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.

It is Time to Dispense with the Myth of Elito-Egalitarianism - Elites say One Thing but Do Another - Critique of Sam Dickson and Patrick Casey at Identity Evropa Conference

Because we tend to frame politics in terms of Left vs Right, there is this myth that the Progressive Elites are for Egalitarianism whereas the Right is for natural hierarchy. But if this is true, why are Progressives concentrated in the most elitist and privileged circles? Why have they created a Elysium World of their own? Do today’s ‘progressive’ elites really believe in Marxist notion of class equality?

In its original incarnation, Progressivism was not egalitarian in the sense of flattening all of humanity into shared or common mediocrity. Rather, it was a way of moving society forward, genetically as well as socio-economically, to increase the overall quality of humanity. It’s no wonder that a man as hierarchical as Theodore Roosevelt was part of the Progressive Movement that espoused eugenics in both the US and Europe. In contrast to this kind of Progressivism, there was the Proletarianism of Communism that did try to flatten humanity into an equal and shared mediocrity. Some intellectuals found communism to be morally justified and did try to create a society where people were forced to be as equal as possible. But this kind of society was like a mass prison(where inmates are forced to be equal by sacrificing freedom that always breeds new inequalities), and worse, it bred a new elite that preached equality but hogged all the power and privilege for themselves(as satirized in George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM).

In the video below at 25:00 mark, Sam Dickson speaks as if Hillary Clinton is a true-blue egalitarian who cares for all of humanity equality, and THAT is the main problem with her.


Dickson would have us believe that Hillary is the kind of woman who would offer her teats to Haitian babies as well to her own child Chelsea. We are to believe Hillary’s pathological altruism favors all of humanity equally. Well, I say, judge people by what they do, not what they say. Based on actual facts, people like Hillary have no use for egalitarianism. It’s all just talk to renege on their obligations and duties to the national people. Let’s look at Hillary’s actual practice of power as opposed to her mush-headed rhetoric. She showered Chelsea with all the attention, privileges, and care in the world. Chelsea, by all accounts, was raised as a brat, a princess. Also, through her parents’ many connections, Chelsea married a princeling son of a super-rich Jewish family. So many career paths opened up for her because she happened to have Billy Boy and Hillary as parents. And what was Clinton Foundation’s record in Haiti? It was pretty lucrative. Clintons not only mugged for attention as do-gooders but raked in lots of cash.
Sam Dickson should know better. Prosperity Progressivism, like Prosperity Gospel(of unscrupulous Televangelists), is a scam. It’s like the sleazy Morris Dees of SPLC always decrying ‘hate’ in the Jew-run Media to rake in many more millions... mainly from Jewish supremacists.
There was a time when true-believing radical intellectuals really did commit their lives to creating an equal classless Marxist-Leninist society. It happened in Russia and China but also in Cuba, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia. But NO ONE believes in that kind of egalitarianism any more. Communism in the USSR was ended by ruling elites themselves who got tired of running a system to take care of all the people made lazy under excessive statism. And China moved away from Maoism to a market economy, and it has lots of billionaires. Sure, the CCP will sing paeans to Mao’s vision but it’s entirely rhetorical, to maintain the facade of ideological legitimacy for the ruling party. What China really runs on is nationalism and enterprise.

Furthermore, there is a reason why the elites changed Leftism from a class-based ideology to a fashion-statement-idolatry. If the ‘new leftists’ are mainly obsessed with 50 genders, green hair, tattoos and piercing as identity, and pornography as empowerment, they hardly pose a threat to the Hyper-Elites who hog most of the wealth, power, and privilege. So, when people like Hillary Clinton yammer about ‘equality’ and caring for all of humanity, it's just empty rhetoric to mask the true character of what her ilk are really about: Insatiable greed for power, privilege, status, and wealth. (Aristocrats of Old hid their ambition and greed by invoking Jesus the King of the humble and the meek. Aristocrats themselves were neither humble nor meek.)

Indeed, the current order is more about personality or personal idiosyncrasies than about political ideologies. It’s about personalities that are especially obsessed with gaining entry into the elite club. To enter this club, they will do or say anything to be accepted. People like Hillary, Mitt Romney, Fareed Zakaria, John McCain, Nikki Haley, Amy Chua, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, George Hawley, and etc all share a common personality. You know that type in high school, the kind who are so eager to be part of the Popular Group. They want to be liked and accepted by the ‘right kind of people’, the ‘best kind of people’. The Power generally favors such personalities because they tend to be obsequious to the Rules of Rulers. They will grovel, roll over, and play the game as long as they are let in. So, if the Ultimate Power says Homomania is the new religion of the land, these kind of personalities immediately roll over and fall all over themselves to cheer and go along. Because Judea is the ultimate power in the world and control the locks to the gate leading into the Elysium Globo-Club, these 'Popularist' Personalities say and do anything aligned with Jewish supremacist interests. Popularism differs from Populism, the political passion of the hoi polloi, in that Popularism isn’t really about concern for the masses. Rather, it’s like being the ‘popular kids’ in school who are not really popular with most kids. To be a ‘popular kid’ means to be part of the Cool Crowd around athletes, rich kids, or attractive kids. It’s to be part of an exclusive club. Most people who become rich and successful later in life didn’t have the stuff to be ‘popular’ in high school. Geeks, nerds, and brainiacs are not ‘popular’ in high school. But once they graduate from college and gain success, they create their own Popular Club that is shut off to the 99% or even 99.99% of the people.

Now, there are certain personalities that are especially obsessed about being allowed into this Club. While most of us may be live-and-let-live, there is a kind of personality that feel self-worth ONLY WHEN allowed into exclusive clubs. People with brains and talent can make lots of money and afford to enter such clubs with money alone, or they can create their own Clubs. But if you don’t have the means to make tons of money, you can enter politics and cater to the rich and powerful. Or you can work in media or media and do the bidding of the Power Elite, as Fareed Zakaria, Amy Chua, and Niall Ferguson do. While such individuals may be smart, even brilliant(in the case of Ferguson), their main passion is to be part of the Club. As such, there is always a limit to how far they will discuss matters freely. They dare not venture out of the perimeter of permitted discourse as set by the Power(currently of Judea).

So, in a way, the current divide in the political struggle isn’t just about ideology or identity. It’s about personality. The main difference between what is known as the Alt Right and what is known as Conservatism Inc is that Alt Right pulls in personalities that are hard and willing to pay the price of being denied entry into the Club. Alt Right attracts the most defiant personalities in the world. You have to have a strong heart and stomach to be part of the Alt Right, a movement targeted for destruction by the Power. In contrast, Conservatism Inc. attracts obsequious personalities whose priority is to be allowed into the Club and rub shoulders with the right kind of people.

Granted, the truly-truly obsequious personalities gravitate to Democratic Inc. because most of the wealth, privilege, and prestige are now associated with haute-hip-riche urban centers, entertainment industry, and elite academia, all of which are owned and controlled by Democratic Jews who control the idols and icons of what is ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’. Paul Nehlen, whatever one thinks of him, has a defiant personality. In contrast, Paul Ryan has the most malleable personality that will do anything to keep his membership in the Club.

Another thing Sam Dickson overlooks is the Paradox of Inverse Proportion of Compassion and Conceit. In other words, it’s easier to be selfish and self-centered IF one claims to care for ALL humanity. Why? Because there is simply NO WAY one can take care of all of humanity. Because saving all of mankind is fantastically utopian, it becomes purely rhetorical without real-world practicality. If a person says he cares for his community and nation, being a manager of a community or a leader of a nation is doable. As such, rhetoric has to be proven by reality. If someone who lives in a certain town claims to care for the townsfolk but does NOTHING, he will be exposed as a phony. Theory has to be proven by practice. But if that very person says he wants to save ALL OF HUMANITY, he can just dream like John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ in front of a piano without doing anything. So, he can talk BIG but do nothing since it is impossible to manage, represent, or lead all of humanity. After all, it was a full-time job for Moses just to lead the Hebrews. Imagine if he claimed to lead all of humanity to the Promised Land. He would have all talk and no walk. Jesus did claim to be the Savior of all of humanity, but the myth says He is the Son of God, so He must have superhuman powers that no human can have.

Anyway, all this elite-egalitarianism or elito-egalitarianism is really just a ruse. Just look at the likes of Bono of U2. He spends most of his time living in mansions, penthouses, hanging with rich celebs, and attending cocktail parties. Off and on, he flies off to Africa for photo-ops with African children to playact at being modern messiah, but precisely because his shtick is about caring for all the world, he actually does nothing to fix any specific problem anywhere. It’s like a man who says he has ideas for a thousand novels but fails to write a single one since he wants to write all of them, which is impossible. So, his wish to write 1000 novels just becomes an excuse for him to be lazy and not write even a single one. Irishmen like Bono renege on their obligation to Ireland and their ethnic kinfolk by pretending to care for All of Humanity. It requires real commitment and devotion to do something for a specific community or nation. That means no more dreaming and time for actual doing. But all these narcissistic and vain personalities don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do something REAL for a community or a nation. Too much headache. So, they pontificate about how they care for ALL OF HUMANITY to rationalize neglect of their own specific communities and nations.

Bono the bonehead. Too busy SAVING THE WORLD to ever care about what happens in Ireland.

Elites push Diversity for the same reason. By pretending to care for ALL the diverse groups in America, the elites care for NONE at all except for themselves and the uppermost elites(the Jews) whom they must serve in order to remain as members in the Club. Just look at the state of California. It’s supposedly the most diverse and most ‘progressive’ state, but it’s also the most unequal between the Have-lots and Have-nots. The super-elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley make all the right-sounding noises about how they are so into diversity, equality, tolerance, inclusion, and etc., but at the end of the day, all they do is care about themselves because it is impossible for elites to represent, manage, or lead such a diverse population of whites, blacks, Asians(of so many varieties), ‘Hispanics’(of many origins and gradations of color), gender-bender folk, and etc. Ultimately, it is easier to serve one master than to represent 10 groups, and so, the California elites(made up of ‘popularist’ status-strivers with obsequious personalities) mainly serve the ONE Jewish Master that dominate both Hollywood and Silicon Valley(and not far away, there is Las Vegas also ruled by Jews).
In contrast, when the US was 90% European-American, a man like FDR did feel a strong bond with white Americans. Also, because it is doable for the elites to represent, guide, and manage ONE people, something like the New Deal was doable. New Deal was essentially about white elites doing something for white nationals. But something like the New Deal is now impossible because the US has become so diverse and divergent in identities and interests. This is wonderful for the elites since they can spout off about doing something for ALL THE DIVERSE AMERICANS but then do NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE because it is virtually impossible to do everything for so many groups who don’t see eye to eye on anything. So, instead of truly representing many peoples, today’s elites really just serve one master: Jewish Power. At the end of the day, the only people who get served are Jews and Israelis because, if all bought-and-paid-for politicians have one thing in common, it is their obsequiousness to Judea.

Another issue I have with Dickson is his misunderstanding of individualism. He says the problem with Anglos is they are too individualistic. But the greatness of Anglo civilization was in the fusion of individuality and cooperation. The film DUNKIRK conveys the balance of individualism and communalism among the British. In contrast, Nazi Germany went crazy because all those Germans totally surrendered their individuality and outsourced their minds to the Fuhrer who ordered his men about like mindless obedient dogs. In contrast, British Civilization was about the balance of order/discipline/collective-action AND individuality, especially as expressed in wit and satire that had a debunking element to power. Radical individualism or individualism without attachment to something higher or bigger is worthless, but without individuality one cannot have a mind, free will, or agency. One just becomes a cog in the machine. So, just like truth isn’t ‘right’ or ‘left’ but a useful balance of both, best kind of society is one where individuality is balanced with ‘collectivity’.
Paradoxically, the biggest danger of an extreme collectivist order is that it may be predicated on the ultra-individualism of a single ruler. Nazi Germany wouldn’t have been so dangerous if NO ONE had individualist power. In fact, all the individualist agency that was denied to the German masses were concentrated in the individualism of Hitler who decided to play demigod. In the end, Nazi Germany was destroyed not so much by collectivism but by Hitler’s concentrated individualism that decided the fate of the nation. Same goes for Maoism in China. While Chinese had no individuality, Mao had the ultra-individuality of a godlike figure. He could play Shiva and Zeus over the Chinese. His individual whims could turn the nation upside down.


This is why National Humanist Neo-Fascism must foster a sense of agency and self-worth in every individual. While there is a need for order, discipline, and collective action, the movement will turn into a mindless Cult of Personality UNLESS everyone in the movement has the will and courage to say NO when they see something wrong. There were many good things about Italian Fascism and National Socialism, but both failed because the masses outsourced their individualism to Il Duce or Der Fuhrer who, inflated with demagogic egomania, acted as gods than cautious men.

Also, while Dickson is right that individualism must be suppressed in warfare in favor of order and unity, the might of nations depends not only on collective military action but on the economy of innovation. It is the economy that produces wealth that can be taxed to support a military. The USSR was heavily militarized but its suppression of individualism in the economic sector led to stagnation. In the end, the Soviet Union could not afford its massive military because its economy could barely produce enough bread for people. In contrast, capitalist US produced lots of wealth that could be used to fund a massive military. Also, individual incentive led to tremendous advances in science and technology that could be applied to military ends. The US has the most powerful military in the world not because it has the most soldiers or the most disciplined fighters. It’s because US military has a huge budget(thanks to a capitalist economy) and the most advanced weaponry made with technology advanced in large part in the private sector where individualism is key to entrepreneurship.

As for Patrick Casey, he says America came to be about progressive movement toward equality(at 14:15 in the video below). Not so. American concept of equality was not like communism. Rather, it was about equal freedom for individuals in pursuit of happiness. So, equality wasn’t an end goal but an instrument whereby people would be equally free to make something of themselves.

America never much cared for those who did nothing with liberty. America loved those who gained fame, fortune, or reputation with their freedom. This is why America is so obsessed with Jews, blacks, and Homos. Not in the name of coercive freedom but in awe of their demonstration of superiority in the areas Americans are most obsessed about: Money, Power, Science/Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Sex, and Fashion/Celebrity. If Patrick Casey is right and American ‘progressivism’ is about equal concern for all peoples, how come the main concerns of Progs center around Jews, Negroes, and Homos only? Why is American Power so into Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel but so very little about Palestinians and Iranians? Why is there so much about blacks but so little about American Indians or poor Mexican-Americans in places like El Paso? Why is there so much concern for Homos but nothing about incest-sexuals? It’s because, as Patton said, Americans love winners. So, even as Jews, blacks, and homos play the Victim Card, their vaunted place in American Mythos is due to Jewish victory in finance, science, and law; black victory in sports, pop music, and sex(via jungle fever among white women); and homo victory in fashion, celebrity culture, and entertainment. In a way, the fact that all three groups have blended victimology with victorology is the secret to their special success. After all, Americanism is a strange blend of underdog persecution complex and top-dog domination compulsion. There is the story of America’s founding as a refuge for poor souls persecuted in tyrannical Europe. There is the story of blacks struggling for justice. But there is also the celebration of freedom in the New Land allowing people to go from rags to riches. So, a nobody can start from the bottom and become richer than even kings and monarchs in the Old World. Jews who started with little created the Empire of Hollywood. Some black ghetto kid got into the NBA, made millions, and sexually conquered thousands of white women. Or homos, though ravaged by the AIDS epidemic, worked so hard in vice-and-vanity industries to make so much money and gain key connections with the power. As such, along with Jews and blacks, homos have become the one of the three most iconic groups in America.

So, Casey is making a mistake if he thinks the American ‘progressivism’ is all about ‘equality’ as a goal. Barack Obama got a $60 million book contract and will live like a king. Silicon Valley and Hollywood, bastions of ‘progressivism’, are awash with billions and billions in cash. Harvard, a ‘progressive’ elite university, is endowed with more money than it can ever spend. The most exclusive institutions in the US are ‘progressive’. If they use radical-leftist-sounding rhetoric now and then, it is to mask their total obsession with power and privilege. It’s like Jews being the richest and most powerful people in America but concealing their real status by cliches about ‘social justice’. Don’t You Believe It.

Patrick Casey mentions the French Revolution as the beginning of the right vs left divide at 5:30 in the video. He seems to favor the French rightists who supported the King and the aristocracy. He condemns today’s Right of being belated Leftists, i.e. Rightism eventually comes around to agreeing with the Left. Casey is overlooking two important matters. First, the French Revolution was necessary in many ways and the beginning of real nationalism. If anything, today’s globalism is a return of the aristocratic system despite its use of ‘progressive’ rhetoric. Prior to the French Revolution and nationalism, the ruling elites saw their own peoples as subjects and servants. They felt no special bond with their own people. French aristocrats mainly identified with other aristocrats in other parts of Europe. Even as various kingdoms jostled for greater power, the aristocrats of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, UK, and etc. all identified with one anther, married one another, and hung around together. They were the globalist Jet Set of the time. If they all had one thing in common, it was viewing their own people as subjects, servants, serfs, or even chattel. We have something similar today. The elites of Germany, UK, the US, India, Hong Kong, Mexico, Canada, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and etc. no longer care about their own people. They are main obsessed of belonging to the Club where only the rich, well-connected, and properly credentialed can get in.

Indeed, for the globalist elites, multi-culturalism isn’t about making EVERYONE equal. They themselves certainly don’t want to be equal with the hoi polloi. Does anyone think people attend colleges like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Cambridge to become equal with the rest of us? Sure, these colleges take in token non-whites via Affirmative Action and make symbolic noises about ‘social justice’, but they are elite-generating factories for the Club. As such, they are very much like the aristocracies of old. Granted, past aristocracies were more honest in being openly snobby and arrogant. Aristocrats told their subject folks to lick their boots. Aristocrats made sure that only they got to ride around on horses and carry guns. Similarly, old empires were at least honest in telling conquered peoples that they were subject of foreign powers.
In contrast, today’s neo-aristocratism hides the snobbery and conceit with Proggy Symbolism, and today’s neo-imperialism(of the US controlled by Judea) rationalizes its world hegemony with cliches about spreading ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, concepts employed with utter cynicism as the US is allied with some of the most corrupt and inhumane nations on Earth. Judea or World Jewry rules the US that rules the world.

Does Patrick Casey really think that neo-aristocratic, neo-monarchical, and neo-godlike Jews really want equality with all of mankind? Just look how Jews treat Palestinians and neighboring Arabs. Jews love seeing Syria torn to pieces. Jews loved how Iraq and Libya were laid to waste. Jews call on the US to cripple Iran's economy. Jews are the 2% that controls 95% of media. Jews control 50% of Wall Street and nearly all of Hollywood and Las Vegas. Does Casey really think these 'progressive' Jews want to be equal with us? That would mean Jews who are 2% of the population should have 2% of the wealth? Does Casey really think so-called ‘progressive’ Jews are committed to creating such a future?

This is why we need to dispense with the notion of right vs left. True nationalism must be left AND right. The French Revolution was excessive and crazy at times, but its template of creating a modern nation where ordinary people would have basic rights and be led by national elites that identified with, represented, and led the people was a great one. Without common rights within a nation, an aristocrat can abuse the lower elements and just be slapped on the wrist... like in ROB ROY. If a rich man kills an innocent poor man, he should be punished as harshly as if a poor man killed an innocent rich man.
The problem today is that common Rule of Law no longer applies in the West. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton could act as War Criminals at the behest of Jews but never face justice. Or Jews can pull all sorts of dirty tricks but get off easy. Jonathan Pollard is now a free man with a plush job. Marc Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton while on the lam. And now, Trump pardoned some lowlife Jewish son-of-a-bitch because Jews, the neo-aristocrats, are above the law. In contrast, white patriots at Charlottesville weren’t even allowed their basic Constitutional Rights of free assembly and free speech. And the Powers that be use Antifa(who are always given just a slap on the wrist) to terrorize dissenting voices. And yet, Casey is arguing in FAVOR of aristocracy and special privilege? Well, if he looked past the bogus PC rhetoric and notices how the globalist system really works, he’d realize it’s totally neo-aristocratic and privileges certain groups and individuals above others. Hillary Clinton certainly got just a slap on the wrist by the FBI despite her email scandal.

In a world that bestows neo-aristocratic favors to Jews at the expense of basic rights for whites, Patrick Casey romanticizes the Old World of French kings and aristocrats who treated their own people like today’s elites treat whites. It was the French Revolution that gave the French people basic rights and protections. It was the Revolution that gave them dignity as free nationals than as subjects of kings and noblemen. And the revolution stressed that the national elites must serve the national masses. So, the truth for us is not in the ‘right’ or in the ‘left’. It is in the intelligent combination of both. Nationalism is inherently both leftist and rightist. Nationalism is the Goldilocks rule between egotistical individualism(or petty tribalism) and impossible universalism. Nationalism says, even though some may be rich and some may be poor in the nation, every member of the nation has equal right to the nation. Also, nationalism necessitates some degree of socialism for the common good. Public education is to ensure that ALL people of the nation will be literate, knowledgeable, and skilled. National healthcare, enacted in both National Socialist Germany and Social-Democratic Sweden(before it went crazy with globo-elite-pushed multi-culturalism), was for the good of the entire nation. Also under nationalism, conscription meant that sons of the rich must serve and fight alongside the sons of the poor. Indeed, nationalism is the only way some degree of socialism can work. Socialism is about common economic interests, and it works best when a people have a common sense of ethnic identity and destiny.

Another thing. It’s only half-true that the Right trails the Left, eventually agreeing with the Left on a host of issues. It’s equally true that the Left abandons its principles and restores Rightism(though by another name).
In some cases, the Right never ‘catches up’ with the Left. If Casey is correct, Western Europe and the US should have eventually become communist because, after all, the only thing the Right does is trail and follow the Left. But in fact, the ‘free world’ never turned communist and, if anything, effectively contained and defeated or discredited leftist communism. It was Russia that dropped communism and reverted to nationalism. And in China, Maoist radical egalitarianism gave way to rise of nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and capitalist-elitism.

Also, 'leftist' Clinton didn’t follow in the footsteps of FDR and LBJ but in those of Reaganism. His New Democratic Party was tough on black crime(and locked up record number of black males), deregulated Wall Street, abandoned Big Labor, supported ‘free trade’, and shifted the Democratic Party from the working class & unions to the new super-rich of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the so-called ‘creative’ economy. And the reason why the Democratic elites love homos is because the homo style is naturally neo-aristocratic with hyper-narcissism and vanity. Homos are the mascots of the rich. They do little else but celebrate glamour, fame, and celebrity. Indeed, homos were instrumental in the old world of aristocrats because they were adept at concocting fancy dress and manners for the super-elite class. The fact that the New Progressivism went from Mayday to Gayday should clue us to the fact that history is not about Left always leading and the Right always following.
Indeed, classic leftists would NOT recognize today’s leftism as any kind of leftism. They would see it as decadent indulgences of ultra-bourgeois neo-aristocrats who turned the idea of Progress into a celebration of vanity and privilege.

And course, Jews want it this way. Jews now hate Class Warfare politics because it could mean gentiles who have less versus Jews who have so much. And the only nationalism Jews love is Zionism because it is about the nationalist-socialist unity of all Jews, rich and poor, in their sacred homeland. But they wage relentless war on all gentile nationalisms, especially those of whites, because whites who are into their own national identity are likely to abandon White Submissivism that sucks up to hegemonic Jewish Supremacism that simply cannot operate without the cuck-collaboration of White Submissivism. Jews fear White Uppityness.

It is time for white people to go BEYOND RIGHT VERSUS LEFT. They must realize that both leftism and rightism are necessary and complementary, just like night and day, just like mind and body, just like work and rest, just like study and play. If we are supposed to see ourselves as ‘rightist’, then are we suppose to reject even good things of leftism? Likewise, if one must be a leftist in the purist sense, must he reject even essential things of the right? Leftism and rightism should be seen as complementary, like yin and yang, like positive and negative charge in electricity. Why are Jews so powerful? It’s because they’ve learned to use both leftist and rightist modes of thinking. Israel was created by fusion of leftism and rightism. It was to be a Jewish state but also a nation where every Jew, rich or poor, had common rights ensuring his basic dignity as a member of the state.

If leftism is all bad, rich whites shouldn’t care about all those ‘white trash’ suffering from loss of jobs and opioid epidemic. If white elites should think aristocratically, they should identify mainly with other similarly privileged people around the world. Nationalism is a crossing of rightism and leftism. It is a well-defined and restrictive definition of a specific people on a particular land. Yet, it also says every member of that community, from richest to the poorest, has equal value as a patriot and citizen, and as such, there must be a sense of national camaraderie from top to bottom. Jews stress exactly this theme in Israel where the richest Jew feels closer to the poorest Jew than with rich Arabs. But in the West, Jews promoted neo-aristocratism among white elites whereby rich whites are supposed to identify mainly with rich Jews, rich Asians, rich blacks, rich Hispanics, rich Hindus, and rich Muslims than with fellow whites in the middle class and lower class. Thus, neo-aristocratism divides White Folks.

This is why we need National Humanism and Neo-Fascism, a better kind of fascism that overcomes the monumental mistakes and crimes of Italian Fascism and especially National Socialism that ultimately failed because of sacrificing of individual agency in favor of Cult of Personality and Imperialism(that violated the blood -and-soil principles of other peoples).