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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Jewish Politics so dirty? — Does Jewish Power practice Foreign Policy within the American Body Politic? — What happens when National Politics takes on the coloring of Foreign Policy? — 'Mossad' and 'Palestinians' as Metaphors

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

The above essay by Ron Unz details the various acts of terror, assassinations, and other extra-legal measures taken by the Mossad and secret Jewish organizations. Most striking is how brazen Jewish Power has been even in nations that are thought to be supportive and protective of their lives, wealth & interests, and of course Israel. What is the mentality behind such an attitude and worldview among Jews? And what does this say about the nature of Jewish Politics in the West? Do Jews practice a kind of Foreign Policy in goy nations despite being national citizens in them?

Why is Jewish Politics so dirty? Perhaps because Jews regard all politics(except in Israel) to be a matter of Foreign Policy. (Of course, there's plenty of corruption and dirty dealings in Israel, but Israeli political dynamics is still a case of healthy national politics where rulers are mindful of the needs of the ruled as fellow Jews.) What is the striking feature about foreign policy as opposed to domestic policy? The former tends to be far more Machiavellian, cynical, opportunistic, and gangster-like. We can see this in the dichotomy of US national politics and US foreign policy. While there's plenty of foulness and filth to be found in both, there is a limit to bad behavior in national politics. No matter how much the President or the Deep State hates someone in the US, he or it cannot use drone strikes against him. George W. Bush could kill any number of Iraqis but couldn't send goons to take out Michael Moore. Trump cannot anyone in the US like he took out Soleimani the Iranian. The Democrats can't hire ISIS or 'moderate rebels'(as done in Syria) to slaughter American Conservatives. People of the nation have rights and/or voices, and the rulers and the ruling class must maintain legitimacy as elites with good intentions. Indeed, it is telling that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump got in hot water in relation to Ukraine. Apparently, both felt that they could get away with pulling some stunt in a FOREIGN country that wouldn't pass muster in the US. (Granted, there are nations where domestic politics is pretty brutal and lawless, but then, such regimes rule more by secret police and fear factor than with genuine legitimacy. North Korea would be a prime example. But in nations like the US, Russia, Iran, and China, the rulers must maintain some genuine measure of support and trust among the populace, the 'mandate of heaven' thing. And that means the elites can't just do ANYTHING and get away with it.)

It's been said the US president must abide by the Rule of Law in the US but can act almost like an imperial-dictator in relation to the world. Consider how Trump got away with assassinating Soleimani. And US tramples on feeble 'international law' as it continues to occupy Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. When it comes to foreign policy, the only rule is "If doable, we do it." So, Obama got away with wrecking Libya, engineering a coup in Ukraine, and aiding crazy terrorists in Syria. And US foreign policy in Latin America has been dismal overall, even supporting 'death squads' to prop up allies against the rise of the masses or Marxist insurgents. FBI has abused power in the US but nothing like what the CIA did overseas. National politics is like City Hall. Dirty and corrupt but within some limits of Rule of Law. Foreign policy is like gangsterism, and this is true of every nation. The CIA was all over the map. It funded modernist art in Eastern Europe and aided ultra-conservative Islamists in the Middle East. The only rule was 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', with former friends suddenly becoming enemies and vice versa. CIA worked with China to prop up remnants of Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese who once occupied Cambodia. And of course, the foreign policies of nations like China, Russia, Iran, and etc. have also been gangsterish and even ghoulish at times. Foreign policy is like gangsterism plus the Wild Wild West. As different nations have different interest, different norms, and different conceptions of rules/laws, there is an absence of universal standards and values. And so, the US, in one moment, denounces Iran as a theocratic tyranny, and then turns around to embrace Saudi Arabia as a most valued ally. In America, when the elites say Segregation was wrong, they better mean it. But American morality is a game of smoke-and-mirrors outside the US as the very politicians who endlessly remind us of the bad ole days of Jim Crow have no issues with neo-apartheid in West Bank against Palestinians.

The problem with Jews is that they are minorities in all nations except in Israel. Now, if Jews hadn't gained great power in goy nations, none of this would matter. But in fact, Jews have gained power that ranges from considerable to tremendous to even dominant in goy nations. Jewish power is considerable in certain Eastern European and Latin American nations despite their tiny numbers. Jewish power is tremendous in France and UK, even in Russia. It is dominant in the US, the lone superpower. Now, if Jews in whatever goy nation primarily identified with the majority goy population, their politics might be more humane, considerate, normative, and responsible within respective national contexts. But many Jews regard goyim as The Other, and that means Jews regard just about all politics(except in Israel and within Jewish communities) as a matter of Foreign Policy. So, Jewish American elites think not in terms of National Politics but regard even US politics as just another game of Foreign Policy, a matter of Jews and Goyim or Jews vs Goyim. Jews regard goy Americans like US government regards nations like China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukraine, Poland, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Egypt, etc. Just like the US government acts the gangster in Foreign Policy, lawlessly going to any length to make or break alliances to maximize power and position, it seems Jewish American Power has few qualms about doing even the most outrageous things WITHIN the US in the name of "Is it good for Jews, Zionism, and Israel?"
This has huge repercussions for all of America because Jews are the ruling elites, and thus set the tenor of power for the rest of the people. If this style of politics continues in the US, there won't be any real National Politics left as the Foreign-Policy mindset will come to define and determine all aspects of power and relations. (In a similar vein, Latin American politics has been lousy because the white ruling elites always regarded the non-white majority as the Other, and of course vice versa. Despite all the flowery rhetoric of all Latin Americans being happily mixed, there have always been racial demarcations. Latin American elites regard the brown national masses as 'foreigners' and vice versa, and this accounts for why the politics there have especially been gangsterish. When dealing with 'foreigners', anything goes. It seems Jewish elites look upon goy Americans like how white elites in Latin America look upon brown masses. Thus, national politics turns into a kind of foreign policy where Machiavellian gangsterism takes precedence over any notion of Rule of Law or the Good of the Nation.)

Whether it was stealing US atomic secrets, assassinating Americans(and other goyim), planning terrorist attacks, crushing free speech, undermining border security, pushing tons of Africans & Arabs into Europe, abusing the most unscrupulous use of lawfare(which is mafia-like perversion of the law), using control of finance to destroy lives, springing Jewish crooks from jail, spreading the most outrageous lies via media monopoly -- just how can a nation that calls itself a 'liberal democracy' with a 'free press' get away with something as surreal as 'Russia Collusion' Hoax? -- , peddling opioids & other drugs that killed whites at near-genocidal levels, indulging in the rankest hypocrisy of denouncing nationalism & 'white supremacism' while compelling all Americans to praise & protect the Nation of Israel and praise Jews, Jews, Jews, and etc., the result has been that American Politics no longer resembles National Politics. We don't so much feel like Americans being guided by National Interest but as foreigners being terrorized or manipulated with the most cynical set of carrots-and-sticks by an alien entity.

Given the current state of affairs, the 'Mossad' can serve as a useful metaphor for Jewish Power in the US. While Jewish Power doesn't go around literally assassinating or bombing goy politicians, it has ways of destroying just about anyone, and the reasons have almost nothing to do with whether someone is good or bad for the nation but everything to do with whether he's good or bad for Jewish Power. When judged bad-for-Jews, he is destroyed by the combined drone-attack by media, deep state, and power of blackmail, as we learned from Jeffrey Epstein. And even when some Jews are outed and brought down, as with Bernie Madoff, the Jewish-mafia-media narrative is that Madoff mainly hurt poor poor fellow Jews and it's terribly 'antisemitic' for anyone to say otherwise. If Mossad is a useful metaphor for Jewish American Power in general, 'Palestinians' are a useful metaphor for the great masses of goyim. When the norms of Foreign Policy prevails over National Politics within the very nation, the name of the game is gansterism all around. In a way, globalism, by spreading Diversity all over the world and severing the jugular vein between the national elites and national masses, has facilitated the spread of gangster politics. When a predator attacks a larger prey, it attempts to bite the back of the neck to sever the nerves that connect head to body. Once severed, the body goes limp, paralyzed. America had a healthier national politics when the white head was connected and responsive to the white body.

Reply to New York Magazine's Article "The Man Who Invented Identity Politics for the New Right"(on Steve Sailer) by Park MacDougald & Jason Willick

A Response to an article that ran on May 1, 2017.

http://www.unz.com/isteve/ny-mag-the-man-who-invented-identity-politics-for-the-new-right/

"...Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration..."

Everything in politics is 'divisive'. If we want unity, why have TWO or more parties? Why not a one-party system like China? Or Japan which has effectively been one-party state in the postwar period.
Also, Democratic Politics has been more divisive because of its stress on identity politics catering to non-whites for special consideration/treatment.
Now, if Democrats accepted non-whites and if Republicans rejected them, one could argue that Democrats strive to unify all Americans whereas Republicans divide Americans between whites(okay) and non-whites(not okay). But that is not American politics. Democrats win over non-whites with special favors that are often detrimental to whites, especially those of lower classes. Blacks are offered 'affirmative action' in admission/hiring, Hispanics are offered 'affirmative immigration'(aka tolerance of illegal immigration), and 'progressive' PC blames all problems on White Conservatives(while lionizing White 'progressives' as the 'good whites' who heroically play the role of 'white knight' in defending the 'poor huddled masses' of non-whites). Also, homos were handed the supremacist power to alter the meaning of marriage, a privilege denied to Polygamists and Incest-sexuals. Democrats also play sexual politics by driving a wedge between white women and white men. Feminist ideology teaches white women that white men, at least those who refused to be cucked, are the source of all evil. Indeed, it should be obvious by now to all honest observers that the so-called Second-Wave Feminism was less about 'liberating' all women than about driving a wedge between white men and white women. The agenda was conceived with an understanding between Jewish men and Jewish women that the best way to weaken the white race was to break the sacred/sexual bond between white men and white women. Divide and Conquer the white race by setting white women against white men and then by urging them to identify more with Jews, homos, and non-whites. Also, by pushing feminism, both high-IQ Jewish men and Jewish women would come to dominate many of the elite institutions and industries, therefore leaving fewer positions for white men. The fact that Jewish feminists are now totally supportive of pornography indicates that these Jewish-driven agendas — Second-Wave Feminism, Legalization of Pornography, Promotion of interracist Jungle Fever, Globo-Homomania, etc. — are really about "Is it good for Jews?" While people like Betty Friedan and other Second-Wavers may not have been consciously working for Jewish Interests, the fuller picture of the agenda has emerged over the years, and who can deny that Jews benefited the most? And why do Jewish feminists support pornography and why were most of them silent about White Slavery in Israel that lured and exploited thousands of Slavic women? Why if indeed Jewish feminists care about ALL women equally? Because, when push comes to shove, whether it's Jewish feminists or Jewish 'male chauvinist pigs', all their orchestrations and manipulations inexorably lead to more power/wealth for Jews and more impoverishment/dispossession/humiliation for whites whom Jews regard not as full-fledged human beings but as commodities like wheat, corn, and pigs.

The GOP party line has been more unifying in opening the party to all comers on the basis of colorblindness. (One exception is with Jews. Both parties go of their way to favor Jewish interests and Israel uber alles. Jewish supremacism is the real supremacism in the US, but it goes unaddressed because Jewish power controls the media. New York Magazine certainly doesn't address it for what it is: supremacism.) If the GOP must not favor whites, it must also not favor non-whites if it is to be colorblind. Favoring one group over another leads to the divisiveness, which is why the Democratic Coalition threatens to become a Demolition among various races and classes. Ironically, even as Progs accuse the GOP of being divisive, the bogeyman of the Evil White Male is the ONLY factor that keeps the Democratic Coalition united. They are united by hate of Whitey as scapegoat for everything that is wrong. Such is their 'intersectionality'.

American Politics is not about anti-white vs pro-white. It is about anti-white vs anti-anti-white. GOP hasn't been pro-white in anything for a long time. It is just less anti-white than the Democrats. But even this anti-anti-whiteness is pretty weak, with Bush II having pandered more to blacks and Hispanics, indeed much more than to whites, his voter base. Indeed, American Politics puts white gentiles(unless they happen to be homo, tranny, or members of the elites) in moral deficit vis-a-vis other groups, especially blacks and Jews. This is why even the GOP feels this need to suck up to Jewish supremacism and Magic Negro cult.
American Politics says it's okay for non-whites to be pro-identity, but it is wrong for whites to be pro-white. GOP's line is generic pro-Americanism. Even so, it is not explicitly anti-white like the Democratic line has become over the years. The PC narrative is that non-whites flock to Democrats because the GOP won't have them. In truth, non-whites flock to Democratic Party because they get special favors than mere equality, which is what the GOP offers. If one side offers equality while another side offers bribes, why wouldn't you go for the latter? More free stuff. (East Asians may pay a price from policies such as Affirmative Action that favors blacks and browns over yellows but, being so status-obsessed and conformist, most ideologically servile East Asians in the West would rather be associated with the Democrats who rule the biggest/richest cities and elite college towns.)

But then, things get weirder because, even as the Democratic or 'progressive' line is anti-white, most of Real White Privilege is located in the 'progressive' communities of Silicon Valley, elite colleges, upscale yuppie neighborhoods, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Pentagon, and etc., all of which are bastions of elite Jewish & White power/privilege.  In some ways, it seems the anti-white rhetoric of Democratic elites is a ruse to mask 'white privilege', which is okay if billed as 'liberal'. After all, the Clintons got pretty far. So did the Kerrys and Tim Caines and Jerry Browns of the world.
Indeed, the Democratic Party is more appealing to the educated elites, successful people, and the 'cool' crowd because status-narcissism goes hand-in-hand with moral narcissism. These people want wealth, privilege, and power, but they also want to feel 'cool' and morally justified. Since the Democratic Party and most 'creative' types are Liberal, rich and successful people want to be with the Liberal Creative types. Also, the Holy Three in the US are Jews, blacks, and homos, and all three are in the Democratic Party. In contrast, the Southern Strategy won the GOP temporary electoral advantage but saddled them with neo-Confederacy in a nation where there is no greater sin than 'racism'. KKK is the most hated symbol in the US, and the Deep South is connected with it. Of course, Black Crime & Terror has done far more damage than KKK ever did, but the Narrative decides what is worth remembering and paying attention to. The American Narrative resets to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over.
Also, the Democratic Party got legacy of New Deal and Civil Rights movement. Even though Democrats eventually abandoned the working class, the GOP has hardly reached out except in symbolism of flags and guns. Anyway, symbolic legacy eventually runs out of steam when it loses all semblance with reality. One could argue that the New Deal legacy finally ended for the Democrats with the demise of Hillary. But the New Deal legacy had had nostalgic appeal to Big Labor for a long time. Democrats also have the Civil Rights legacy. As blacks are seen as holy in America, this means a lot. There is no greater evil in the Current Year than 'racism'. Because JFK and Johnson led the way in the Civil Rights Era, Democrats came to own the issue. Also, blacks turned overwhelmingly Democratic, though one wonders if this has more to do with the Civil Rights bill or massive welfare increases under Lyndon B. Johnson. (Maybe if Trump offers Negroes bigass reparations, blacks will finally move on over to the GOP. Civil Rights Legacy may be lost to Democratic Party if it plays the homo card and immigrant card too much at the expense of blacks.) Given the iconic value of the Civil Rights Era and near-worship of MLK, Democratic Party has the Moral Advantage over the GOP. And this is why most successful people prefer to be associated with the Democrats EVEN THOUGH they don't want to live with most blacks. Your average Prog would prefer to live in a safe white community(even a conservative one) than in a black democratic town, but he still wants to be morally and politically associated with the Party of Civil Rights. And then, the mass media made homos holy too, and Democrats came to totally own that issue. And since Homos came to be synonymous with both suffering(especially due to HIV epidemic, one that was caused by their behavior) and cool celebrity culture in Hollywood and fashion, successful people chose to become Democrats. So, the Democratic Party became party of both the have-lesses and the have-mosts. As a Democrat, the have-mosts and other elites can win some radical chic points by being members of the Party of Progress... even though their main obsession is really Privilege.

"Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right. Yet Sailer describes citizenism as the best possible bulwark against ethnonationalist impulses."

As for the anti-immigration stance, it can be said to be pro-white since most immigrants are non-white, and white nationalists fear that more immigration-invasion will reduce white power in the US. On the other hand, anti-immigrationism is unifying than divisive. If current American citizens are to form into One United people, they need to work on what they have in common. Just when the American identity is becoming more confused(even more so with 50 new genders derived from 0.5% of the US population of trannies), the last thing we need is more immigration. US is diverse as it is. If anything, it is overly diverse and tearing at the seams. The divisiveness isn't the product of political machinations but demographic realities. If all these different Americans are to come together, there must be respect for Rule of Law. As different Americans have different cultural backgrounds and values, the one thing they must have in common is respect for Rule of Law. For this reason, illegal immigration must be ended and opposed as it violates Rule of Law, and the ideal of Citizenship. Stuff like amnesty leads to breakdown in Rule of Law and commonly shared principle of what makes a person American. If anyone can break in and become 'American', then Americanism is no longer about respect for Rule of Law but a grab-bag of who can get here by whatever nefarious means.

Also, even legal immigration needs to end. For white nationalists, the reasons are obvious. But even for non-whites, if they really want a united America of common identity and shared values, the urgent necessity right now is to encourage feelings of shared bond among all Americans, white, black, brown, and etc. (Besides, the MAIN ATTRACTION of US/Canada/Australia for non-white would-be-immigrants that they are White-Majority countries. Non-white masses are on the move not for 'democracy' or 'liberty' because most nations around the world are now democratic and offer plenty of freedom. Now, if the White-Majority is the very reason why non-whites want to move to the US, then it's worth noting hat endless non-white immigration will destroy the very thing that attracted the immigrants in the first place.) One has to be blind not to see the racial, cultural, and ethnic divisions all across America. When so much division is an undeniable reality in America, why bring in even more immigrants? How do we fix the problem of current divisiveness by adding more diversity, which leads to even more divisiveness? And what kind of a national elite cares more about possible-Americans-yet-to-be than for actual Americans who already are? It's a vapid shopoholic mentality applied on a global scale.
At any rate, non-whites are more likely to assimilate into white standards if they remain a decisive minority. They are more likely to respect the majority and try to fit into it. But as majority numbers and power decline, the minorities will be more demanding and contentious, also increasingly confused as to what really constitutes Americanism. Traditionally, Americanism entailed non-whites trying to become like White America. Now, Americanism entails non-whites defining 'True America' in rejection and revilement of White America. Especially with the notion of 'America is a nation of immigrants', there is the sense that newcomers fresh off the boat are More American than Americans, and if anything, Americans must reverse-assimilate to the World. Thus, the New Americanism is not about foreigners coming to dissolve into what was essentially White America but America dissolving into the World. White America as the Core American Ideal is replaced by various tribalisms from all over the world. (It is surely correct to say that Steve Sailer has a preference for White America, being white himself and respecting the European legacy and heritage. And Sailer never denied that like Conservative Inc types pretend they are totally for colorblind equality. No, Sailer prefers whites just like Jews prefer Jews and blacks prefer blacks. With Sailer, the real key is about finding the best compromise whereby each group gets something but can't get everything. Citizenism isn't white nationalism but it does offer something for whites in curtailing excessive immigration and defending traditional America. But it offers something for all groups who strive to be legal citizens. But American Politics of the Current Year assumes that it is wrong for white Americans to have any sense of white identity or interests at all. Whites must always prove themselves to be totally colorblind or especially deferential to Jews, Homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. But such arrangement is untenable. Why should white Americans be without white identity and white interests? The only sensible thing is to arrive at some formula where all groups get something but not everything. The current formula is one where whites get NOTHING, and that is unacceptable to any sane bunch of whites. It's like what Merlin says to Uther in EXCALIBUR in negotiations with the Duke of Cornwall:

Uther: "One land, one king. That is my peace, Cornwall." 
Cornwall: "Lord Uther, if I yield to the Sword of Power, what will you yield?"
Uther: "Me, yield?" 
Merlin: "He has given. Now, you must." 
Uther: "The land from here to the sea shall be yours... if you enforce the King's will." 

Citizenism, good or bad, is at least an attempt at compromise between white interests and other interests. But, Jewish-controlled Prog thought denies the validity of any white identity or interests. (Ostensibly, Jews say it is to suppress white 'racism', but in fact, it is to deny even the slightest vestige of white identity/interests so that deracinated whites will support and serve Jewish supremacist identity and interests.) Demise of Core White America is leading to more divisiveness all over America. Given that the bogeyman is 'white racism', all groups tend to blame 'white privilege' as easy scapegoat, but the real source of mounting problems is too much diversity and the lack of Core Americanism to hold the nation together. Diversity can be of peripheral value. It cannot constitute the core. It's like the Sun is the center of the Solar System. The diverse planets revolve around it. In the USSR, the core culture was Russia. But as the Russian core dwindled in population vis-a-vis non-Russians who came to represent 51% in the 1980s, the empire broke apart. China has Han Chinese as the core around with ethnic minorities revolve. Without that Han Core, China would begin to fray and tear apart.

The demise of white core is leading to more division in America. The great paradox of American politics is that Diversity has been made to revile the only thing that can hold the various diverse groups together: The White Core. In the past, the White Core served as the model of emulation for which various non-white groups. One might say White America, for all its faults, was the Model Majority as so many non-whites around the world were willing to permanently depart from their own peoples and cultures to become new citizens of a White Majority nation, one they were willing to emulate. Various non-white groups were different from one another but had in common the desire to be part of White America, culturally if not racially. Today, White America still functions as a glue for non-whites but as mutual object of hatred and contempt. Hating Whitey is the only thing that many non-whites have in common. (Even though the excuse given for hating whitey is that whites are oppressive and have all the privilege, it seems much of the acrimony is really driven by contempt for white weakness, not least because the once mighty white race seems so defenseless, timid, and cucky-wuck in face of all the insults and abuse hurled at it by even the poorest minorities, most recent arrivals, and even illegals. No one respects wimps and wussies. After all, it is the 'nice' spineless husband who is henpecked the most. As Jewish supremacism now rules the US and as most whites are deathly afraid of displeasing their Jewish overlords, they just take all the slings and arrows from non-whites because barking back, even with something as innocuous as "It's Okay to be White", would be very displeasing to their Jewish Masters. Current white behavior is more like that of dogs whose primary consideration is, "Will I displease my master?") It's useful for now because without whitey to hate, they will hate one another. For now, when browns are angry with blacks, they blame whites. When blacks are angry with immigrants, they blame whites. When yellows are angry with browns or blacks, they blame whites. When Jews are angry with Muslims, they blame whites. When Muslims are angry with Jews, they blame whites. If respect/awe/fear of whiteness brought various non-white groups together in the past around the orbit of the White Core, the repulsion to whiteness pulls them out of the orbit and eventually crashing into one another They keep saying Diversity is their Core Value, but diversity can never serve as the gravitational core of society. Diversity can only work as a peripheral entity revolving around a Solid Core.

Mexicans in California are more aggressive than in the past. Somalis in Minnesota have no respect for anything. They make demands like the US belongs to them. Multi-culturalists denounce 'divisiveness' but actually thrive on it, which is their bread-and-butter. Indeed, they admonished non-whites not to assimilate into white America and maintain their separateness politically and ideologically. Thus, non-whites have been made to see whites as the enemy than as the host to respect and assimilate into. Multi-culturalists even came up with the notion of 'micro-aggression' to make non-whites feel offended by any gesture, no matter how mild, made by whites. (Of course, non-white macro-aggressions are a bigger problem in America. Surely, people have more to worry about Mexican drug gangs and black thugs, but academics in their bubble world cook up nonsense 'injustices', such as the horror of whites asking, "Where are you from?") The message of multi-culturalism is bogus and hypocritical. It says, "we non-whites will reject and insult you whites, but you whites must accept and praise us at all times." In a way, it is a twist on Jewish attitude to white gentile America. Jews keep their culture of uniqueness and exclusion(toward goyim), but white goyim must be welcoming and open to everyone and everything Jewish.
It's like a card game where one guy can keep his cards in the hole but the other player has to show all his cards. And we see this play out over and over. So, the cast of HAMILTON insults Mike Pence, but Pence has to be gracious and accommodating. Kanye West and other nasty blacks dumped on Bush II, but Bush II goes out of his way to whimper, boo hoo, that the worst part of his presidency was hearing that a deranged rapper said he doesn't like black people. "But I wuv black people oh so very much, and I even gave tens of billions to Africa to prove I love them Negroes." (Not much love for Palestinians though, and no one seems to care, not even Liberals and Progs. Btw, if the progs at New York magazine are appalled by tribalism and nationalism, how do they feel about America's overwhelming support for Zionist ethnic-cleansers and Yinon-ist imperialists?)

Another reason why immigration is divisive is it has the effect of weakening the ties between native elites and native masses. We see this in the US, Canada, and EU. As US elites dedicate themselves more to Diversity via more immigration to create 'new Americans', they have less time to address the issues of Already-Americans. Also, when Already-Americans protest this injustice, the elites protectively hug the New Americans or Future Americans and denounce the Already-Americans 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. British and Canadian white elites do the same thing. This leads to class division, the Coming Apart as theorized by Charles Murray. This turns a nation from a organic system to a mere commercial enterprise. A company may fire workers and get new ones, but a family doesn't get rid of family members to get new family members. US and UK were once like a national family or at least national community. But with massive immigration, every American is treated like a worker by a faceless transnational corporation that can just hire someone else. America is an 'indispensable nation' where Americans are all dispensable. America is an 'exceptional nation' where Americans are not exceptional but replaceable by any bunch of 'New Americans'.

Everyone is expendable and replaceable, not only as worker but as citizen and patriot. Indeed, patriotism is impossible with this kind of globalist system where the Already-Americans are told they will soon be replaced by New Americans and must celebrate the fact of their demise. America goes form a nation of posterity to a nation of ceaseless 'imposterity', what with even illegals being labeled as 'dreamers' and 'what America is all about'. The fact that Hillary insulted so many Americans as 'deplorables' speaks volumes. She would rather hug non-Americans as soon-to-be-new-Americans over real Americans, some of whom have deep roots in the US. It's a strange state of affairs when the US elites care more about yet-to-be-Americans than already-Americans. Whom do these elites represent? American voters or foreigners? They might as well be for open ballots as well as open borders. If US must prioritize all the foreigners who want to come to America, why not let the whole world vote for American Presidents? After all, only letting Americans vote is 'exclusive'.
Anyway, as long as elections are national than global, shouldn't US leaders represent, first and foremost, the Already Americans? (But then, given US meddling and invasion of other nations, maybe people in invaded nations should be given the vote. If US can intrude into their affairs and turn upside down, maybe they should have a say in who gets to rule America since America sees fit to rule the world.)

"In Sailer’s view, people are naturally inclined to pursue “ethnic nepotism” — that is, to help those like themselves at the expense of those who are not. The goal of citizenism, therefore, is to redirect these energies by providing a more expansive definition of “us” than the race or tribe."

That is true. More Diversity has a way of creating a massive number of immigrant-voters whose main loyalty is to their kinfolks in other parts of the world than with fellow Americans. So, even Mexican-Americans side more with Mexicans in Mexico than with fellow Americans. Chinese-Americans prioritize allowing more Chinese into the US than working for the good of All Americans. Many Jewish Americans feel closer to Jews in other parts of the world than with other Americans. With Open Borders, Diversity leads to more divisiveness as each group will then try to bring more of their kind over to the US to gain more power for their own community. If Asian Indians could bring 100 million Hindus to the US, they certainly would. Thus, these groups no longer see the US as an already-made nation into which they must assimilate and become a part of. It turns into a contest of "How many of our own people can we bring to boost our ethnic leverage in the US?" They think more like colonizers and smugglers than immigrants. American turns into a game of Mr. Mouth: Feed the Frog. Each group thinks, "how many of our kind can we bring to the US as the big frog." It's like the Jewish kid trying to win favor for his cousin in RISKY BUSINESS.



Even though globalist elites politically embrace these immigrant types, the fact is they have little in common. The globalist elites live in their own world, and the immigrant groups(especially those without much chance of success) live in a separate world. And these immigrant groups don't get along with whites or blacks or other immigrant groups. So, we have a fraying of America along racial, ethnic, and class lines. Elites symbolically hug immigrants but live apart from most of them. In hugging immigrants as the 'Real Americans', they dump on the historic white masses and even black masses. Increasingly, white masses and immigrants won't get along. In the past, immigrants tried to fit into White America and regarded White America as the Core America. This was true enough in the mid-1970s. But due to rising non-white population, decay of white culture, and PC's attack on whiteness(and rise of black thug culture as the core Americanism and Diversity as national religion), there is nothing to assimilate to.

Multi-culturalist said past assimilation was unfair in favoring the norms of White America. Actually, it made perfect sense. Since whites founded, defined, and built the US — and since they were the solid majority until recently — , it was inevitable that US would be essentially an Anglo-European-American nation. (Besides, the Anglo-American formula for nation-building has been, far and away, the most successful, principled, and productive in the world.) If Chinese had founded America and populated it for most of its history, then assimilating into Americanism would have entailed assimilating into much that is Chinese. But history didn't play out that way. Europeans built America, so it's natural for newcomers to assimilate to European-American norms. But that would mean special place and prestige for whiteness as Core Americanism,and that is unacceptable to multi-culturalists, especially Jews whose resentment of Christianity never faded away.

"His specialty was a plain-spoken form of science journalism... but also infamous for applying, often in a blunt and inflammatory manner, such methods to alleged racial differences... Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right — ... which, despite winning a few lonely adherents in the academy, has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst."

ROTFL. Sailer can be blunt, yes. But inflammatory? That was never his style. If anything, Sailer's statements were spun as inflammatory by others prone to hyperventilation. The most obvious example is 'let the good times roll'. The actual piece was rather droll. If anything, "Let the good times roll" is a very mild understatement when it comes to characterizing black pathologies which blacks themselves have more colorful ways of describing. It's nothing like what Chris Rock or Fred G. Sanford said of black problems. If anything, Sailer made it as un-inflammatory as possible. But nutjobs like John Podhoretz went ballistic(despite his kind having said truly inflammatory things about Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, etc; for inflammatory, try Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin's friend Rachel Abrams denouncements of Palestinians).

Rachel Abrams says Palestinian children are ‘devils’ spawn’– while Israeli children play with Transformers and draw your heart strings:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/rachel-abrams-says-palestinian-children-are-devils-spawn-while-israeli-children-play-with-tranformers-and-draw-your-heart-strings/

Sailer wasn't inflammatory, and this explains his limited appeal to those on the Alt Right who prefer redder meat. I personally would describe black pathology in a more colorful way. But PC overreacts, throws tantrums, and goes ballistic. It responds in inflammatory manner to cold facts, logic, and common sense. We saw this play out at Middlebury College over Charles Murray. PC crazies are easily triggered by anything. They see 'racism' in everything. And PC commissars snoop around for incorrect thoughts everywhere. It's hard to tell what is academics and what is satire. Get a load of this:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/03/02/peds.2015-4154

'Natural' in breastfeeding is also inflammatory apparently.

Indeed, the line "has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst" is typical of how PC turns interesting ideas into inflammatory rhetoric.
It is not HBD that is inflammatory. It's been very matter-of-fact. It is PC that is inflammatory in its hysterical and rabid derision of any challenge as 'pseudo-science' and 'eugenics at worst'.
Only an idiot or a pathological liar would deny the reality of race. It is so obvious, it is so evident everywhere in intelligence, muscularity, sports, mating, crime, violence, personality, and etc.
The 'critics' of HBD have no facts on their side. Just emotions. They are the ones who act in inflammatory manner but accuse others of being inflammatory even though Sailer, Murray, and others like them made their point in non-inflammatory manner. Also, shouldn't social/culture writers be blunt and plain-spoken? Those are just different words for honesty and forthrightness. PC has made people so disingenuous, self-censorious, and esoteric that simple honesty is triggering and 'inflammatory'. It's like the saying the kid in EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES is inflammatory. There are indeed some people who are willfully inflammatory. Michael Moore is one of them. Sometimes, Ann Coulter relishes throwing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails. But that's never been the style of Murray or Sailer. If their views are inflammatory, it's because PC threw molotov cocktails at those views.

"In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans 'possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.' And he regularly plays up a sort of white grievance politics — grousing about 'black privilege' or complaining about Jordan Peele’s Get Out as 'a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie.' Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing..."

This is where we need the concept of the Deep Self. Just like there is the State and the Deep State, there is the Self and the Deep Self.
The Prog Self and even mainstream Conservative Self fitfully denounce the notion that blacks are more likely to 'let the good times roll'. Given the holiness of blackness in PC narrative, it is simply unthinkable in proper circles to cast any negative aspersions on black character or nature.

But the Deep Self of Progs really agrees on 'let the good times roll'. After all, why are Progs so into black culture over other cultures? Blacks love to let the good times roll and be funky and colorful, and progs have a racial preference for blackness over other kinds of racial expressions. Black culture wallows in pathology and wanton sexuality and violence, and this is appealing to white progs because pop culture serves as the fantasy of anarchy and licentiousness.
Also, why do white Progs try to avoid black areas? Why do they seek to gentrify? They see too-many-blacks as trouble. Why did they elect Rudy Guiliani twice and why did they elect Michael Stop-and-Frisk Bloomberg three times? Why did they elect Clinton who locked up record numbers of blacks? Why do Progs say the military has been a constructive place for blacks? What does that imply? Why do Progs say that black kids must be taught and educated from earlier age? Why do white women go to Cuba and Africa to hook up with black men? Why are white boys so enamored of black athletes who act like thugs? White progs fear, loathe, and love blacks on the basis of racial differences. White progs prefer to see fewer blacks in their neighborhood and more blacks on TV. And the classic article about Hyde Park: Despite all the Nice things they SAY, white prog elites DO something quite different, summoning massive police force to control the blacks.

http://uchicagogate.com/2014/06/02/a-wall-around-hyde-park/

White progs are attracted to black wildness as entertaining and colorful, but they are also scared to death of black thuggery and aggression. So, despite what the Prog Self says, the Prog Deep Self is very much aware of racial differences. Everything a prog does is just as race-ist as what a conservative does. The Self says one thing, but the Deep Self senses something else and does something other.

As for 'black privilege', it certainly applies to the Obamas and fancy Negroes of the world who knows what buttons to push on the white psyche. Unlike most whites, the clever black with just enough intelligence and savvy can get very far just by making the right moves and noises. Barack Obama got to be president despite having done nothing in life because he knew what buttons to push, and this is true of a certain class of blacks. Of course, most blacks are too dim to understand this or play this, but those in the know can get very far. Blacks with modicum of talent can go much farther than any white or Asian person.

As for Jordan Peele's movie GET OUT, isn't it race-ist in the sense that is premised on natural black racial superiority? Even though I haven't seen it, isn't it about how white folks want to steal black bodies because they come with longer dongs and can play better basketball? If that is the premise of the movie, it sounds pretty HBD to me.

Progs are funny. They control music and entertainment, and they feature blacks as thugs, studs, and badass mofos. But if whites take notice of such stereotypical images and match them with social reality of black crime and violence, they are deemed as 'blatantly bigoted'.

We are admonished not to make statements such as "Let the Good Times Roll", but it's totally okay to feature blacks are crazy rappers with nothing on their minds but shooting people and humping ho's. Progs promote the image of the wildass black mofo badass killer and sex beast but get all antsy with a remark as tame and mild as 'let the good times roll'. I mean that is old school and tame compared to how blacks talk about one another these days: