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 Law-and-Order Issues are so Problematic in the US(and the Africanizing West): The Clash of Reality of Black Criminality versus the ‘Idology’ of Black Holy-Schmoliness — Virtue vs Vision — Italians and Swedes

https://buchanan.org/blog/is-trump-capturing-the-law-and-order-issue-137355

Patrick Buchanan has written a column about how Donald Trump can own the Law-and-Order issue in politics. In many ways, he is correct that many Americans are concerned about law-and-order, the need to deal with problems of crime and violence that have infested and even devastated many communities across America. Indeed, even entire cities have been overcome with crime and violence. Consider Detroit and Baltimore. And half of St. Louis and one-third of Chicago have very high crime rates. Given the fact that no one wants to be robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered, the issue of Law and Order should be clear enough and its appeal should be obvious. What sane person would choose disorder over order? What person would want to live in a town or city overrun by criminals than maintained by lawful peace? While plenty of Americans have romanticized outlaws, gangsters, and the like in entertainment, most Americans don’t want to live in a dangerous neighborhood where their loved ones could be harassed, attacked, or even murdered. No one wants their homes or apartments to be burglarized or invaded. Naturally, in a time and place where crime has gotten out of control, it’s only natural for people to be on the side of the Law against the Outlaw. And on those grounds, Pat Buchanan should be correct that Donald Trump has much to gain by running as a Law-and-Order President.

Indeed, one of the reasons why Republicans dominated the Presidency from 1968 to 1992 had something to do with the perception that they were tougher on crime as opposed to ‘bleeding-heart’ Liberal Democrats who'd become overly dependent on blacks as their constituents. And despite the Liberal Media’s bias, too many people became all too aware of the connection between blacks and crime. They witnessed entire cities fall into ruin as the result of out-of-control black behavior. The problem wasn’t just in the streets but at work. Black workers were more likely to misbehave, steal, and cause trouble. Even blacks who weren’t outright criminal had all sorts of behavioral problems. There was a time when New York, the premier city of wealth and power in the US, nearly went under due to rising crime, and of course, it was mostly black crime. The great housing projects that were supposed to improve black lives in the 60s and 70s only concentrated black criminality that festered and got worse. The environment-centric solutions hardly solved the problem, and if anything, it was like something out of CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES.

Post-War ideological trends posited rather dogmatically that all humans were more-or-less alike and that their behaviors could be fundamentally altered by external factors such as housing, schooling, and the like. It was as if humans were like pigeons inside B. F. Skinner’s experimental boxes, and the ideology underpinning the housing of blacks in huge projects was that modernity, efficiency, and symmetry would make blacks act in more orderly and productive ways. Such macro-experiment totally overlooked the possibility that blacks may be different internally at the genetic level due to 100,000s of years of evolution in Hot and Wild Africa.
Even though Modern Liberals believe in evolution, their ideological hangups have made them unwilling to accept certain implications. Evolution is about processes of divergence and change. For example, suppose there is a small race of humanoids, and those within the tribe more-or-less share the same gene pool. Then, suppose the tribe breaks up and go separate ways. Some remain in the same place, but others move to other areas that are either hotter, drier, colder, and have vastly different flora/fauna. As the various groups would now live in different environments, they would come under different evolutionary pressures that select for distinct traits as favorable. Obviously, a very hot environment will favor certain traits over others, and a very cold environment would likely choose for ‘opposite’ traits to those favored in hot regions. Furthermore, there are ripple effects to selection that have little to do with survivability. An environment that selects for certain traits may set off mutations that lead to further alternations that make the organism(and its kind) even more different from others of its kind living far away under different environmental pressures. For example, if a tribe of humanoids go separate ways and if one ends up in an extreme cold environment while another ends up in a very hot environment, they will diverge from each other in ways other than adaptability to climate. As the environment selects for traits that are better adapted to the cold, the changes may set off cascades of mutations that change the organisms even further. The same goes for those who adapt to an extremely hot climate. For example, blue eyes and blond hair are not necessary for survival in cold climate, but they arose due to mutations of those who adapted to cold climates and by relative ‘inbreeding’.

Anyway, the theory of evolution would make no sense IF organisms didn’t diverge and change from one another. No honest person can claim that the various human races are all the same and interchangeable in their abilities and aesthetics. The races are clearly different according to looks. PC types may argue that we must go beyond looks and focus on souls, but looks do matter, and aesthetics is a valid reason for wanting to preserve certain species, races, and breeds. If looks don’t matter, why do people react so strongly to ivories on an elephant, the mane on a lion, feathers of a peacock, stripes on a zebra, or fur on a mink? Is a peacock plucked of feathers the same as a peacock with a full dress of feathers because their 'souls' are the same? Is a lion shaved and devoid of fur/mane the same as a lion with natural fur and mane? People rely on looks to make the most important decisions of their lives, like finding a mate and buying a house. And in deciding which dress to wear. Looks DO matter, especially to eye-centric humans with complex sense of aesthetics and design. Organisms are the designs of nature.
Obviously, looks are not everything as beautiful people can be wicked and ugly people can be good-of-heart. The Left came to believe that all individuals were, more or less, same of soul upon birth. They were born with blank-slate souls that could be made good or bad depending on the environment, education, and culture. So, at the very least, no matter how ugly someone may be on the outside, he or she has the same chance to be a good person. But as it turns out, inner beauty/ugliness is also largely genetic though inner beauty doesn’t necessarily correlate with outer beauty(just like good looks don’t guarantee a lovely voice). It also turns out that not only are the various races different in outer looks but in inner temperaments. Blacks are more likely to have aggressive, rancorous, and troublesome personalities. Granted, a loud and boisterous person can be good-natured whereas a gentle and cordial person can be psychopathic, but generally speaking, a race that tends to be overtly aggressive and wild will tend to be more destructive of social order and peace. Even though blacks have the ‘ugliest’ and most savage inner souls, so many non-blacks are fooled by black vocality that, in its bellowing tremor, can create the impression of a deep-souled Negro, as when Paul Robeson sang "Ole Man River".

Especially the West, having been molded for so long by Christian theology, has a tendency to conflate the Negro voice with spirituality when, if anything, the core urges that drive the Negro soul is ‘muh booty’, ‘muh fist’, ‘muh dick’, and ‘where da white women at?’ Especially because of founding of America as New Jerusalem and the national ‘sin’ of slavery, white Americans have projected their hopes and dreams on the Redemptive
Negro. By rising from slavery to pursuit of happiness, the Negro is seen as redeeming the American Enterprise. By forgiving and healing white souls(stained with ‘white guilt’), the Negro is seen as the angel that can cure White America. Also, having been the most savage race to have been brought to America, the elevation of Negro to civilized status is seen as the greatest pride of the West, i.e. if the West, for all its ‘sins’, took a bunch of savages and turned them into civilized folks, it will have proven its worth. So, the Dream is that the Negro saves the white man from ‘white guilt’ in return for the white man having saved the Negro from savagery. Of course, the latter part of the equation is no longer muttered as it’d be deemed ‘racist’, but it is nevertheless felt strongly in the white subconscious. After all, why are whites most concerned about bringing progress to black Africa? Because it is the most daunting task as Black Africa is by-and-large the most savage and backward part of the world. While it’s no longer fashionable for whites to say, "We must bring the light of civilization to those black savages living in darkness and ignorance" — whites must only say that blacks are so holy & special that only Black Magic can redeem and cleanse the white race — , so much of what white elites do in relation to Africa & blacks suggests excitement over the most challenging task of transforming blacks from poor backward savages to not only civilized folks but the holy god-men of White Cucky-Wuck Fantasy.

Bill Gates as the Great White Geek

Anyway, why is Law-and-Order such a controversial issue in America? Naturally, most people of any nation would prefer peace and stability secured by law & order. Who wants to live in a world of criminality? We might get kicks from gangster movies or Western flicks with outlaws, but we want safe neighborhoods where kids can play and where old people can walk to the neighborhood store without getting mugged or beaten. I can’t imagine a politician or leader who gains mass support as the representative of crime and disorder. To be sure, there have been nations where criminal elements have pretty much gained control of society. This was once(and may still be) the case in Sicily. And it’s been well-known that drug-cartels have amassed tremendous hold over certain Latin American nations. There, law & order is hardly an issue since outlaws have the upperhand. If there is to be a kind of social order, it is essentially rule by warlords. ‘Peace’ is guaranteed by might than right. It’s a world of guns and bullets than law and order. In such a world, the people may prefer the better-organized and ‘scrupulous’ gangsters(those that have some honor-among-thieves) than out-of-control delinquents, the kind seen in the Brazilian film CITY OF GOD. In contrast, while the Italian mafia did terrible things in America, they kept the streets in their own neighborhoods safe.


It’s been said that organized crime played a big role in Italian-American neighborhoods and Chinatowns across America. Partly out of fear of gangsters and partly out of reliance on them(due to deep-seated distrust of the Law that was seen as corrupt, uncaring, or ineffective), the people of the community stuck with their own kind even if criminal because they were a ‘known quantity’. Thus, tribalism affects the way people see Law & Order.
Ideally, while most people prefer the clean workings of law & order over crime & corruption, they may side with criminal elements of their own kind over law & order that seems to be dominated by the Other. Out of bias, loyalty, familiarity, sentimentality, and/or fear, many Italian-Americans sided with the mafia over the Law. While they understood the dark side of organized crime, the mafia was ‘one of us’, part of Italian-American power and muscle. Just like some people prefer tyranny by their own kind over greater individual freedom(and even better governance) under foreign rule, people may have clouded views of law & order when the Law is perceived to be controlled by the Other whereas the criminal elements are seen as members of the community.

For example, there are plenty of Jews who will side with Jewish criminals(often white-collar) and gangsters over Law & Order. Jewish Power pulled all manner of strings to ensure that monkey-boy Obama would pardon Jonathan Pollard. Even Liberal Jews who kvetch so much about ‘social injustice’ are reliably silent about illegality, criminality, and pathology among their own kind... which is why the likes of Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Epstein had been able to get away with SO MUCH bad behavior for SO LONG. The matrix of Jewish media, Jewish legal power, Jewish finance, and Jewish deep state ensured a kind of Omerta(or 'schmerta') among Jewish elites. They were like ‘made men’ and had license to lie, cheat, steal, rape, and even kill, indeed get away with just about anything. Sure, when some Jews get too greedy and take too many risks to the point of endangering the entire enterprise, the Jewish Power will sacrifice the Crazy Jew who's giving the Jewish Community a bad reputation no matter how much Jews try to keep it all under a tight lid(or yid). It seems Jeffrey Epstein went too far, and even Jewish Power figured it was better to sacrifice him than go down with him(as there are surely plenty more of such fiendish Jews working behind the scenes to pull all sorts of dirty schemes). Italian-American community has been the same, albeit in a cruder, way. While, theoretically at least, Italians in a purely Italian community may prefer law-and-order over criminality, certain factors have made Italians(in the homeland and abroad) notorious for their associations with crime and corruption. One reason is it took longer for Italy to coalesce as a modern nation-state. Thus, many Italians’ first loyalty was to a region than to the nation. Also, in contrast to Northern Europe, Italians were considerably different genetically, especially between north and south. While traditional Britain had problems among Scotch and English, at the very least they were racially identical and looked it. In contrast, while a northern Italian might look more Germanic, southern Italian might look more like an Arab or North African. Thus, instead of southern Italians working with relatively cleaner northern Italians to fight crime, many of them chose to side with the local mafia against national efforts to root out organized crime. Furthermore, the egotism and family-clanism of Italians made civic mind-set harder to come by. The egotism and vanity made Italians prioritize MY needs and wants above all other considerations. And the family-clanism meant that Italian parents, especially the mothers, were willing to go to any length to favor their own kids over the good of society. So, an Italian mother may appeal to the local mafia, boss, or chieftain to favor her son over the sons of other families who are more deserving by meritocracy. Too many Italians think ‘me over my family’, ‘my family over my town’, and ‘my town over my country’. Furthermore, for all their big talk, most Italian men are mama's boys. Indeed, they make a lot of noise as a kind of bluff precisely because they fear real confrontations that test their mettle. Being essentially cowardly, Italians would rather bend over backwards to criminals than be like Wyatt Earp and take them on.

It’s hard to maintain steady and stable law & order with a people with such mentality. Sense of civic duty is best guaranteed in an order where most people feel that the good of the whole trumps ‘myself’, ‘my family’, and ‘my clan’. A good society needs to be fair, and fairness must be decided by equal application of law and order. The good must be rewarded and bad must be punished regardless of who/whom. Some might characterize such principles or idealism as ‘universalist’, but paradoxically, universalism works best as a closed system within a particularism. Take Sweden before it went crazy under the influence of Jewish PC. Nearly all people were Swedish. They were one people in looks, culture, and history. And Lutheranism had long instilled qualities of sobriety, order, and earnestness. Also, Northern Europeans tend to be genetically more disposed to severity. Even as marauding Vikings, the Nordics were more sullen and heavy in their emotions than, say, the Jafro-Jiving black savages of Africa. This lack of color in personality made for a more even temperament that adopted Christian values and respected authority with greater sense of duty and trust. So, among such a people with particular-commonalities of looks, feelings, and thoughts, a Trust Society of ideals, values, and law & order could arise. In other words, universal principles of right-and-wrong secured by law-and-order was possible ONLY BECAUSE the people of Sweden saw each other as part of a close-knit national family with so much in common.


The key distinction between Italy and Sweden was peoples in the two nations were anxiety-ridden about different things. Italians fretted most(to the state of paranoia) about the possibility that other Italians might lie to them, cheat them, or steal from them. In contrast, Swedes were most anxious and ‘paranoid’ about being regarded as liars, cheats, and thieves by other Swedes. Italians worried that other Italians might be ‘get the better of me’, whereas Swedes worried that other Swedes might regard ‘me as not good enough for their standards’. So, Italians saw life as a game of out-cheating other Italians, whereas Swedes saw life as a duty of gaining the trust(and approval) of other Swedes. It just goes to show that an attitude or outlook can have a profound ebb-and-flow ripple effect from soul to society and back from society to soul, on and on.
Between traditional Italy vs traditional Sweden, the latter comes across as much better, a well-ordered society of rule of law, fairness, and trust. In contrast, Italy comes across as a cesspool of egotism, corruption, and pettiness. Sweden seems about higher principles over petty privileges, whereas Italy would be the opposite. However, Sweden could maintain such ‘universal’ ideals of justice ONLY IF it remained a nation of Swedes, a people of common looks, shared culture, familiar values, and similar temperaments. But because universal values worked so well inside Sweden, the foolish Swedes thought theirs was an ideal microcosm of a universal nation, and decided to become a ‘moral superpower’ by sending tons of aid to Africa and flinging open Sweden’s gates to the world. But Swedes in Africa made no progress in improving the lot of blacks who have different attitudes, cultures, values, temperaments, and IQ. And newcomers to Sweden from Muslim world and Africa could not become good New Swedes because they are so genetically and culturally different. Needless to say, blacks are the MOST problematic. But it was made even worse by ‘multi-culturalism’ that contradicted the whole Swedish project of being a universal moral super-power. After all, if the Swedish experiment had worked out so well because the Swedish Way is the way-to-go, then newcomers should be pressured to think, act, and behave like successful Swedes as much as possible. But multi-culturalism said Sweden should welcome foreigners and let them stick to their cultures of origin. But why? Didn’t it ever occur to the Swedes that the foreigners made a mess of their own nations largely due to their cultural attitudes and behaviors?
Even though much of Swedish attitudes and values were rooted in the severe strains of Lutheranism, the source of much stress but also strength, the modern Swedish lost faith in religion and sought out a new faith... and found it in the figure of the holy-holocaust Jew. Swedes, regarding Jews as a wise & saintly people who’d survived the Shoah, earnestly believed that Jews would only bless them with the best advice and most wonderful lessons. Little did they realize that the Shoah, though horrific and evil, was partly the product of Jewish behavior driving goyim to madness. (The Holocaust was also the culmination of a special kind of German madness, but things got far worse in friction with Jewish radical madness.) Little did naive Swedes understand that Jews primarily favor their own tribal interests, have a special animus against Christian Europe, and harbor fantasies of vengeance against all white goyim(over the Shoah and for other reason, such as vicious envy that, for some inexplicable reason, God made the filthy ‘goy’ Aryans more handsome than the Chosen Jews). Swedes, being earnest & sincere and having been rendered respectful to higher authority under its localized version of ‘universal values’, trusted the Jews whole hog. The result was dire Diversity. And of course, decrepit decadence, supposedly a magic cure from all that dark and heavy Lutheran neurosis that must be totally expunged from the Swedish soul. (While Lutheranism had its dark side and negative as well as positive impact on Sweden, did any Swede ever study the impact of jungle ugabuga culture on black Africans? Apparently not.)
In a way, the relatively enclosed and homogeneous world of Sweden was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because the shared looks and laws made for a more cogent, coherent, and consistent society, a place where higher principles of ‘universal justice’ could prevail over petty passions. But this culture of trust in societal justice made Swedes all-too-trusting of both moral and political authority. And as every Swede was so anxious to be seen as a Good Swede by other Swedes, he or she was willing to show that he/she was with the program to make for a better society, a better world.

Now, who owns moral authority and sets the cultural tenor of society? At least in traditional Sweden, there was the power of church and community. But in late-modern Sweden of atomized individuals, the moral authority and cultural hegemony were determined by academics, politicians, public intellectuals, and artists. And as the culture of the West as a whole came to be shaped largely by the US that came under Jewish control, Swedish minds from top to bottom just became putty in the hands of Jews. Even if Swedes mostly did it to themselves, their elites and intellectuals were indirectly shaped by ideas emanating from the US. Also, as Jews became the Holy Holocaust people especially beginning in the Sixties, the Swedes(like so many in the West) were largely without critical defenses against Jewish power and agenda. Jews were seen as akin to a sacred god-race, and this allowed Jews to define the taboos of the West, and the #1 taboo became Thou Shalt Not Doubt or Question the Jew... for that would be the gravest of all sins, which is ‘Antisemitism’. Because of their trusting character and anxiety-for-approval, Swedes wholeheartedly came to embrace the new gods of Diversity, Feminism, Globo-Homo-Mania, Afromania, and the Cult of White Guilt. If Swedes of the past invested their sincerity, trust, and earnestness in God, Church, and Community, the atomized late-modern Swedes committed their goodwill to Diversity, Feminism, and Globo-Homo. And since trusting Swedes have a hive-mind, they had no defenses against the expanding horror. Even now, the average Swede is most anxious about "Will other Swedes consider me as unworthy?"
This goes to show that Swedes, though smart and capable, are incapable of independent search for truth, meaning, and justice. They can be very good at devoting their energies toward certain ideals and objectives, but they(along with most of the white race) cannot find the Truth for themselves. Rather, this truth has to be provided by the Other, those with greater prophetic vision and zeal. Because the white world lacked for prophets, it adopted Christianity, the creation of heretical Jews. White Christendom worked very hard at serving the Faith, but white folks failed to come up with a faith of their own. And in the modern era that saw the ebbing away of old-time religion, white people were once again incapable of discovering their own truths and therefore fell under the sway of the ‘truths’ as revealed by Jews with the power of radical will and prophetic personality. These so-called ‘truths’ could actually turn out to be falsehoods, lunacies, or even evil ideas, but they had the power to captivate and hold sway over countless millions due to sheer conceptual grandeur, intellectual drive, moral passion, and/or iconic power. Swedes, like most white folks, despite all their intelligence and ability, failed to dream their own dreams and envision their own destiny. And so, one had to be supplied to them, and it came from Jews whom the Swedes trusted and revered as the Holy Holocaust people, indeed as if every Jew were a kind of modern Moses-Isaiah-Jesus rolled into one. But in fact, they were fooled by the satanic venality of Jews who were really seeking vengeance(against all of Christendom and Western Civilization) and hegemony over the entire world. As far as Jews were concerned, Sweden as a peaceful and prosperous homogeneous white nation might send the wrong messages to whites around the world. Whiteness = Success. Such might signal that whites do best in a world of their own. But such a world might exclude Jews as the Other. Therefore, Jews went out of their way to pathologize whiteness and homogeneity so as to persuade whites that there is something wrong with the too-whiteness of their world that must be ‘enriched’ with Diversity. And stupid whites, in moral awe of Jews as the Holy Holocaust People, swallowed the BS hook, line, and sinker.

Now, one may ask, "But if white nations fail and fall apart due to Diversity, won’t white people finally wake up and realize that white homogeneity was better and it’d been retarded to trust the Jews?" Yes, effects of Diversity may make white people realize their grave mistake of trusting Jews, but then, it'd be too little and too late as their nations would have been already lost forever to Diversity. As such, they will have to live in a world where various goy groups are constantly at each other’s throats, in which case Jewish globalist-hegemonist elites can play their game of divide-and-rule among the lost and confused gentiles. With Jews, You Lose. Swedes have long ways to go before they fully realize that they’d been played for fools, but they eventually will one day. And as they look back and wonder why they weren’t able to stop the horror in its tracks, they’ll realize it was due to their Anxiety of Trust, i.e. each Swede was most hung-up with neuroticism that fellow Swedes might regard him or her as unworthy in his/her sincere commitment to ‘goodness’ and ‘justice’. And perhaps they will even realize that their fatal error was in having allowed the vile, venal, and vicious Jews to masquerade as the Wise People bringing the gifts of reform and redemption to all white folks around the world.

The lesson to learn here is that a people with strong set of virtues but without the will of vision can be led to serious self-harm by those who control the vision thing. Indeed, we saw this with Germans and Japanese in World War II. Germans and Japanese had many virtues such as courage, loyalty, hard work, dedication, willingness to sacrifice, and honor. But as most Germans and Japanese lacked the power of personal vision, they relied on some other to supply them with the vision. If the vision was good, all their virtues went toward serving that vision. But if the vision was bad, all the virtues were wasted in service of evil. It’s like dogs. We appreciate dogs for their natural ‘virtues’ of loyalty and dedication, but as dogs lack vision, their ‘virtues’ always go toward serving the ‘vision’ supplied by the master. A dog’s ‘virtues’ can be used to save or kill a person’s life. Whether a dog is used to track down an innocent man or guilty man, the dog is only capable of the ‘virtue’ of commitment. It cannot conceive of its own vision. As Germans had many virtues, they could have done great things IF Hitler who supplied the vision was a truly good man. But Hitler was a pathological demagogue, and so, the German virtues of courage, loyalty, and hard work were ultimately put to horrible waste and evil. This is what happens when a people with virtues but without vision(let alone prophetic will) come under the spell of an evil vision. What Hitler did to the Germans, Jews are now doing to the West. As white folks lack the power of vision, it is supplied by Jews who do have it, even if it has grown satanic over the years. Jewish Power of vision elevated Holocaust-Worship, Afromania, and Globo-Homomania as the new trinity.

Ultimately, in terms of power politics, it doesn’t matter if the vision is good or evil. The fact is those without vision will always go with those with vision, even if evil, especially as even the most evil vision presents itself as true and just. Unless the evil vision can be met with good counter-vision, people will fall under sway of vision. Virtues are good but are always in the service of something. Courage is a virtue, but in the service of what? Courage doesn’t decide if it will fight and die for Nazism or Communism. Rather it is the vision that commands the virtue of courage to serve its agenda. In our times, Jews supply the vision of the world: Israel is so great, Iran is so terrible; US as globo-homo empire is so wonderful whereas Russia is evil; the West must be remade by Diversity and ‘Inclusion’, even if it means the US, Canada, and Europe are swamped by blacks and other non-whites; the Jewish vision says any white who says NO to Open Borders is a ‘racist’, the worst thing in the world; Man is a ‘woman’ because there are infinite numbers of ‘genders’ that are fluid; and so on and on. As crazy as these ideas are, they are Big Ideas, and Jews have the chutzpah to dream them up and have the financial/media power to disseminate them. Also, as the Holy Holocaust people, they have the godlike visionary power to determine what the taboos are, and of course, the main taboo is to ever doubt the wisdom and all-knowingness of the Master Jew who must be obeyed. So, white people, especially those of Northern European extraction, still have lots of virtues(of hard work, dedication, commitment, seriousness), but all such virtues are befouled and wasted in the service of Jewish Supremacist satanic craziness.

The perverse irony is that when the vision is bad, lack of virtue is better than virtue. Indeed, Germany would have done far less harm under Hitler if the German people were more like Italians in their lack of virtue. Imagine if German soldiers were lazy, cowardly, craven, clownish, dishonorable, and lacking in scruples. Hitler couldn’t have done much with such a people to cause much harm to the world. He would have barely invaded Poland and would have been soundly thrashed by France, and never mind a war with Russia, which would have been impossible with human material lacking in virtue. This is why white people must wake up and shake free of the Jewish vision that is misusing white virtues for evil purposes around the world. No, Jews are not a holy, wise, and perfect people. Blacks are not Magic Negroes or Afro-Angels. Homos and trannies are NOT our moral betters who should be celebrated 24/7 all year round. And it is perverse that entire nations and peoples must be destroyed in the name of what is good for Israel, Israel, Israel.

When we look at Sweden vs Italy today in relation to the migrant-crisis and immigration-invasion, it may seem weird that Swedes with more virtue are faring worse than Italians with less virtue. But this is because virtue, in its earnestness and commitment, is more eager to serve the currently BAD vision of Sweden supplied by venal Jews. Swedes are being goody-good agents of a baddy-bad idea, and that makes things worse. Doing bad things in a bad way is less dangerous because incompetence, laziness, or inattention messes up the plan. It is when people do bad things in a good way that the greatest harm is done. Because virtue plays by ‘universal’ rules, the virtuous tend to operate with hive minds. They know what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, and coordinate their combined efforts in the name of the ‘good’(which could actually turn out to be ‘bad’). Why the hive mind? Because virtue becomes meaningless if everyone decides what is good or bad on his own. Rather, virtue is widely recognized only because most people agree that it is in the service of ‘good’. And yet, this is the very danger of Sweden. When the vision is bad — the current vision of Sweden is absolutely horrifying — , it would actually be better for society if people grew cynical & sardonic as individuals and began to doubt and question what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’. They need to be more ironic than iconic in their mode of thinking. But Swedes are too virtuous in their hive-mind to really question that vision that has cast an evil spell on the nation.
In contrast, the wily Italians of late have been more willing to doubt the Jewish-infected vision of the Open Borders agenda of Afro-European Union. Though the lack of virtue has led to so much corruption, crime, and inefficiency in Italy, its one saving grace has been the greater cynicism about the Vision. Also, while petty Italian egotism has often undermined civic-mindedness, it has the advantage of being less willing to get with the globalist program of what it means to be ‘Good Europeans’. In contrast, the virtuous Germans with their greater zeal to be ‘Good Europeans’ have invested their civic-mindedness toward mindlessly welcoming the Merkel Millions from war-torn countries destroyed by Wars for Israel.
If white people in the West had their own power of vision, they would condemn Jewish Power and its Wars that destroyed so many Muslim/Arab lives. White people would condemn Jews for having created the Refugee Crisis by working with Saudis to foment strife and mayhem all over the Middle East and North Africa.

But lacking their own vision, most white people just rely on Jews to supply the Vision, it being "White People stained forever with ‘racism’ must redeem themselves by taking in tons of desperate refugees, or else they are heartless evil ‘xenophobes’." Notice how the Jewish vision never touches on the fact that it was mostly JEWISH POWER that pulled strings to destroy Arab/Muslim nations and force so many millions into refugee status. Never mind the Jews turning Arabs into homeless nomads. Just focus on how white people must be good & kind and welcome all those refugees into their own countries(while Israel and Saudi Arabia refuse to take any). It goes to show that virtue without vision is like being a dog. Without the power of vision, a people will always be servants of those with vision. When the vision is bad, it’s better to be a cynical and petty Italian than a do-goody Swede. At least, you’ll be more likely to save your own hide instead of earnestly working to sacrifice your entire nation to the Other. (In a way, it’s almost as if Hitler’s wishes are coming true. Facing defeat, Hitler damned the Germans for failing him and ordered Albert Speer to lay waste to all of Germany. Germany would have to vanish with him for its ‘sin’ of having failed to live up to his dream. Alas, Germany survived. But today, Germany and other European nations seem to have an Hitlerian will for self-immolation even if, ironically enough, in the name of anti-Nazism. Hitler wanted Germany and Europe destroyed forever for having failed Nazism. Today’s cucks want the West destroyed forever for having failed the Jews in WWII.)

Blacks are So Holy that we must convince ourselves that this is Beautiful. It sure is Bootiful.

Anyway, what is the problem of Law & Order in America(and West in general)? Why are so many people troubled by Law & Order issues when it’s so obvious that Lawfulness is preferable to Criminality? It’s because the demands of Law & Order violate one of the biggest idol-worships of America: Afromania. The problem is BLACKS commit crimes and acts of violence in far greater numbers than other groups do. Now, if there were no special love or consideration for blacks in the US, calling for more law & order to suppress black violence would hardly be a problem. Furthermore, if the US especially valued white lives, the call for law & order to suppress black violence would be even greater. Indeed, when the US was a pro-white white-majority nation long ago, whites felt no compunction about meting out harsh punishment to those who harmed white people. So, when Red Savages raided and killed white settlers, white rage united white folks in their wars on Indians. When Arab-African pirates raided American ships and enslaved whites to be sold into slavery, White America used its navy to crush the darky pirates. When a black thug raped a white woman or murdered a white man, white community came together to hang the Nasty Negro from a tree. When Mexicans slaughtered the white men at Alamo, white Americans got riled up and fought even harder to crush Mexico. When the ‘Japs’ attacked Pearl Harbor and massacred 3,000 white folks, a White America got so angry that it led a semi-genocidal war on Japan. So, if the white race were still seen as the essential and archetypal folks of America and if it was well-known that nasty Negroes were robbing, raping, and murdering too many white people, White people would totally be for more Law & Order to put the vicious blacks in their place.

But the fact is white folks lost their place on the American pedestal of worthiness. Initially, the idea was whites are good but so are non-whites, so the latter should be given equal place at the table. If whites are good, they should support equal protection under the law for all races. As a morally compelling argument, whites decided to de-racialize Americanism so that whites and non-whites could both be good citizens. But then, the Jewish control of academia/media and the white elite vanity of virtue-signaling especially blamed the white race for the troubles in the West. It went from ‘whites are good and so are non-whites who should be treated equally’ to ‘whites are not-so-good while certain peoples, especially blacks and Jews, are especially good’. And then, Jewish Power began to elevate the Shoah from a tragic historic event to some kind of neo-religion that must be worshiped. And the black narrative went from morally compelling to spiritually compulsory. Every American has to worship MLK(and revere Mandela) as god-men. With such premise, every year saw greater elevation of Jews and blacks(and then homos) to higher status while whites were increasingly demoted, degraded, and defamed as more a human plague than a human race.
It got even more ridiculous, what with white women being encouraged to side with Diversity, Jews, and homos against white men. Never mind the white world gave most freedom to women. Never mind white women were there alongside white men in the imperialist conquest of the world, therefore no less guilty(if ‘white guilt’ is to be believed). Never mind Jews see white women as whores and commodity to buy and sell. Never mind white women were created by straight white men, whereas homo ‘sex’ of fecal-penetration never created a single life. If anything, white women SHOULD side with white men, and Jews feared that very unity. And so, Jews devised an ingenious strategy. If Jews attacked white men and white women equally, white men and white women would found themselves in the same camp. To drive a wedge into the crucial unity of white men and white women, Jews especially vilified white men while offering moral amnesty to white women via feminism AS LONG AS white women identified themselves as just another victim group of Straight White Males. So, white women would be spared the full brunt of accusation of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’ IF they sided with Jews, blacks, Diversity, and homos against straight white males. And so many white women took the bait, but then, the female nature is essentially whore-ish, and women will go with the Power. As Jews held the power, so many white women became mental putty and bodily pooter in their hands. Jews are very clever. They understood that the white race would be stronger IF Political Correctness equally condemned white men and white women equally. Both would end up on the same boat and would be forced to work together as fellow moral lepers. Jews know that the most crucial unity of a people is between men and women, and that’s why Jews offered grace and forgiveness to white women IF they were to betray their own men and side with POC, blacks, and Jews. It’s like German women were offered protection IF they put out to Soviet Occupiers. Otherwise, they could be gang-raped or treated as badly as the German men. Jews pulled the same trick with Latin American whites. They knew that if they charged Anglo-American whites and Latin-American whites equally of ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’, both groups would have no choice but to form a coalition. So as to divide the white race, Jews offered grace to Latin American whites(who could pretend to be ‘people of color’) AS LONG AS they worked with Jews against Anglo-American whites. Of course, Latin American whites, being generally venal and craven, took up the offer, and it was also because of their burning resentment against White Americans as having achieved so much more than Hispanic Whites who settled the New World south of the US. Jews remembered how Italian-Americans simply became a part of White America, with many of them becoming conservative Republicans, and Jews also remembered how white Cubans who fled Castro became some of the most rock-solid Republicans. They were not going to make that mistake with future Latin American whites who came to the US. So, just when Jews went out of their way to vilify, dehumanize, and demonize whiteness, they offered an olive branch to Latin-American whites as honorary People of Color IF they were to side with Jews against American Whites. This is why we see so many whitey-white Latin-Americans in the US pretending like they have more in common with Indios and brown Mestizos than with other Americans of European extraction. Jews are so clever.

Currently, Law & Order issues in America are problematic because whites have been condemned while blacks have been consecrated. The ideology-of-idolatry or ‘idology’ of America would like for us to believe that blacks are noble-souled folks while whites are intrinsically a bunch of nasty a**holes. Indeed, Law & Order would be extremely popular in America if whites committed most of the heinous crimes while blacks were the main interracial victims. So many people would call out for more Law & Order to suppress white criminality, especially to save the Noble Negroes from Wicked Whites. Then, Law & Order would be aligned with the ‘Idology’ and PC Narrative. But the reality says otherwise. It says that blacks, despite being 13% of the US population, make up the majority of super-thugs, and black crime in most areas is way out of proportion to their population. This led to the Crime Complex of America. Under the influence of PC, so many Americans(including Conservatives) want to believe in the nobility of blacks and the need for whites to do more to bring forth a truly just society. But reality makes mincemeat of that conceit because, by and large, blacks are NOT noble and, if anything, often rude, nasty, obnoxious, vicious, savage, demented, cruel, and unscrupulous to the max.


"Montage of mainstream media spreading fake news that #JussieSmollett was attacked by white men in MAGA hats."

American reality is at odds with American ‘spirituality’ of Magic Negro Worship. Granted, due to the influence of sports and rap music, many whites admire blacks for the badass-thug-value, but even that is a kind of ‘spiritual’ worship, albeit of a demonic nature; it assumes that blacks have superhuman powers of masterfulness. It’s like the cucky-wuck Rock critic Dave Marsh and dorky-shmorky documentarian CucKen Burns babbling endlessly about how blackness is so awesome and white folks would just be lame white-bread nothings without the black prometheus having gifted them the rhythm and beat. It’s as if blacks have real souls with burning fire whereas whites only have frozen souls, and so, white ice can only be thawed by the heat of black magic. The end-logic of all this is ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs on the premise that the black dong can warm the white pooter and plant the seed to produce the New Superior Race of Afro-Europeans. Black male meat must rub with white female meat to create the heat to ‘redeem’ the white race from an Ice People to a fellow Sun People. No wonder then that EU has become Afro-European Union, what with the likes of Emanuel Macron and Boris Johnson calling for endless millions of more Africans to come ashore and take white women while white men are reduced to pathetic cuckery.

But the fantasy of black nobility crashes against the reality of black savagery. All those black Africans in Europe will only spread the kind of mayhem and chaos that defines Sub-Saharan Africa. Even in North Africa and Middle East, the infusion of black genes among the Arabs and Egyptians hasn’t done any good. Indeed, the darker Arabs are generally far less accomplished than lighter Arabs. Consider the Arabs of Sudan or Yemen. And the black genetic material among southern Italians, Portuguese, and certain Latin Americans hasn’t turned them into Magical Sun People. If anything, North Africans would rather move to the White West than stay put in their own nations and, for sure, they do NOT want to move to Sub-Saharan Africa. Only in the silly fantasies of brainwashed white cuck minds are scum like Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey the Hope of Mankind. Obama and Oprah have been nothing but ultra-grifters and egomaniacs who hustled white minds(turned into mush by Jewish control of academia and media) to grab the crown or to rake in the millions. Their status as national phenomena would not have been possible in a sober, serious, and sane nation grounded in reality, truth, and honesty.

Though there have been great religious movements in American History — beginning with the Great Awakening —, the dark side of mass-mentality set off by such events was the preference of Hope & Fantasy over Truth & Reality. Even secular America has carried on with this tradition. Since God and Jesus are no longer so relevant, people fall over themselves in rapture over Israel-Israel-Israel, Magic Negroes, Globo-Homos, and Jewish advertising campaigns. Such blind and gushing mind-set has a hard time processing reality, especially as ‘spiritual’ thought comes with powerful taboos. Since Jews-and-Israel are so sacrosanct, anyone who speaks truth to Jewish power must be a Vile ANTI-SEMITE. Since Negroes are so noble and wonderful, anyone who sees the dark side of blackness must be an Evil RACIST. Since Homos are so fabulous and sensational, anyone who sees the degeneracy of globo-homo worship must be a Despicable HOMOPHOBE. It’s virtually impossible to have a sane, sober, and/or serious discussion with people under such a spell. It’s like trying to convince a person infected with rabies that water isn’t harmful. Rabies isn’t called hydrophobia for nothing. It’s like trying to discuss the verity of religious claims with a True Believer. No matter how much you try to convince him or her that there is no evidence of miracles, they will insist on faith and, furthermore, condemn you as not just a non-believer but an agent of the Devil.

Blacks are like cows in India. To any rational mind and fairminded observer, it's obvious that letting cows run loose is bad for traffic, costly to society, and endangers many lives. But but but, Hindus in India believe cows to be sacred, and there isn't much that can be done about all the troubles they cause. Spiritual-thinking comes naturally to humans, but the downside is it can override reason and honest assessment of reality. Because cows are thought to be sacred, too many of them have been allowed to roam freely in India and wreak havoc in crucial sectors of society. Likewise, because blacks are regarded as holy, too many are allowed to romp and stomp around freely, and if they get way out of hand, we mustn’t blame 'blacks' because blackness is sacred; instead, we must focus on some other aspect of the perpetrators, such as their status as 'youths' or 'teens'. (And holy homos are allowed to take over entire cities in June and celebrate degeneracy, and of course, holy Jews have the license to mess up entire areas of Middle East with Wars for Israel[as the Neo-Crusades] and use Wall Street to rape entire economies. As we mustn’t badmouth the holy, we must just keep chanting 'Israel is our closest ally' and ‘God blesses those who bless the Jews’.)

It’s not enough to timidly assert, "It’s Okay to be White". People must wake up to reality and grow a pair and say the obvious: "Blacks are not sacred, blacks are not holy, blacks are not magical." Just because a people were treated unfairly in the past and because their story has been turned into a fairytale doesn’t alter the fact that, IN THE REAL WORLD, blacks are especially problematic and more prone to violence & psychopathy than the other races because of 200,000 yrs of evolution in the Dark Continent than 200 yrs of slavery in the New World. A myth that would have the most savage race be the most saintly race is worse than foolish. It is fatal to civilization.