share the character's sense of loss.
Conservatism is also a matter of personality, i.e. some feel the loss with greater sensitivity than others do, just like some people mourn the death of their loved ones more strongly. Conservatism isn't merely a preference for previous power-arrangements but nostalgia for how it used-to-be, even if what-had-been was far from ideal. In more ways than one, THE LEOPARD(the film) is more a work of nostalgia than conservatism. It doesn't long for the past in terms of power-politics but acknowledges the regal splendor that passed away with change and modernity; it's like what Ruth Gordon says in HAROLD AND MAUDE: "I don't regret the kingdoms - what sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings. Also, those who knew nothing of this past, culture, and order could hardly miss it as nostalgia is about what one remembers but no longer has. As most people weren't aristocrats, they could hardly feel nostalgic for the aristocratic order, of which they have no memory. For the hoi polloi viewers, their impression of THE LEOPARD will be less of nostalgia than of fascination with a world of riches and grandeur. Still, even the hoi polloi may feel a certain shared-nostalgia because fiction allows the audience to empathize with the characters. To the extent that the viewers come to intimately participate in the life of a prince(especially in a work as masterly as that of Visconti's), they do feel some measure his grief and quiet tragedy.


Libertarian movies shouldn't count as conservative because there is little sense of love or reverence for the past or tradition. Libertarianism is free-market-'fascism'-of-the-individual. If Italian Fascism said there is one and only Il Duce in the form of Mussolini and all Italians must gather around him, Ayn Randism says each person should be his or her own Mussolini(and since she knew everything, every individualist-Mussolini would really be her mental minion; Rand was a radical mono-individualist who decreed how all individuals must think and feel in order to be 'free' and 'rational': Like Her). Rand, as we know, had little respect or love for American or Russian heritage(or for the Jewish one for that matter though she certainly had a Jewish Personality & radical will and supported Zionism against Arabs whom she denigrated as 'barbarians'). What she liked about America was the opportunity for growth, riches, and change fueled by radical individualist freedom. She couldn't have cared less about American folks lived in prairie towns who wore Sunday best for Church attendance.

List of conservative movies should be chosen based on merit alone. Suppose some Homo-Marxist made a movie with noticeable conservative themes. His inclinations shouldn't negate the work's content. But suppose an inferior work was made by a prominent someone known to be 'conservative'. If it isn't good, there's no sense pretending it is just because he happens to be in the 'right' camp. No sense lauding something just because it was made by Mel Gibson or happens to be pro-family or pro-Christian. PASSION was underrated by its detractors but way overrated by hardcore Christian types and Conservatism Inc., which also dutifully wet its pants over BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT. Furthermore, no special consideration should be given to crowd-pleasing movies. It's dubious that FORREST GUMP is really a conservative movie, but people like Pat Buchanan slurped up its cheap sentimentality.

It's worth noting that some of the greatest films ever are conservative-themed(or right-wing) yet made by liberals. Why would that be? Maybe because liberals are artistically more curious, open-minded, and experimental whereas conservative themes are meatier and/or more substantive: The bond of blood or triumph of spirit runs deeper than ink of justice. It's rightness vs righteousness. The Right feels right, whereas the Left has to feel righteous. 'Being' itself is right enough for the Right, whereas only 'being right' is right for the Left. We see this in the dichotomy of the White Right and White Left. White Right is content with being white and would be happy to have their own homelands and be left alone. White Left feels justified only when it feels righteous about something, and if opening white nations to the world is deemed the 'right thing to do', they must hysterically go about realizing such vision... if only to feel more self-righteous.

Also, art works through friction and tension, and the tension between liberal curiosity and conservative density makes for interesting dynamics. APOCALYPSE NOW is more interesting for the creative tension between Francis Ford Coppola's liberal leanings and John Milius' right-wing vision. A liberal making a liberal movie might be comfortable with the material; he merely has to endorse it. The element of friction would be absent. However, a liberal working with conservative themes must struggle with them; this makes for creative tension and dialectic sparks.
Also, power, privilege, sanctity, spirituality — the favored themes of conservatism — are ultimately more interesting and resilient than do-goodery and social consciousness. Would most people rather see a movie about Don Corleone or a do-gooder social activist? A leftist revolutionary can be an interesting material for a movie, but he has to be hyper-charged with action. A leftist is interesting for the way he tries to change the world. A conservative is interesting simply for being a part of the world. A leftist must transform the world to have meaning, whereas a conservative already has meaning in his world. The prince of THE LEOPARD merely needs to be an aristocrat to be regal and majestic. In contrast, a leftist revolutionary has to throw bombs or make speeches to be somebody. The king is interesting because he lives in a castle and HAS power. The rebel trying to overthrow the king is interesting because he WANTS power. To the extent that all rebels eventually want power and to rule, they are working toward what eventually becomes the New Conservatism. In the end, it's about power than ideals, and all leftisms become rightisms. Indeed, leftism is essentially the wanna-be new rightism. Look how the Jewish 'Liberals' became the new ruling class in the West and will go about doing just about anything to conserve their power. Granted, Jews aren't merely conservative because they aren't content merely with keeping with what they got but salivate for more and more. They are conservatives with what they have and expansives with what they don't yet have but crave.

Despite being mass entertainment and perhaps the most democratic of art-forms, cinema may essentially be a very conservative art form in one sense: Nearly all movies create larger-than-life-heroes. Rightism is distinct from egalitarian leftism in the acceptance of hierarchy. To be sure, there are different kinds of hierarchies — based on blood, merit, or gangsterism. The thing is, even a movie about leftists like Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin would mythologize them as a Special Higher being, a king-like or even godlike figure. Presence of larger-than-life figures runs against the ideal of leftism that is egalitarian and says NO ONE should be bigger or larger than anyone else.
But, movies make the heroes and main characters larger-than-life, larger than ordinary mortals. They give us heroes who dwarf the hoi polloi both figuratively and literally(as they're magnified on the big screen). So, 'Michael Collins' isn't just an Irish revolutionary but something like a demigod. Even a whacko like Travis Bickle in TAXI DRIVER becomes a mythic anti-hero. This wouldn't necessarily be the case with drama or novel. Both work on the human level and proportions. They don't present giants on the big screen, whose moments are further heightened by music. Opera's exaggerated vocals may be the closest thing to the exaggerated image of cinema.
Movies almost always create mythic heroes; it's largely due to the size of the screen but also the power of editing and the sped-up narrative(that takes us all over the map across time and space). Now, this isn't the case with the films of the Dardennes Brothers or Jean-Luc Godard. Or with something like Ermano Olmis' TREE OF THE WOODEN CLOGS where the realist-setting and the way of life are more important than any single character. Still, especially with the impact of the Auteur Theory, we do feel the personal signature of the star director as a near-godly presence. Most movies have this power over us. Even a movie about leftists or leftist ideals become rightist or even 'fascist' in its presentation. A profound sense of hierarchy is unmistakable. Take V FOR VENDETTA(a terrible movie to be sure) where the hero becomes not just a warrior for justice but a demagogic super-duper-man of awesomeness. Or take MALCOLM X. He is elevated to silver screen aristocracy, and all the Negro kids in the audience were supposed to stand up and say "I's Macum X."

Now, some genuinely conservative films:

The Leopard, Makioka Sisters, Tokyo Story, Apu Trilogy (boy grows to manhood, seeks freedom, but realizes he's part of something bigger, part of a continuum), Music Room (leading character is a decadent aristo BUT the film captures the seductive allure of leisure and privilege), Andrei Rublev, Stalker, Tree of the Wooden Clogs(critical of social inequality of Old Italy BUT a paean to the virtues and decency of simple god-fearing peasant folks), Diary of a Country Priest, Time Regained, Sunshine(by Szabo, conservative at least in its insistence on importance of Jewish memory), Ride the High Country, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander Nevsky, Nixon, The Godfather, Six Moral Tales, Fanny and Alexander(for family and liberalism), High and Low, Magnificent Ambersons, Chimes at Midnight, Barry Lyndon, An Unfinished Piece for a Mechanical Piano, Burnt by the Sun(revolution destroys a national hero and devours the family unit), Siberiade, Ugetsu, The Long Riders, Birth of a Nation, Once Upon a Time in the West, Farewell My Concubine, Earrings of Madame de, Christmas Story, Radio Days, Man Who Knew Too Much, The Birds, My Father's Glory, My Mother's Castle, Age of Innocence, Time of the Gypsies, Great Expectations, Amorres Perros, Notre Musique, The Return(Russian), Nostalghia(Tarkovsky), Metropolitan, Last Days of Disco.

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.