Are Nations Artificial or Natural Constructs? What Is the True Nature of Globalism?

It’s often been said by the Left and even by the Right that nations or political/cultural/ethnic boundaries are artificial or created by man. In other words, nothing ordains Germany, France, Vietnam, Mexico, or Canada as natural entities. They were all created by man or tribes of men, and thus they are said to be ‘artificial’ or ‘imagined’ communities.
After all, a deer doesn’t understand the meaning of border between Canada and the United States. A bird doesn’t know it’s flying from Mexico to the US nor vice versa. A bear in Russia doesn’t know it may be crossing into some Central Asian republic. An elephant in South Africa doesn’t know it’s crossing into Zimbabwe. Nature doesn’t recognize any of the borders and boundaries established by man.
　
And yet, even if nations don’t exist in nature, don’t they exist because of our (inner)nature? There are two aspects to nature, after all. There is external nature and internal nature. External nature comprises rocks, rivers, trees, hills, mountains, oceans, and flesh and bone. Internal nature consists of how living organisms perceive, respond to, and mold natural reality. All higher life forms function in external nature through their internal nature. Nature isn’t just WHAT IT IS but HOW IT APPEARS to a particular organism.
Thus, even though the internal natures of various organisms are different–i.e. they mentally and emotionally perceive and order reality in different ways–, the fact remains that a genuinely natural force shapes their perception and behavior. In this sense, even if nations are indeed artificial creations, one may argue that national-ism is a natural emotion–a complex variation of the territorial instinct. If true, nations are, at the very least, creations of internal nature–projection of human nature on external nature. Even if nations rise and fall or national boundaries shift over time, there is something within the natural heart and mind of man that favors ‘tribal’ boundaries. Indeed, nothing is fixed in external nature. Mountains rise sky high but eventually crumble away, glaciers form and melt, rivers dry up, continents break apart and form new land masses. But, the natural forces that create mountains and rivers remain constant. Just as there are certain natural constants–laws or forces of nature such as gravity, electro-magnetism, etc–that exert their power on and transform external nature(or physical reality), there are certain instinctive or psychological constants(or laws of internal nature) within organisms which drive their external selves–physical bodies and behavior–to work on and re-order the natural reality around them. Mountains may rise sky high and erode over time, but gravity is always in play. Nations may rise and fall, but the territorial mentality is a psychological constant of internal nature.
　
Though Leftists will say borders and boundaries are the artificial creations of foolish man, few things are as natural as territoriality or territorialism. Indeed, we see it in the wild world itself. To a layman or New Age romantic, it may seem as though animals run or roam free. As children, we grew up watching movies like BORN FREE or FREE WILLY. But, do animals run or roam free? Or, do they follow or obey their particular internal natures. In truth, a bear or a pack of wolves do not run or roam freely. They are constantly MARKING TERRITORY. Thus, the ‘nationalist’ instinct already exists in the primal animal level. Man elaborated it into a political creed. Though a bear marks his territory differently than how wolves or cougars do it, each animal is keen to mark his territory as distinct, especially to warn off rival members of its own species. Thus, though a bear and wolves may occupy the roughly the same territory, a bear will defend his territory from other bears, and wolves will defend their territory from other wolves. Of course, these markings are not eternal or permanent. One bear may lose his territory to another bear. A pack of wolves may take over the territory of another. But, if there is a natural constant in all of this, it’s the INTERNAL NATURE of organisms. Who is to say internal nature is any less natural than external nature? That would be like saying gravity is less natural than mountains.
　
The territorial imperative may seem aggressive, nasty, mean-spirited, and vicious in both animals and man, but it is necessary in order for organisms to compete for scarce resources and ensure their survival. Territorialism is also necessary to reduce violence between males of the species who compete for the attentions of females. Take wolves for instance. Wolves may have to hunt all day to bring down a deer or moose. Thus, they mark a territory as their own so as to concentrate on the hunt than on fighting other wolf packs that might intrude on their turf. Without well-marked territories, rival wolf packs will stumble into one another’s path far more often. This is also true of bears, cougars, or any other animal one may mention. Even herbivores mark territory as the males–or even the females–among horses, elks, moose, buffalos, and elephants fight one another out of fear, suspicion, or panic. The rule of internal nature is not "this land is my land, this land is your land" but "THIS land is MY land, THAT land is YOUR land." The territorial imperative is the basis for much violence, but there would be even more violence without it. Territorial imperative at least ensures that the violence will take place along marked borders. Thus, if two nations were to fight, they would fight along the border areas than in all areas. If one side were to conquer the other, new borders would be drawn; it would be the expansion than a nullification of territorialism. (To be sure, air power has given us the TOTAL WAR where all areas of the nation are instantly vulnerable to attack.)
Without the territorial imperative, there would be violence EVERYWHERE at ALL TIMES since no place would be safe from the constant flux of peoples from all over the world with different values, cultures, and ideas. If animals didn’t mark nor delineate territories in nature, they would likely cross into each other’s path far more often. This is why we see cats and dogs peeing on trees wherever they go. They are marking territory or checking to see if the territory ‘belongs’ to some other dog or cat. This is why tigers pee in various spots in the forest. The pee is meant as a warning to other tigers: ‘this here is my land.’ If animals cannot find sufficient food or mates on their own marked territory, they’ll try to take over the territory of others of their species. Thus, if a wolf pack has lean pickings on its own territory, it may wage war on the territory of another wolf pack. In the process, territories may be redrawn but the territorial imperative or instinct remains the one natural constant.
　
So, even if nations are not natural geographical realities, they are natural psychological realities. Organisms, whether they be wolves or humans, don’t just live physically in the natural world but re-order the natural world to suit their psycho-survivalist interests. This re-ordering of nature is profoundly influenced if not entirely determined by the psychologies of organisms. This is as true under the sea as above on ground.
To be sure, certain organisms are oriented more towards nomadism than others. This is especially true of birds and whales. As such, they may bump into and cause more problems because they end up violating the spaces of other organisms. On the other hand, the survival of other species rely on the arrival of the ‘nomadic’ species as there is a mutually beneficial ecology or symbiotic relationships among many species.
Nomadic animals are not to be confused with nomadism commonly associated with Jews. No animal I can think of is nomadic on principle; it moves about in search for food during lean times or in search of mates. As for birds and whales, they are more migratory than nomadic. Their human equivalents would be Mexican migrant workers who seasonably move up north to work as farm laborers and then go back to their homes in south of the border. There is an established pattern in migration whereas nomadic peoples–like the Jews–tend to be more creative, adventurous, and ambitious in their wandering about the world. Nor should nomadic types be confused with discoverer types. Discoverers are seduced by the great unknown, the dark mystery, of going where no man has gone before. Though there are plenty of modern Jewish individuals who are like that, Jews have historically been nomads than discoverers. Even if nomads tend to be more creative and adaptive in their wandering than migratory people are, they generally seek out the KNOWN world than seek NEW worlds. Jewish nomads sought out cities where they could ply their trade and work themselves up by manipulating the system of the gentiles. In the movie EUREKA by Nicholas Roeg, Gene Hackman is the discoverer type whereas Joe Pesci, in the role of the cunning Jew, is the nomadic type. In the end, the discoverer is bound to lose to the nomad. The discoverer is romantic and loses the torch of inspiration when there’s nothing more to discover. There’s something childlike in his need for excitement. The nomad, on the other hand, is an inheritor of a long tradition. He isn’t tempted by excitement and thrill but by a patient and ruthless craving for more money and power.
　
For obvious reasons, humans make special territorial claims on land. We are land creatures and nothing is as valuable to us. Water is valuable too–fresh water for drinking and washing, rivers for travel and shipping, and oceans for food and sea routes. But, it’s not as easy to claim ownership of the seas, thus most of the ocean is an open space accessible to all nations. Land is solid, something we can stand on, defend readily, and drive stakes through or build walls around. Power over the land is more permanent than power over the seas. Russia is still a huge nation whereas the British Empire came to mean little in the long run since its main possession was the seas.
　
Jews could not lay claim to most lands ruled by gentiles. They did carve out a piece of territory for themselves by committing genocide against Canaanites and Philistines but lost even that–until it was reclaimed in 1948 with the support of US and USSR. Since Jews could not lay claim to land, they laid claim to the heavens. Their concept of ownership became abstract, spiritual, intellectual, and/or idealized. Jews believed that even if they owned no land or were kicked out of various lands dominated by hostile goyim, the heavens belonged to them because the One and Only God ruled all the heavens.
Similarly, Jews played a crucial role in the development of an abstract form of wealth based on paper contracts and money. Through such means, Jews could come to own the world even if they didn’t occupy much land. Their wealth was all there on paper handled by lawyers, ensured by politicians, and enforced by lawmen who must follow the letter of the law formulated by lawyers and legislated by politicians(bought by the super-rich).
　
Another way Jews laid claim to all the world was through the idea of universal spiritual/moral righteousness or social justice. Jesus(and especially Paul)got this ball rolling by profoundly universalizing the Jewish God. To the Jews, Yahweh was the One and Only God of All the World but NOT all the people. According to Paul, Yahweh or Jehovah didn’t favor anyone but wanted ALL people to worship Him and earn His blessing. Paul turned God against the Jews. He said Jews are stingy & petty, and want to keep the One and Only God all to themselves. Paul argued that Jesus was the bridge between what had formerly been the Jewish God and all of humanity.
This was a new kind of (abstract)territorialism, one that sought to conquer and occupy the hearts of all men around the world, and it’s not surprising that this idea arose from the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jew, and Paul was a Hellenized Jew. People like Alexander the Great had sought to conquer the world in the literal or territorial manner. He didn’t expect nor necessarily desire for conquered peoples to adopt Greek ways. In some occasions, he even adopted the ways of the ‘barbarians’–if only to satiate his half-gay sensibilities. Greeks had a land of their own and sought to expand their territorial empire.
Since Jews were never strong in the area of territorial power, they developed a kind of meta-territorialism. They sought to control the world by controlling the hearts and minds of people around the world. To be sure, the original Jews were not interested in this. Though they developed monotheism, they were content with the idea that God was mainly for the Jews. But the arrival of Jesus and Paul changed all that. A new kind of universalist Jewish thought arose. In the beginning, almost all the Christians were Jews. They were seen as heretics by tribal Jews and distrusted as subversives by pagan peoples. But, their ideas eventually caught fire among the gentiles, and in time, Christianity became a gentile religion. Because of the notion that Jews-Killed-Jesus(plus the fact that far fewer Jews embraced the New Faith than did pagan peoples), it also became an anti-Jewish religion. Since gentiles owned large areas of land, Christianity eventually became a territorial religion. Christian universalism fused with territorial interests. As such, Christianity came to be associated particularly with Western power, just as Islam, though also universalist, came to be associated with the Near Eastern power.
　
Because of Jewish rejection of Christianity, this abstract creation of heretic Jews came to hurt the Jews. But, many Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries clung to another form of meta-territorialism, one devised by Karl Marx. Marxist communism condemned national boundaries and called for an eventual one-world order through the ideology of ‘social justice’. Though Marx didn’t see himself as a Jew, he thought in a typically Jewish fashion. He emphasized the Idea over Territory. His ideology sought to break down all barriers among nations and unite humanity through an idea. By laying claim to the hearts-and-minds of all peoples around the world, Jewish communists sought to control the entire world: Control the organism and you also control the territory on which it lives. Consider the distressing fact that though most of United States is inhabited by gentiles, it is like an extension of Israel or Jewtopia since the Jewish media networks control our hearts and minds.
　
Anyway, even communism failed to live up to the expectations of Jewish radicals. As most people in communist nations were gentiles whose consciousness had long been shaped by territorialism, communism too turned into form of nationalist ideology. Russian communism became Russian, Chinese communism became Chinese, Yugoslavian communism became Yugoslavian, Cuban communism became Cuban, and Vietnamese communism became Vietnamese. A branch of Jewish socialism morphed into Zionism.
　
In time, Jewish communists came to be seen and distrusted primarily as Jews in communist Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and etc. Eventually, Jews figured that no OPENLY COERCIVE ideology can work in their interest in the long term. Though the radical Jews had tried to create the New Man, the New Man always seemed to revert to his territorial instincts, even as he spouted the New Values. Russians and Chinese, for instance, went on forever about the brotherhood-of-man but were really looking out for their national interests. And though the coercive system of communism had initially given radical Jews in Eastern Europe a political and social advantage over the gentiles, once the gentiles adopted communism and joined the system, they far outnumbered the Jews and used the COERCIVE system of communism against the Jews.
So, rather than the COERCIVE means of control–which could badly boomerang on the Jews–, the Jews came to favor a MANIPULATIVE means of control which they developed to cunning and devious perfection in the US. Since American Jews embrace ‘liberty and freedom’, even the most radical and hate-filled–anti-white, anti-Christian, or anti-American–Jews would be protected by the law. Thus, we are told over and over that Joe McCarthy was an evil man who violated constitutional rights through his ‘witch hunt’ against communists, many of whom were Jewish. (It doesn’t seem to bother Jews much that far more innocent Japanese-Americans were shipped to prison camps at the behest of their hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt.) By embracing ‘freedom of speech’ in America, Jews were protected from legal or political prosecution for their hideous radicalism and hostility.
But, since Jews also came to control much of the media, they got to decide who were good or bad, which groups were noble or tainted, which ideas or values were worthy or worthless. Though INDIVIDUAL liberty existed for ALL people thanks to the Constitution, INSTITUTIONAL liberty was concentrated in the power of the Jews. ‘Antisemitic’ individuals had the right of free speech but were not allowed any institutional power. How and why? Because Jews controlled so much of the economy and media, no politician or businessman wanted to be associated with ‘antisemitic’ ideas or positions. The Jewish media would shame and drag them through the mud if they were. Who got tarred-and-feathered in the public sphere was determined by the Jewish media. Jews not only had individual freedom but institutional power, and they used it brazenly and ruthlessly to shoot down anyone they didn’t like. Thus, even as the Jewish-dominated A.C.L.U. defended individual rights, its main purpose and effect was to protect the rights of radical Jews. ACLU might, on occasion, defend a ‘far right’ individual, but that was just tokenism, just for show. As long as Jews controlled all the INSTITUTIONAL power, individual liberty didn’t do much good for those opposed to Jewish power. How far could one get with his counter-Jewish message if he could express his views only to himself or his near friends and families–who were generally no less brainwashed by the liberal Jewish media and academia.
　
Of course, with the rise of the internet and a near-total Jewish control of laws, academia, new economy, and government, many Jews and their lobotomized/castrated gentile puppets are trying to curtail free speech altogether for those on the Right. Though Jews developed much of the internet and have made the most money from it, they feel threatened by the fact that the web is a medium where individual liberty and institutional power can be one and the same. Theoretically and even practically, anyone can access David Duke’s site just as easily as David Brooks’ site. Though the main hubs like Google, Yahoo, and Bing are controlled by liberals and Jews, we now have full and unfettered access to all kinds of ideas. Indeed, there is a lot of information about Jewish power that had never existed before in the MSM. Prior to the internet, anti- or counter-Jewish views were limited to few local journals or organizations without the means to expand their readership or membership since they weren’t allowed to gain institutional power or support. Through the internet, it doesn’t cost anything to gain access to email, social networking sites, forums, or blogs. An isolated right-wing geek in Montana can conceivably have as big an audience as Maureen Dowd or Arianna Huffington. It is for this reason that Google–a totally leftist Jewish enterprise–is fully behind Obama’s effort to let government control the internet. One may wonder why a private company would want government to gain such powers. It’s because liberal and neocon Jews also run the government. Obama may be an ideological socialist but he’s a puppet of the rich Jews who promoted him. Thus, Goldman Sachs was only happy to help ‘socialist’ Obama take power and get in return $100s of billions in ‘bail-out money.’ Finance capitalist Wall Street Jews are not afraid of the Obama administration since Obama’s economic handlers are all part of the Wall Street gang. They’ll go after Main Street, but they’ll make sure that their Jewish pals in Wall Street get theirs–before the rest of us get to nibble on left-over crumbs. Sure, Obama and Tim Geithner put on the seething-angry act over the CEO bonuses, but it’s just masquerade. Even with caps on their ‘salaries’, there are many ways these Wall Street sharks can tweak the system to rake in gazillions more.
　
So, even as we on the White Right have cause to be alarmed by the government takeover of internet, Google doesn’t mind since the kind of people who run the government are the liberal/leftist brethren of the Google Jews. Google Jews will say it’s for The People, but it’s really for themselves. I mean since when has the government been for the people except to drug them with ‘bread and circuses’, thus making them more stupid and dependent? Government takeover of the internet means liberal Jewish control of the internet. Google Jews know that ‘hate speech laws’ will only be applied against the White Right but never against the leftist/liberal Jews nor against most of their allies who are being funded/supported/manipulated by Jews against the white population.
　
Of course, Jews will insist that there would be no violation of Freedom of Speech since ‘hate speech is not free speech’. Jews know that gentiles are dumb and docile enough to swallow such nonsense. Besides, if their rational argument fails, liberal Jews will spiritually and emotionally trot out the usual stream of Holocaust imagery, black slavery, and so on. People will be so emotionally and morally bullied that even those who oppose ‘hate speech laws’ won’t step forward to stand on principles. They wouldn’t want to be smeared as "the vile creature that embraces hate and approves of skinheads and neo-nazis." Hate Crime Laws have come to a point where it’s against the law to say things which ‘might incite others to commit acts of violence’ against certain groups. But, this is purely selective. Marxists, black rappers, and Zionists often express views which encourage violence against property holders, businessmen, white people, and Palestinians, but they will never be dragged before a hate crime tribunal. No, the only people who will be targeted are those who speak out against Jewish power, the gay agenda, black lunacy, and illegal ‘immigration’.
　
Finally, let’s consider the issue of globalism and the NWO–New World Order. Is globalism really antithetical to territorialism or the territorial imperative? It may seem that way if we go by the statements from the Left and the Right. Many leftists promote the creation of a New World Order in the name of dissolving ‘tribal’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘atavistic’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘racist’ national boundaries. Many leftists were distressed by the fall of the USSR and the resurgence of nationalism in the former Soviet republics and in Yugoslavia. They want EU to succeed and then keep expanding into larger entities and invite the entire world; it is anathema in Europe to conflate nation with race and culture. Liberals often speak of a World Culture. Leftists promote a weird and funky ‘cosmopolitan’ blend of universalism and the cult of diversity–two ideas which are actually contradictory as mixing the entire world into one goulash will reduce the richness of diversity; after all diversity exists only because people developed separately from other peoples and cultures; it’s one thing to be open-minded and curious about other peoples and culture, but it’s quite another to invite the entire world to your country and promote a kind of mongrelization which does to human genetics what the Big Mac has done to world cuisine. If leftists promote internationalism in the name of the collective unity and brotherhood of man, libertarians promote it in the name of the free individual who isn’t bound to any nation, culture, or tribe.
　
The Right attacks globalism as an affront to national sovereignty and territorial integrity–and to the internal human nature of the territorial imperative. As barriers between nations dissolve and third world migration swamps the West, what will happen to national territorial claims? Of course, the Right in non-white nations also complain that globalism gives multi-national corporations–mostly Western–free access and reign over developing or ‘Third World’ countries. Globalism is not to be confused with international trade, which is a good thing. Trade is natural and can be mutually beneficial. In contrast, globalism is an ideology committed to creating the ‘global village’ whether the consequences are good or bad. It is a secular dogma, a religion. Closely connected to globalism is Free Trade, which too can be good in practice but dangerous as an ideology. Free trade is good for a nation if it has more or as much to sell as to buy. It is detrimental if it perpetually buys more than sells. After WWII, free trade was good for the US, and US had every right to promote it for national interest. But, as other nations caught up and devised national economic strategies, free trade turned into Free Trade, an ideology which said US must commit to free trade even if it were bad for the US. Ideologies tend toward dogmatism and radicalism.
So, one could make a case that globalism is a ruthless and naive form of utopianism that goes against territorialism, which is part of human nature. But, there is another way of seeing globalism, and this views is shared by people on the alternative right and the radical left–albeit for different reasons. The radical left sees globalism as essentially a form of neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism. It is not an equitable or egalitarian way of uniting the world but a means by which Western Imperialists reclaim the territories they’d lost after WWII. This view is popular in the less successful parts of the developing world–Latin America(except successful Chile), Africa, and the Middle East especially. East Asians and increasingly Asian-Indians are less likely to share this view since they’ve been able to intelligently use globalism for their own national benefit; consider the rise of China and India in the past two decades. But, in nations like Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela, Yemen, Egypt, and Nigeria–where the elites are utterly corrupt and the masses are hopelessly inept–, globalism is perceived as a means by which the West seeks to re-exploit their old colonies which had been ‘liberated’ in the 1950s and 60s. And, there are many Western leftists who agree with this Neo-Marxist view that globalism is really neo-imperialism in disguise. (Also keep in mind that many Middle Easterners see Zionism as a means why which the West re-conquered the Holy Land through a modern crusade fronted by the Jews.)
　
Some–though not all–on the ALTERNATIVE Right also agree that territorialism is alive and well in globalism, but they see the main form as neo-aristocratic than neo-imperialist. The Alternative Right doesn’t see the conflict within globalism as between West vs the Rest but between the elites and the masses. What the Alternative Right fears is a re-emergence of the aristocratic world order akin to the pre-French Revolution world.
Of course, this NWO is said to be liberal, progressive, and based on Enlightenment principles–flowing from the French Revolution–, but look more closely, and one is reminded of the saying, "the more things change, the more they remain the same." Prior to the great but violent French Revolution, the kings and noblemen generally looked down on the masses. Though kings and noblemen fought amongst one another on occasion, they considered each other as members of the same royal tribe. Kings and noblemen felt little sympathy or connection with their own people. A Prussian King was likely to feel closer to the Austrian Emperor or French King than to his own people. Though kings and princes carefully guarded their domains, they identified with others of their blood and class than with the ‘rabble’.
This changed with the great French Revolution which gave The People a chance to rise up and fight for their freedom and rights. Though it turned ugly and led to one bloodbath after another, the French Revolution did much good for people power. The leaders of the Revolution represented their own people and didn’t identify with the kings and noblemen of other countries. Though Napoleon made himself emperor, he was the People’s Emperor. The French masses loved and honored him like no people ever had loved their leader. People who lived under kings had to bow down before the royal pompous ass who held his nose up at his own subjects. But, Napoleon inhaled the spirit of the masses, body odor and all. He turned out to be a looney-bin megalomaniac, but he was truly a revolutionary figure who forged an iron bond with his people. The French people weren’t his subjects but his supporters.
Though Napoleon ultimately failed and revolutionary France eventually lost the war, they did shake up Europe enough for two decades to politically and socially re-order the whole of the European continent. Though the aristocratic forces regained power in 1815, there was no way they could put the genie back in the bottle. All the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Nationalism was the new reality, and even kings and aristocrats could no longer simply lord over their people but had to represent and respect them. Though kings and aristocrats in the 19th century up to the first World War maintained warm and close relations with one another, they had to appeal to the masses in their own countries. Everything had to be wrapped in nationalism, and as such, the people came to matter more in the political equation. But, what eventually gave nationalism a bad name? The ensuing bloodbath of World War I and all the diabolical forces it unleashed across the whole spectrum of the right to the left. Some of these forces were ultra-nationalist–Nazism–while others were ultra-anti-nationalist–communism. If Nazism turned nationalism into a demented ideology, communism turned universalism into a bloody hammer. Of course, one could argue that Hitler was a pan-racist than a true nationalist and that communism turned out to be no less nationalist in the end. But, the horrors of WWII came to be interpreted as the evil products of nationalism–and imperialism–, and the educated elites of the West have been reluctant or nervous to embrace nationalism in any form.
　
So, even though nationalism continued to be a powerful force after WWII–indeed, it fueled most of the anti-colonialist movements around the world–, the two superpowers talked less of national power than of ‘freedom’(in the West) and ‘justice’(in the East). US prided itself in promoting not nationalism but ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. USSR prided itself in promoting ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’. But of course, there were undercurrents of nationalism(s) on both sides. Russians equated Soviet power with Russian might. Those in the Eastern Bloc, on the other hand, saw communism as Russian imperialism. Americans came to see democracy not merely as a political system but the core essence of Americanism; thus, it became convenient to justify American ‘expansionism’ or influence in terms of spreading democracy and ‘human rights’, something the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and even many Europeans have been very skeptical about. Israel, as a kind of mini-me of the United States, has justified its nationalist existence on the fact that it too is democratic–though this doesn’t seem to apply to Palestinians who elected Hamas government through democracy.
There was a resurgence of French nationalism under De Gaulle. And, leftists were defacto pro-nationalist as long as non-whites were fighting for national ‘liberation’ from Western imperialism or American ‘neo-imperialism’. And, black nationalists like Malcolm X were greatly admired on the Left. Israel was supported by many Jewish leftists . As long as nationalism was identified with anti-imperialism or underdog-ism, it could be politically and morally acceptable to ‘progressives’.
　
However, nationalism in the West–especially if identified with the white population–was deemed as unacceptable. For this reason, white Americans tried to expand their power or interests by dancing around the issue of nationalism. Thus, they tried to expand American hegemony in the form or name of anti-communism, anti-terrorism, pro-Zionism, pro-democracy-ism, and such. But, this strategy was usurped by the liberal and neocon Jews. What had once been used to expand white American power under another label was made to promote Jewish power at the expense of white American power. (Same thing happened with Christianity. It had been used by whites to expand white power. White justified their conquest of the world in the name of spreading of light of God and love of Jesus. But, Christianity later morphed into communism and into ‘progressive’ and Liberation Theology which accused white nations of having cynically employed Christianity to keep the masses down or to conquer non-white lands.)
　
But, whether internationalism or globalism is employed by white gentiles or Jews(or any other people), there is an element of territorialism at its core. It’s not the end but a reconfiguration of territorialism. And, things like this had happened before. Prior to the rise of empires, small kingdoms had been the core territorial units. When an empire swallowed up various kingdoms, was it the end of territorialism? No, it was the creation of a larger territorial entity. Romans, for instance, were not ridding the world of territorialism by breaking down the tribal borders of other peoples; they were merely laying claim to a larger piece of territory as their own.
　
Prior to the rise of nations, the primary territorial unit could be tribal or clannish. It could be a city-state or a principality. When a nation swallowed up all those units and developed a national identity, it wasn’t violating territorialism but merely expanding it to another level.
In this light, the globalist elites are not so much trying to rid the world of the ‘atavistic’ territorial mindset but laying claim to ALL OF THE GLOBE. It is territorialism in its highest and most radical form. For the global elites, their own nations are too small for their ambitions and power-lust. Their own people–the rabble or the masses–are too boring, dull, stupid, and insipid. A global elitist in NY feels closer to a fellow elitist in Paris, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, or even Cape Town. Just as the kings and aristocrats preferred the company of one another–and married with one another–across national boundaries than cared much for their own peoples, the globocrats of today prefer one another to the humdrum masses of their own kind. In the old days, a English monarch would marry a German or Austrian princess. Or, a Prussian prince or princess may be married into the Russian elite. The masses existed mainly to toil in the fields and work like cattle for the snobby aristocrats. Not much is different today. The globocrats, especially the white gentile kind, don’t care about their own people who aren’t as well-educated, ‘sophisticated’, and well-traveled. This is what much of the anti-Sarah-Palin contempt is all about. She is ‘one of us’–the people–but not ‘one of them’–the elites.
　
And, though the liberal Western elites frown on racism and carry out witch-hunts against those who speak truthfully on race(and racial differences), they practice the most brazen kind of biologism. They seek to marry the ‘best and the brightest’–and the best looking–, and often do so since affluent smart kids attend the same schools and later earn lots of money and have the jobs that attract the most appealing and desirable sexual partners. Why have Jews been getting better looking over the yrs? They made a lot of money and married a lot of good looking goyim–who also happened to be above-average in intelligence since the smarter gentiles attend schools like Harvard and Yale, which are teeming with genius Jews. And, even if a rich Jew marries a dumb shikse, his kids will get half his brains and half her looks. Not a bad deal. The kid may only be half as smart as the father but will be at least be half as attractive as the mother.
　
For all their egalitarian talk, do rich feminist bitches marry humble janitors with low IQs and low pay? No, they seek out lawyers, academics, politicians, and other big shots. Is the ‘take your daughter to work’ a great idea for most women who work at hum-drum jobs? Does it make any sense for a housewife? No, it’s only cool for rich Jewesses who rake in $100,000s or millions a year. "More things change, the more they stay the same." No matter how you slice or dice it, the system produces a new elite, and that elite seeks to consolidate its power militarily, morally, spiritually, politically, socially, and/or intellectually.
　
Of course, the globalist elites will never come out and say they are laying territorial claim to all the world. They’ll yammer about ‘sharing the world’, ‘uniting the world’, ‘free flow of goods and ideas’, ‘promoting human rights’, etc. But, who gets to really enjoy the world via travel, money-making, fine dining, luxury goods, influence, and power? The average Joe or the superrich & their privileged underlings? The Joe the Plumbers of the world or the Rahm Emmanuels of the world?
What matters most to an Average Joe is his home, job, and country. He has enough to survive on and feels pride in belonging to a nation and cultural community. He has little to gain from globalism except cheap goods made overseas. But, the global elitists get to rake in billions, travel all over, have power sex and shower sex, manipulate government to make their businesses even richer, and feel ‘at home’ at any part of the world. Why should they remain loyal to one nation when they can own the entire world? The radical left may see this as ‘Western neo-imperialism’, but we on the White Right disagree because globalism is NOT good for most Westerners. The imperialism of old, good or evil, was indeed about the glory of all the people within the imperialist nation. Thus, all Britons shared in the power and greatness of the British Empire. It wasn’t just the British elite but the British people who laid claim to the British Empire. This is NOT the case with globalism. MOST white people in the US and EU get nothing out of globalism but cheap foreign goods. And, they will never have enough money to travel around the world and own homes on all five continents, enjoy yachts, enjoy first-class air boarding or own private jets. Only the global elites will enjoy such goodies. The dumb masses will think they are enjoying a good life because the media hooks them to celebrity news and encourages them to identify with millionaire celebrities. Thus, even poor slobs think they are glamorous because they go gaga over Lady Gaga. Or, the dummies will watch American Idol–a show that sneers at MOST people as lame no-talents–and believe that they are sharing in a fairytale-come-true. This is how the global elites–especially the heinous liberal super billionaire Jews who run the media–manipulate the masses.
　
Worse, globalism opens up the West to waves and waves of immigration–legal and illegal–from the Third World. Especially damaging to Europe are marauding immigrants from Africa and Muslim countries who come to commit crime, live off welfare, and impregnate white women with mulatto babies. In the US, waves of Mexican Illegals may well turn the SW territories into Greater Mexico. The global elites in the US and EU aren’t bothered by such developments since they OWN ALL THE WORLD and can choose to live in safest and richest neighborhoods. Since they’ve politically, economically, and intellectually laid claim to all the world, what does it matter if they lose their own country? They still have the WORLD which they can enjoy via private jets, yachts, finance capitalism, high-tech expansion, ‘free trade’, and etc.
　
But, what about the average Joes who cannot enjoy the world that way. To them, losing their nation means losing EVERYTHING!! It’s about time the VAST WHITE MIDDLE bring forth another cataclysm in the spirit of the French Revolution. The French Revolution dethroned the international aristocracy and put in power leaders who felt a great bond with the French masses. Napoleon was the Man of the People. Of course, power corrupts and revolutions can get out of hand, and the French Revolution turned out badly because of excesses and dogmatism. But, it played a heroic role in smashing the OLD ORDER where kings and noblemen were aloof about their own people and more intimate with the kings and noblemen of other states. The global elites look upon us the same way.
　
Even if it’s understandable that educated, privileged, and intelligent people look down the masses–I do too as the masses are indeed stupid and dumb as a doorknob–, the extent of the treachery and betrayal by the elitists is vile and inexcusable. After all, in good faith, we listened to them and followed their plans all these yrs. We supported free trade, amnesty in the 1980s, outflow of American jobs, and inflow of cheap goods. We cheered on the millionaires, billionaires, and gazillionaires as the heroes of capitalism, as what America is all about. Yet, at the end of the day, what did we get in return from these weasels and sharks? We got more illegal immigration for cheap labor(and for Jews to pit against the native populations). We got more out-of-control legal immigration to take jobs away from American workers. We got shit like the GAY AGENDA shoved up the tender asses of our children, which is why so many kids think ‘gay marriage’ is a human right. We got pink slips as good manufacturing jobs disappeared. We got Obama as the supreme leader. We got liberal and some Neocon Jews laughing at us behind our backs. Indeed, what did we get from the Jewish community for our loyal service to all things Jewish? They shat on us and forced Obama on the nation. Whether it’s Milton-Friedman-ims or Noam-Chomsky-ism, it all comes down to the same thing. Rise of the intellectual/economic global elite and the loss of power and meaning of life for the Vast White Middle.
　
This is why we must reject not only leftism but also libertarianism. If leftism is inter- or trans-nationalist for collective reasons–brotherhood of man, equality of man, global village, etc–, libertarianism is inter- or trans-nationalist for individualist reasons. A libertarian argues that a free person shouldn’t be fettered to a culture, a polity, a place, or system. He should be free to travel anywhere, live anywhere, work anywhere, invest anywhere, f**k anywhere, and so on. This wouldn’t be such a bad idea if EVERYONE could enjoy the Ayn-Randian libertarian life, but let’s get serious. How many people get to travel, love, and live like Bill Gates, Sergei Brin, Matt Damon, or Bono? I’m for freedom and individual liberty, but let’s not delude ourselves with Hollywood fantasies. Freedom and liberty in a functional and meaningful sense can only exist and operate within a context or a system. They are meaningless without laws, and laws have no meaning without borders and the cultural values that inform the people within them. Sure, there can and should be some degree of international laws and mutual cooperation. If a Japanese guy visits the US and kills someone, we expect Japanese law enforcement to aid American law enforcement in capturing the killer. If we travel to France or Mexico, we do want certain legal guarantees even if we are not citizens in those countries. On the other hand, there are American laws, French laws, and Mexican laws that exist primarily for their citizens. And those laws must reflect the values of the people of those nations than be imposed by the NWO globalist elites.
　
Also, libertarianism is linked with globalism because, despite all the leftist ideology spouted by the rich and powerful globalist elites, they are really Ayn Randians deep down inside. Guys like Sergei Brin and Rahm Emmanuel love money and power. They are utterly ruthless. Bill Gates made his billions not by being a decent humanitarian but by being a ruthless monopolist shark in the software business. They talk a leftist plan but play the libertarian game. They are wolves-in-sheep’s clothing. They are ruthless total capitalists. Money, power, and control-of-truth are what motivate them. With tremendous money, their ilk has essentially bought up all the media outlets, all the think tanks, all the universities, and the government. They collude with the left for mutual benefit. The left gets generous funding for their radical and ‘progressive’ ideas, and the superrich get to manipulate ‘social reform’ via big government to their advantage. The superrich capitalists employ socialism to grab more power in government and also to pacify the ‘bitter’ masses with more bread-n-circuses. Give the people more American Idol to worship and fatten their arses with more freebies so they’ll be too lazy to organize and fight the NWO elites.
　
Ayn Rand was NEVER for the individual. She was for THE Individual. She admired and blessed the super-smart, the super-ambitious, the super rich, the super creative, and super brilliant. There is nothing wrong in admiring excellence. Indeed, if ‘elitism’ is defined as acceptance of hierarchy as natural or as a preference of excellence over mediocrity, I think all of us can agree it’s a good thing. Surely, we admire a work by Da Vinci or Picasso over that of hack artists. We admire the music of Beethoven or the Beatles over Britney Spears.
The problem with Ayn Randism is that it was marketed to the masses even though it holds the masses in utter contempt. Rand had every right to sneer at the masse and see them as stupid and mediocre–as most people indeed are. But, she did something else. She marketed and sold her pathologically Nietzschean elitism as something that was accessible to the masses–like L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.
　
I’m sure you’ve met mediocre people who won’t ever amount to much in life but who think they are something special because they read FOUNTAINHEAD or ATLAS SHRUGGED. They think they’re intellectual because they read a thick novel. They think they are free because they identify with an uncompromised hero of the novel. They think they too can succeed and become a giant in life. Or, they think they’ve failed because they are TOO GOOD for society ruled by helots that can’t appreciate true genius when they see it. Or, they think they are fair-minded and wise because they feel admiration than envy for the super rich and the super successful. (One of the hidden subliminal messages of Rand’s novels is, "dumb goyim should worship than oppose/challenge the smarter Jew who is bound to gain more wealth, power, and influence." This message is HIDDEN because the brilliant and heroic characters in her novels are tall and handsome gentile WASP types; therefore, many dimwit gentiles read the book thinking it’s about their own empowerment when Rand’s ruthless libertarianism favors Jewish power over gentile power.) There is no great difference between dimwit goyim who jerk off to Ayn Rand’s fantasies or to Lady Gaga’s lunacies. They are both about becoming blind to one’s true reality & limitations and losing oneself in the escapist identification with fairytales.
Ayn Rand novels may apply to the Bill Gates, Sergei Brins, and George Soroses of the world, but they mean NOTHING to the 99.99% of us. Besides, her extreme libertarianism is no less anti-nationalist, anti-culture, anti-race, and anti-communal values as international leftism is.
　
The NWO is being created by closet-Randians who’ve adopted the language of Marx. People like Obama is useful to them–especially to the globalist Jews–since his presidency fools the world–especially the non-white world–that the global order is controlled by a black guy who cares about The People, the oppressed, the underdogs, and the little guy. And, Obama does follow cues on occasion and makes noise about those ‘greedy’ bankers. And, it may well be that Obama is a stealth black nationalist and socialist, but look at the forces that really control him and control our minds through the media and academia. Obama’s "Hope and Change" is a doggy biscuit thrown to the masses to slobber over. Obama’s ‘progressive’ messiah aura gives the NWO elitists cover for their ambitious and greedy plan to lay claim to the entire world.
　
Now, it may well be true that most white global elitists really believe that they are good, idealistic, noble, conscientious, and progressive people. After all, there is no limit to how much people can fool themselves out of vanity, ego, or self-righteousness. There are plenty of cutthroat greedy sharks who consider themselves as ‘good Christians’ because they attend church regularly or made generous donations to ‘good causes’. And, on the Right, Pat Buchanan sincerely believes himself to be a good Catholic though his main loyalties are not universalist but tribalist/nationalist.
　
But, let’s look beyond all this BS or self-BS. Deep down inside, Buchanan is a blood-and-soil racial tribalist, not a good Catholic–except in matters of form and ritual.
Deep down inside, the globalist elites are ultra-territorialists who are simply laying claim to all of the world as their front yard, backyard, private pond, jacuzzi, and playground. They want it all. They want to spread international law not so much because they care about the poor around the world but because they wanna feel at home–as masters–in every corner of the world. The world is their oyster, and all that we masses get from this are crumbs. Worse, while the global elites gain the world, we lose our nations. Most of us don’t have the means to enjoy the world as our oyster–except through the fantasy of TV shows. Most of us don’t have the means to globetrot around the world–except through the fantasies of cyberspace. The only way we can share in the fun and glory of global elitism is through the virtual fantasy reality of entertainment and social network gadgets. Are they enough to sustain meaning in our lives? No, the meaning of our lives really comes from family, community, nation, and culture. Of course, change is natural in the world, but do we want change that gives power and meaning to all of us or change that gives all the power and pleasure to the elites while we dummies lose ourselves in virtual fantasy via movies(Avatar), Ipods, Myspace.com, or Google Earth?
They are enticing and fun but are they real?

Two Kinds of People: Tribal/Selfless vs Universal/Selfish.

We loosely associate tribalism with selfishness and universalism with selflessness. It is said that a tribal–or particularist–person only cares about himself and his community whereas the universalist person cares about others and all of humanity. This may indeed be true in some respects, but selfless particularism and selfish universalism also seem to be quite commonplace. We only need to look at innumerable obvious examples from history.
　
Consider the Germans who obediently served Hitler. Consider the Japanese samurai who lived and died by their allegiance and oath to their lords. These were all highly particularist folks. They lived, fought, and died for their tribal, clan-centered, or national community. They were willing to sacrifice everything for their master or masters, to defend or expand a world of their own. They may have lacked great sympathy or feelings for people outside their community, but they were not selfish or self-centered individuals. Their life meaning was wholly invested in the community to which they belonged. If Hitler told his soldiers to go fight and die, millions of dutiful German soldiers did so. They considered it a great honor to fight and die for their Fuhrer, nation, and race. One could argue that they were selfish and greedy in a collective, communal, or tribal sense against other peoples, but they were not selfish in the individual sense.
　
Or, consider the family. There are many parents willing to do everything for their children. These parents can be said to be selflessly sacrificing for their children. And, some children are devoted practitioners of filial piety. But, these self-sacrificing parents or devoted children may not have much sympathy for people outside blood kinship.
Consider the movie GODFATHER where the Corleones will go to hell and back–at the very least, Michael went to Sicily and back–for the sake of the family but don’t much give a damn about those outside the family. Vito Corleone had tried to get Michael deferred from military service, and at one point, Sonny says only suckers fight and die for strangers. The young and idealistic Michael disagrees and says he signed up to serve his country. From this scene–the final one in Godfather II–, we might conclude Vito and Sonny are tribally generous but universally stingy. The Corleones established a good life in the United States, but their main loyalty is not to the US or the Constitution–nor even to NY–, but to blood. It’s all about the family. They’ll do anything for the family and closest associates(like Johnny Fontaine), but they’ll do little or nothing for the larger society. In contrast, Michael–at least initially–seems concerned about people and issues outside his immediate circle of family and friends. He appears more generous to all of humanity, less toward his own family. But, can we say that Michael is fundamentally more generous and selfless than the Corleones, or is the object of his selflessness simply different from that of Vito and Sonny’s? Furthermore, one can argue that Michael’s decision to defy the rules of the Corleone family was a kind of individualist selfishness. By embracing universalism–or a greater nationalism beyond family ties–, he was grasping for his own independence and freedom. Subconsciously, self-assertion rather than service to country may have been the main motivation.
As a member of the family, he was burdened with certain family obligations and expectations.
But, being a member of humanity–a patriotic American–enables him to lose himself among strangers to whom he owes NO SPECIFIC obligation. (One can only be truly free in the modern sense if one is a stranger among others bound by impersonal material contracts and abstract ideals. In this sense, it’s not surprising that even an oppressive ideology/system like communism had initially seemed liberating to many young people in poor countries who had previously been bound to family, clan, and custom.) One can also argue that an individual making a claim for the larger community or humanity is implying that he has the right to lead/rule/control/dominate other people or has the right to certain entitlements paid for by rest of humanity–welfare, free housing, free medicine, etc. Thus, universalism can also serve the interests of selfishness. Indeed, universalist selfishness can be more dangerous and destabilizing than particularist selfishiness. A would-be universalist leader seeks control and power over entire nations, even the entire world. A would-be universalist activist expects all the world to feed, clothe, and house him. Most radical universalists want either power or freebies. Rarely do they want to work hard and share the wealth they’ve created with rest of humanity. There are many ‘progressive’ rich capitalists, but they either tend to be naively stupid about world outside business, hungry for political power to bought with money, or simply afraid of ‘leftist’ activism and willing to dole out money to trendy causes so as to be left alone.
　
Let us consider some examples of universalist selfishness. Take Karl Marx. It’s often been said that Marx, for all his faults, was a man of great compassion. He wanted to ‘change the world’ so that man would not exploit fellow man. But, let us look at what Marx did for those closest to him? He had a devoted wife and children. His choice of lifestyle and career meant that his family would have to suffer, but Marx didn’t do much for their well-being. He was so busy caring about humanity that he let his family nearly starve to death. Now, it wouldn’t haven been so bad if Marx worked to feed his family, but he didn’t even do that. For all his professed compassion for the working class, he refused to stoop to its level and do manual labor. He only chose to do intellectual or ideological work, and he expected to be supported by rich capitalists who admired his genius. Indeed, one can argue that compassion conceals power-lust. Poor or weak people don’t feel compassion for rich or strong people. Feeling compassion for others means you’re in a position of superiority. Compassion is a form of luxury. A rich man dropping a few coins into a beggar’s cup feels the luxury of compassion. The beggar receives the coins like a dog receiving a bone. Thus, Marx enjoyed the pleasure of power-lust in his professed compassion for the working class. He claimed to struggle for a world with no more exploitation, but he never wanted to be a member of the unwashed rabble. He wanted to be a member of a moral and intellectual aristocracy that would lead the masses toward the new future. Thus, love for The People was a ticket to or a justification for his lust for power.
　
Or, consider Che Guevara, the much romanticized heir of Marx. He has also been praised and glorified as a man who cared for The People. Thus, it’s been said he was a selfless warrior who sacrificed his life for the good of the people oppressed by exploitative capitalism and imperialism. But, was he really selfless? He didn’t care too much for his family. He dumped his first ugly wife and married a prettier woman. But, he didn’t much care for her either nor the children they had together. He was too busy chasing after other women and the Revolution. His love for the People was a rationale for him to find pussy and adventure. Even if there was some truth to the fact Che was enraged by poverty and exploitation, it seems Che’s main motivation for joining the Revolution was vanity, self-glorification, and self-adulation. He wanted to be a communist god-king or rock star, a kind of Jesus. He dreamt of a communist empire stretching all across Latin America and saw himself as the King of the new order. And, was Mao any different?
　
Though universalism is often associated with collectivism, it is just as much a blood relative of individualism. After all, true individualism is only possible in true universalism. This is why there will always be a clash between nationalists and libertarians. Libertarianism understands that true individualism must be universalist. For an individual to be totally free and unconstrained by tradition, customs, culture, family, tribe, and nation, he must be a member of the universal or cosmopolitan community. Cultures compromise individualism because all cultures define and place moral/social demands on the individual. For example, a Jew is expected to uphold certain traditions and cling to certain loyalties. As long as he remains a Jew, he cannot be a totally free individual who makes his OWN choices on all matters. As a Jew, he is expected to remember the Holocaust and support Israel. To be a total individual, a Jew has to abandon his Jewishness and join the world community as a free-thinking individual who makes his own decisions every step of the way outside of social or cultural pressure.
Of course, the problem with libertarianism is it’s just another radical idea that tries to create the impossible. Despite all the talk of globalism and the privileged cosmopolitan delusions of the NWO elites, the fact remains that most people will remain affixed to a culture, nation, and tradition. Weakening borders and merging the world together will only produce more chaos, violence, and tensions. We need only look at the dire history of Latin America to realize that ONE WORLD culture doesn’t work. Catholics have failed, communists have failed, and globalism–at least the radical kind–isn’t working either.
　
If communism or Marxism is a form of collectivist universalism, libertarianism is a form of individualist universalism. Universalism is a good and noble idea, as it’s only natural for scientists, thinkers, spiritualists, and activists to seek or champion universal truth or justice. After all, we know that the law of gravity is universal all across Earth and throughout the universe. There is no British gravity as opposed to Arab gravity. And, we know that people everywhere are fundamentally similar; they feel much the same feelings and have many common intellectual abilities. So, universalism, to a sensible degree, was never the problem. The problem has always been radicalism, a poison that destroys all ideas, causes, and movements. Attach ‘radical’ to any -ism, and it turns into a purist, utopian, intolerant, and arrogant venom.
　
There may be moderate libertarians, but the more famous ones tend to be the radical ones like Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist. Perhaps, we should at least give them credit for their consistency of logic, but therein lies the problem–the idea that the world and humanity can be understood and saved by only one strain of thought or one thread of logical argument. No matter how logical an argument, all human arguments are grounded in ‘what FEELS right’. Ayn Rand calling her school of thought ‘Objectivism’ was just pure arrogance.
　
At any rate, libertarianism is valuable if only for exposing the moral defects of communism, and vice versa. Consider that both consider themselves to be universal truths, yet they’ve arrived at totally different conclusions. History had made it plain as day that communism was less about equality of man than about the Nietzschean power-lust on the part of some individuals to gain god-like wisdom, authority, and power. Communism may not take or maintain power without masses of selfless suckers willing to serve the Great Cause, the State, or the Great Helmsman, but it would never have come into existence or triumphed in certain countries without the cult of ‘great man’. So much for universal selflessness. Furthermore, the majority of the people came to tolerate or even support communism in communist nations out of selfishness than selflessness. Once Stalinist forced labor camps were shut down, communism for most Soviet citizens meant getting something for doing the least amount of work. A Polish friend once told me that despite communist Poland having been an unhappy place, the workers sure enjoyed their 2 hr lunch breaks. And, what does the passage of universal healthcare in America really mean? It means POWER for those who will control the system, and it means free healthcare for the masses who don’t want to pay for it themselves. There’s much here that has to do with selfishness.
　
Of course, other values and ideas are also rife with contradictions. Take heroism, for instance. Since heroes take on the toughest and most dangerous work, you’d think people on the ground or in the front line are most obsessed with heroism–and indeed this is true of some individuals. But, this isn’t so in most cases. Generally, those who make the most noise about heroism are the ones who are safely removed from the front lines. So, Patton talked big about heroism, but he was the one giving orders, not the one getting his guts blown apart. For soldiers on the ground or in the battle, heroism is an afterthought, if that. Their only thought is to survive and live another day. Men who lie wounded in army hospitals don’t think about heroism. Generally, chickenhawks and privileged men far removed from the battleground expound about big and grandiose ideals. There’s a scene in the German film DAS BOOT where the submarine crew comes up for air but then are lectured about duty and service by commanding officers who are enjoying champagne and gourmet food.
And today, there are many fools on the left who romanticize violent revolution and many idiots on the right who romanticize Nazi ‘heroism’ in WWII. Such people are poisoned by ideas and have little use for reality. They’ve forgotten the tyranny and murderousness of communism. They’ve forgotten the fate of the Germans in the war. Many German soldiers may have gone into battle feeling like great heroes, but they soon came face to face with the real nature of war–that heroism is a myth in war, especially in a modern war where whether one lives or dies is a matter of luck.
　
Hitler was the most frightening kind of tyrant for Nazism was a perverted synthesis of both particularism and universalism. It was what one might call a universalist particularism. Generally, particularists throughout history sought isolation. Thus, feudal Japan shut itself off from the rest of the world. Thus, Franco’s Spain was inward looking and wanted no great involvement in world affairs. The particularist right believed in a world of its own, wanted to be left alone, and wanted to leave others alone.
The universalists, on the other hand, sought to unify and reorder the world with their ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. They were not necessarily for a military conquest of the entire world. Their main objective was to spread their values and ideas all over the world. Thus, Christians sought to Christianize the world. It didn’t matter whether it happened by force, persuasion, diplomacy, missionary work, etc. This was also true of Islam.
And communists similarly wanted to turn the entire world communist by any means necessary. Universalism posited that people all around the world were fundamentally the same, therefore capable of understanding the same basic truths and attaining the same basic justice. Whatever delusions or hypocrisies were rife in all its forms, universalism was supposed to advance, liberate, and/or unite all of mankind.
　
The virtue of particularism was it wanted to leave others alone and wanted to be left alone. Its vice was its dogmatic clinging to much that was static and/or oppressive–in the name of sacred tradition–and its often petty or even contemptuous lack of curiosity for other peoples and cultures. (Thus, Japan stagnated over the centuries in virtual isolation precisely when the West was growing richer and stronger.) The virtue of universalism is it seeks to change society by overturning privileges of the few and ensuring rights to the many–all of us. It also has a very human and idealistic urge to share certain ideas, values, and truths will the rest of mankind. The vice of universalism is it can be intrusive, morally arrogant, aggressive, and blind to its own hypocrisies. Thus, Christian universalists were blind to the fact that other cultures had their own sacred faiths and even their own versions of universalism. After all, Buddhism and Islam are also universalist. Also, in its zeal and impatience to change the world, radical universalists have committed their own great crimes. The culmination of radical universalist folly was communism in the 20th century. Totally committed to their secular-faith-as-objective-science, communists were blind to their own blood-stained hands. It was more important to validate their sacred dogma, even if it meant enslaving or killing all the ‘wrong’ people.
　
Anyway, even more dangerous than communism was Nazism. If communism was radical universalism, Nazism was universalist particularism. Though it’s true enough that Hitler didn’t want to ‘conquer the world’, he did want to dominate of Europe and Eurasia and dominate world affairs. Hitler was not a traditional particularist whose motto was, ‘leave us alone, we’ll leave you alone.’ Hitler was a particularist on race but a universalist when it came to territorial vision. He wanted to universalize ‘Aryanism’. Since his ideology was based on blood–‘Aryanism’ was a biological truth than a moral or cultural idea–the only way to universalize it was by exterminating non-Aryans from the lands coveted by the ‘Aryans’. For a man who rejected universalism as an idea, he sure embraced universalism as a military and racial objective. Hitler sought to convert 1/3 of the world into an ‘Aryan’ utopia, and the only way it could be accomplished was by wiping off huge numbers of non-Aryans.
　
Some people on the White Right are ignorant of this and worship Hitler as a comic book hero fighting the venal Jews. Yet, other members of the White Right know this all too well but aren’t bothered by it because of (1) their obsessive fetish with the beauty, grandeur, and magnificence of the Third Reich. Priding themselves as nihilistic Nietzschean connoisseurs of higher beauty and unsentimental meta-morality inaccessible to the unwashed rabble, they turn their noses at notions such as sanctity of human life. As far as they’re concerned, most of humanity is commonplace and boring–what with 6 billion people around the world. What is truly precious and rare are deemed to be greatness, beauty, nobility, excellence, purity, etc. Since the ‘Aryans’ as formulated by Hitler were supposed to represent the highest form of natural beauty, cultural excellence, strength, and health & vigor, it is assumed that they had some natural right to dominate and even exterminate other peoples who were merely dime-a-dozen. Some white rightists admire the Japanese for the same reason. Regarding the warrior code and culture of the samurai to be cooler and more magnificent than the cultures of less martial Asians, some white rightists believe that the ‘superior’ Japanese had every right to massacre any number of commonplace ‘chinks’ to create an empire of the samurai. Most of these white right types tend to be hopeless geeks themselves. (2) There was and still is the idea on the part of some of the white right that Russians were lesser whites or no longer true whites because their blood had been tainted by Mongol invasion centuries ago and because their minds had been f***ed by the Bolshevik Jews. And other white rightists believe that the Germans had a right to rule over the Russians because Germans were simply a more advanced people while the brutish Russians were half-man/half-beasts who were only fit for taking orders. In other words, Russians are simply white ‘niggers’ or ‘spicks’, and Russia should have been a backyard for the Germans.
　
At any rate, it’s probably true that selfishness–or self-centeredness or self-more-ness–is a natural human trait. In this sense, if you repress one form of selfishness, it merely morphs into another kind. Similarly, if one suppresses or denies one’s sexual drives, it doesn’t really go away but surfaces in another form. Thus, if you lock up a lot of men together and don’t provide them with access to women, they turn to buggering one another. If you prohibit priests from marrying, some of them turn to child molestation. A lonely shepherd in the middle of nowhere may start mounting his own sheep. Or, if no kind of sexual outlet is allowed at all, sexual emotions can turn to violent emotions. To be sure, a few individuals do manage to overcome their natural animal drives, but it’s terribly difficult and not even desirable for most people.
　
Like sexuality, selfishness–perhaps it’s better to call it ‘selfness’–is natural. We see the world through our eyes. Even when a person sympathizes with others, he does it through his own private heart; all forms of sympathy is to an extent a form of projection, which is why some people are regarded and pitied as ‘victims’ even when they don’t see themselves that way. In other cases, sympathy is very selective and essentially self-serving. Thus, during WWII, Americans sympathized with those noble Russians and Chinese fighting the evil Russians and Chinese. During the Cold War, Americans sympathized with Afghanis fighting a ‘heroic’ war against communist imperialism. Oftentimes, we sympathize with other peoples–or fuel such sympathy among the masses–in order to serve our own interests in the matter. This self-serving sympathy can be political, economic, or essentially a form of vanity. After all, why do Americans care so much more for Tibetans than for the Uighurs who are also oppressed by the Han Chinese? Because Tibetan religion and culture invoke visions of spiritual Shangri-La so dear to narcissistic Westerners steeped in fashionable Eastern Mysticism. And, why are so many celebrities passionate about poverty among black Africans but show little interest for poor Bolivian Indians or Sri Lankans? Because the White West is obsessed with black athleticism and popular music, and thus feel more sympathy for suffering blacks than for suffering Bolivians or other ‘uncool’ peoples.
And of course, the sympathies of the some members of the White Right are just as suspect. They will bitch and whine about those innocent Germans killed in the Dresden bombing or raped by Russian soldiers but ignore, remain mum, or try to deny the much worse atrocities committed by Germans in the East.
　
In a way, one could argue that universalism can take the form of a megalomaniacal projection of one’s own ego–one’s own view of how the world should be. For the world to embrace universalism, there has had to be a person who projects his own idea of universal values and justice on everyone else. In other words, universalism isn’t possible without the prior existence of an individual with a huge ego who considers it a moral, philosophical, and/or political imperative for all of mankind to agree with HIS view of how the world should be. There can be no law unless there is a law-giver to begin with. Similarly, there can be no universalism without a man who lays down the universalist principles.
　
Great men who laid down universal laws must have been aware of the contradiction within their outlook. On the one hand, a GREAT MAN claims to be doing something for mankind–or the larger community–, yet he is imposing HIS own idea of how things should be. How can one convince the people–and oneself–that one is not merely forcing the people to follow ONE’S OWN idea of how things should be? Who is he to say HIS IDEAS are right for all people? Thus, the GREAT MAN often came to rely on God. He would say these universal or higher truths are not his own but were given to him by God to pass down to all the people. So, Moses went off to Mount Sinai to return with the tablets with the Ten Commandments. In the modern secular world, the creators of the new universal order invoke science, freedom, liberty, human rights, social justice, or The People.
　
This isn’t to suggest that all universal ideas are merely the eccentric inventions of individuals who seek to force their view of reality and justice on everyone else. Everyone is an inheritor of past traditions, wisdom, and experiences. With the power of reason, individuals may arrive at a set of values or principles that may indeed appear sound and useful to most people. Since people want to live in a ‘better’ world, there is a desire to learn, improve, and reform society. Some individuals are indeed more capable of connecting the dots, arriving at a higher truth, advancing rational arguments for the common good, and/or attaining an higher spiritual truth.
　
But, there are radical universalists who claim to be utterly selfless or other-istic and to speak and work purely for mankind. Yet, such radical suppression of the natural emotions of selfness leads to a monstrous selfness in the guise of utopian idealism. Consider Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che. Each claimed to be utterly selfless agents of human progress. They claimed to desire no wealth, no privilege, no fancy jewelry and the like. They only wanted to save or help humanity. But, were they really selfless or other-istic? Did they really care more for other people than for themselves? No, they used the idea of revolution to gain obtain power for themselves. They may not have been greedy in the materialistic sense but they were greedy for power and for ‘truth’. They wanted to own and control the truth, which is why communists took over entire media networks, all schools, and all other institutions of information and learning. They always said it was all for The People–and they may have been sincere in their conviction–, but they were, at heart, very selfish or self-istic men. In the end, all that power and privilege–in the name of The People, of course–whet their appetite for other things as well, and it was only a matter of time before communist leaders lived like king and barons.
　
The best option for most of us would be finding a balance between particularism and universalism, between selfness and otherness. This idea may be old as the hills, but that’s why hills last so long.

The Elitist Conceits of Liberalism and Libertarianism. Why Conservatism Is Crucial to the Success of Both.

Though both liberals and libertarians talk about the The People, both have elitist blinders on when it comes to social reality. Elitism in and of itself is not a bad thing. There is hierarchy everywhere and in everything. In the military the special forces are better trained and more skilled than regular troops. In sports, you have professionals as opposed to mere amateurs. There are colleges with better qualified professors and more intelligent students. Elitism as elitism is no problem at all, as long as it recognizes itself as such.

The problem begins when elitists think they speak for the people and that their highfaluting ideas are actually good for the masses and will work as planned at the top. This is too often untrue. Indeed, sophisticated and highly rationalized ideas at the top often have a terrible impact on the people below. The most extreme example of such was communism, an ideology conceived of by serious and highly learned intellectuals. It was an ideology of justice for mankind and was supposed to create a better world. It turned entire nations into prisons and killed tens of millions.

Though liberalism and libertarianism aren’t nearly as dangerous or radical as communism, they too are misguided or misconceived elitist ideas. Liberalism is intellectual democratic statism, and libertarianism is intellectual democratic individualism.
What’s wrong with government? What’s wrong with individual liberty? All societies need governments, and it’s only natural for government to do certain things that the private sector cannot do or provide, right? And, every individual should have freedom of choice to do as he pleases as long as he doesn’t interfere with or violate the freedoms of other people, right?
So, what’s the problem? The problem is not the idea of the modern state or the idea of modern liberty. The problem is the notion that the high sounding and sophisticated ideas of liberalism or libertarianism could be understood, appreciated, and practiced by masses of people. A good number of people may understand, appreciate, or apply them, but many people will simply misunderstand or half-understand them–and abuse them. If liberalism has one major advantage over libertarianism, it is because liberalism feeds on personal irresponsibility whereas libertarianism requires personal responsibility. Human nature prefers freebies and pushing blame onto others than working hard for one’s keep and self-criticism. So, at least in the game of winning votes of the masses, liberalism understands human nature better. Of course, human nature being what it is, libertarians and conservatives are right to argue that it should not be encouraged toward irresponsible behavior. Cynical liberals understand human nature–tendency for wanting freebies and scapegoating–and exploit it to gain power. But, not all liberals are cynical. Idealistic liberals think that human nature can be transformed and improved by social engineering.

Anyway, the liberal elite(at least ones who aren’t cynical)believe that a bigger statist role and increased social engineering will make for a better and more just society. They project their own high intelligence, goodwill, learnedness, decency, compassion, and work ethic onto others. They see everyone as a potentially ‘intelligent, caring, and hardworking progressive person’ and believe that the reason why so many people are down on their luck, stupid, or hopeless is because of historical injustice, economic inequality, self-interested individualism(greed), irrational superstition(religion), and so on. They believe that these problems cannot be overcome by the Church, the individual, or by ethos of capitalism. They see the Church as promoting blind faith over reason and as sweeping real social problems under the carpet of false hope. They see the individual as caring only for himself, often at the expense of the community. They see capitalism as promoting dog-eat-dog materialism which tends to separate and exploit the people according to race, nationality, and class. These "well-intentioned" elitist liberals believe that their big government is necessary for society. Though liberals–at least white liberals–have a self-loathing and guilt-stricken streak, they also happen to be ideological, intellectual, cultural, and moral narcissists. They think they are more socially and morally advanced than other people because they went to top schools, read John Rawls(and some Marx), watch foreign films, know more about Jazz and World Music more than your average American, and care so much about Negroes and poor folks around the world. They’ve read Jeffrey Sachs and Cornel West, you see. So, even their self-loathing fills them with narcissistic pride; they think, "we are better than all those mean white conservatives because we CARE for the ‘people of color.’"

Educated and affluent liberals tend to have very high opinions of themselves. They don’t see big government-ism as incompatible with personal responsibility, diligence, work ethic. After all, they believe in big government yet studied hard, attended good universities(and were taught by successful and intelligent professors who also believe in big government), have good jobs, and tend to raise pretty stable families. If big government philosophy is so damaging to people, how come so many liberals who espouse statism are successful people? How come most of the top professors in all fields are liberal? How come most of the super businessmen are liberal? And, how come so many conservatives and small-government gun-clinging folks are actually down in the dumps(and actually live on welfare despite all their tough talk of freedom)?
As far as the liberals are concerned, big government-ism goes well with social order, success, and advancement. Big government-ism means that intelligent and serious people who care for society get to run and expand government to make sure that everyone has an equal chance and also to counter-balance the power of unstable free markets. Liberals believe that the best and brightest(and the most caring and moral)should run society. Since capitalism is about the rule of those who know to make the most money, it is not necessarily best for society(say the liberals). Capitalists will sell whatever to maximize their profits, even if what they’re selling may be damaging to the people. Also, people with A LOT of money don’t just re-invest it in business but come to control the media and influence government to serve the interests of the Rich Class. So, the idea is that liberals must run a big strong government in order to check the power of the Rich Capitalist Class. (Ironically, those who run much of our private enterprise economy are liberals. Hollywood, TV, and fashion industry are totally liberal, and what they’re selling to the people are corrupting and damaging. What we have is liberals in business corrupting and messing up our society, and then liberals taking over government in order to repair the damage caused by the private sector–run by liberals. The business of pop culture is what fuels our dreams, fantasies, obsessions, and desires. It is totally dominated by liberals, and liberals will market and sell ANYTHING to make their millions, no matter how negative the impact may be. Though one could argue that it’s the private sector–bastion of conservatism–doing social damage, it’s actually the private sector dominated by libertine liberals who are doing the damage.)

The problem with the liberal view of the world is obvious. What applies at the top doesn’t apply to the bottom. This is all the more so when we closely study how most white liberals succeeded in the world. Did they succeed by taking handouts from the government? No. The most successful group in the United States are the Jews. How did Jews rise up in America? On welfare? No, through self-reliance, communal & family values, individualism and personal responsibility, work ethic, education, and so forth. Many affluent WASPS are also liberal, and they rose up in society the same way. So, why do these people think that other folks can’t rise up in the same way? If Jews and WASP–and Asians-Americans–can rise up through practicing ‘conservative’ values(at least on the personal level), why not blacks and Hispanics? (Isn’t it odd that Japanese-Americans, another very successful group in America, is overwhelmingly liberal?) Why is it that so many successful and highly educated people in America are liberal? One reason is colleges are run by liberal and leftist professors, and the best/brightest/elite people come under liberal influence. But, there are probably other reasons as well. One reason could be a kind for loathing of the toil that their parents went through. If you look back enough, the rise of all peoples from the dirt poor poverty was a painful process. (The American Dream was always earned through hard work, not fantasy.) Jews had to work as peddlers in the US or run dirty shops. Chinese had to work in steaming laundries. And, Japanese had to work from dawn to dusk on the farms. Indeed, the parents of Jews, Japanese-Americans, and white liberals told them to rise up in the world and find something more dignified in life–often meaning professional work than wheeling-dealing kind of business. In other words, parents sacrificed themselves and toiled and sweated so that their kids would have not only more money but have more respectable jobs in life–like Don Corleone, who made his money by dirtying his hands but wanted his son to go into politics and become a lawyer. (Many liberals look upon capitalism as a form of gangsterism that is, at best, necessary for making money and rising up in the world; once you have the money and power, you want to buy respectability and join the mandarin class that deals with Ideas and works for a better world according to those Ideas than merely grub for more money like shylock. Notice that even Bernie Madoff surrounded himself with ‘progressive’ and ‘moral’ figures and causes.) And, kids of parents who toiled and sweated did have better lives; but, feeling that their parents suffered and sacrificed for them unduly, they wanted to create a society in which success would come much more easily for all people rather than have people go through what their parents went through to rise up in society; we often hear of liberal guilt, but much of it could be ancestral than social.
Anyway, on the one hand, the kids got imbued with the ‘conservative’ values of their parents and appreciated the latter’s seriousness and dedication. On the other hand, the kids didn’t want to go through what their parents went through. Because their parents suffered so much, they didn’t want other poor people to go through the same struggles to rise up in the world. They wanted to make things more ‘humane’ and easier for all people, especially the poor, so that everyone would have an easier time rising up in the world without having to sweat and toil so much. Indeed, Jews will always say it’s because they remember how much that their ancestors suffered that they want big government to help people rise up in the world without so much toil and sweat. (There’s also the element of contempt for their parents. Poor or immigrant parents who work, work, and work often aren’t the most educated, most debonair, most cool, most hip, or most sophisticated people in the world. Many of these people are God believers, speak broken English, or have simple devotions in life. As much as their children may appreciate the parental devotion, they regard their parents as ignoramuses. To an extent, parents wanted it this way. Parents wanted their kids to know more, advance more, succeed more, and become more respectable and rise up to higher standings in society. Many of these parents don’t want their kids to do what they themselves have done to climb out of the hole. They want their kids to climb to the Ivory Tower and gain greater knowledge and power. So, naturally, the kids become elitist snobs, but due to the ‘progressive’ ideology of the Ivory Tower institutions, their elitism is devoted to egalitarianism. Indeed, they justify their elitist power in the name of promoting equality.)

But, there’s another reason for why the successful are so liberal. Those who rose up in the world and attained higher standing want it to be assured permanently. The rule of capitalism says that losers may win and winners may lose; there is no permanence in capitalism; it works according to the principles of creative destruction. The never ending innovations and competition make for a dog-eat-dog society. So, winners today may be losers tomorrow. This is why government is so welcome to successful liberals, especially those who grew up in affluence instead of having earned it themselves. They want constancy in their privilege and good life, and big government offers it. A liberal who has a plush bureaucratic job is set for life. Or, if the rich person is living off a trust fund, he or she can grab onto some liberal cause to justify his or her wealth or privilege; just look at the Kennedy family.
Also, a liberal businessman can rely on subsidies to maintain his business even if it’s not profitable. Big government cushions the affluent from the hard knocks of cold competition. Just look at the banking and auto industry going to government for bail outs and aid.
Also, privileged liberals grew up with high-minded notions taught in school and absorbed through books and culture. They want to work for the GOOD of society, which is why even liberals who enter business try to make their business socially conscious. Big corporations run by liberals(or even image-conscious conservatives) seek the advice of men like Jeffrey Sachs and Al Gore; they often contribute to Good Causes. Even the arch conservative Annenberg donated money for Bill Ayers’s educational agenda. And, many corporations and individuals set up foundations which generally give money to liberal or leftist intellectuals, activists, and artists. There is a sense among liberals that artists, activists, and intellectuals live for truth and justice whereas businessmen live for profit. So, for businessmen to be good people, they must take a big chunk of their cash and support artists, activists, and intellectuals(who these days must be part of the ‘radical’ crowd to be considered relevant). Obama is appealing to many rich liberals because there’s something of the artist(actor/performer), activist(community organizer), and intellectual(Ivy League trained lawyer) in him. Of course, most successful liberals are not stinking rich but only moderately affluent, but they all think in the NPR/New Yorker Magazine mode. It’s the Way To Be and Way To Think–just as even unsuccessful conservatives read Ayn Rand and pretend to see the world through the eyes of capitalist titans.

Anyway, the problem of the liberal elite is they think what applies to itself applies to the masses. It doesn’t. Successful liberals may be liberal in thought, but they are ‘conservative’ in many of their habits and personal choices. They may dismiss traditional marriage, but your average successful liberal is more likely to lead a traditional married life than your white trash conservative with half a dozen tattoos on his ass and obnoxious idiots for children. Jews may politically be the most liberal people in America, but if you judge them by what they actually do, they are ‘conservative’ in many respects. Successful liberals are for new ideas and more tolerance, but in actual practice they have an instinctive and deeply ingrained sense or hierarchy of what’s crucial and what is not. Also, they have strong sense of personal responsibility and personal shame. Many Ivy League liberal students worked very hard to be admitted to top schools. They are the kind of kids who got depressed if they got a B on an exam. For all their egalitarian mumbo jumbo, they want to excel, attain most privilege, most power, most money, or most whatever. They are very competitive and talented, much more so than your average not-to-bright conservative. Indeed, one of the reasons why successful liberals push for big government is because they feel so personally responsible–not just for themselves but for their fellow man, for the poor, the downtrodden, for minorities, for disenfranchises, for the hungry around the world. They want power, but power is always having power OVER OTHERS; doing ‘good work’ is justification for the power they amass in order to control us.
Anyway, successful liberals may want to share more, but they have a strong sense of responsibility and shame. They would personally feel ashamed if they failed in life. People without shame and responsibility do not make it to top schools(unless on affirmative action), find and keep good jobs, or build successful businesses. So, it’s true that many liberals have many sound virtues and values that may be deemed conservative in actual practice. So, what is the problem?

The problem is that elite liberalism applied to the masses often turns into shit. For successful liberals, big government-ism means SHARING. For the masses, it just means TAKING. For successful liberals, big government-ism means caring or being concerned about your fellow man. For the masses, it just means demanding more attention and getting more handouts. For successful liberals, big government-ism means that good people should be responsible and take care of all of society. For the masses, it means one should be lazy and irresponsible and force other people to take care of their jive-ass needs. You’ll notice that many successful liberals are too proud and responsible to take handouts themselves, yet they believe that the masses should be provided with more handouts. Successful liberals want to give; the masses just want to grab. The positive intentions, values, and virtues of successful liberals translate into negative intentions, vices, and vitriol among the masses. Successful liberals say, WE SHOULD CARE, CARE, CARE. The likes of Jeremiah Wright and his followers shout GIMME, GIMME, GIMME.

The reason why liberalism has worked better in nations like Holland or Sweden(at least among the white population) is that their citizens tend to have a degree of work ethic, good amount of education, appreciation, and a sense of contributing as well as taking from the system, and so on. Liberalism may eventually erode the values of hard work and responsibility in these nations as well, but for centuries these nations imbued their people with a serious disposition, discipline, diligence, and culture of appreciation and cooperation; those values still remain intact in the national character of the Germanic peoples. If big government-ism means that everyone works hard and contributes to as well as takes from the system, it can work reasonably well. But, if big government-ism means that one group of well-intentioned and idealistic people contribute to the system while others just take and take(and feel no gratitude but always demand more and more), it cannot work. Because of the large black, illegal alien, and white trash elements in America, big government-ism will not work here as it has in Sweden or Holland. Indeed, even those Scandinavian are now facing major problems due to increasing numbers of immigrants, a good number of them black-African(most problematic) and Muslim. Also, big government-ism everywhere has a way of slowly eroding away the culture of diligence, discipline, shame, and appreciation forged through centuries of cultural development. As society grows morally laxer, shameless, faceless, and bureaucratic, more and more people learn from an early age that they can have a pretty good life by working as little as possible while living off the government dole. In the long run, liberal big government-ism makes ‘niggers’ out of everyone.

This is why if we’re going to have big government-ism, it has to be the fascist kind than the welfare kind. The fascist kind favors providing work than welfare. This is why National Socialist and New Deal policies worked. They focused on creating jobs by opening up factories for the armament production on a vast scale. Also, fascist big government policies offer things to the people ONLY in exchange for the goodwill, appreciation, and responsibility on the part of the people. Lee Yuan Kew of Singapore established a fascist big government system whereby the government provides certain programs and services but makes sure that the people act in good faith. It’s not just a system whereby one group of people get handouts indefinitely for giving nothing back in return. They must give something in return as well–decent behavior, appreciation, and taking work when work is available. It is conditional socialism(fascist) as opposed to unconditional socialism(welfare liberalism).

It seems that even American liberals have understood this lesson to some degree. Though Obama is a welfare socialist in many ways, he also wants to expand public works programs and set up a mandatory youth corp. The new liberal view is that too many American kids have become self-centered, cynical, individualistic, and lazy. So, kids need to believe and work for something higher than themselves, and the new programs will make them work for the people; kids will be inspired to do so under the Banner of Obama because Barack is ‘like a rock star’. So, liberals are taking certain ideas from National Socialism and Lee Yuan Kew-ism. Liberals are too proud and arrogant to admit that Great Society and Welfare Liberalism/Socialism have done much damage. Also, even though liberals are too proud to admit that their control of popular culture has led to cynicism, ugliness, putridity, savagery, animal behavior, and hideousness of all kinds, their support of Obama as the ‘new kind of black guy’ suggests that many white liberals are worried about what liberal culture has done to this country. Liberal dominated TV, Hollywood, and Music Industry have inundated us with ugly rap music, cynical TV shows, pornography, crass materialism, culture of violence(Matrix movies, video games, gangsta rap, etc), egocentric individualism, and retardation of all kinds. Liberals cannot admit, ‘we were wrong, we need to mend our ways’. Liberals actually cannot let go of their old ways because too much of their power, prestige, and influence are invested in Hollywood(and what it sells) and in Government(and what it offers). So, liberals conveniently blame people like Rush Limbaugh for all the cynicism. To liberals, cynicism means ‘not having total faith in the Church of Obama and Oprah’.
And, liberals blame the materialism and crassness of our culture on the ‘free market’ and capitalist ethos of greed, vanity, and such(despite the fact that popular culture is run by liberal Jews, blacks, and gays.) Liberals privately sense that our society has grown ugly, decadent, and putrid largely due to the excesses of liberal Jewish and black-dominated popular culture, but they can never admit it since doing so would be ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’(and give ammo to the right-wing enemy).

In times of economic downturn, people can sober up, grow angry, and lash out at the cultural rot infecting the nation. Liberal Jews, ever so clever, decided to pre-empt the rise of neo-fascism on the Right by appropriating elements of fascism for their own power. Many angry White Rightist want their form of unified political power, their great powerful leaders, and their own grand vision. Such movement may gain real power and momentum in American thanks to the dangers of illegal invasion, pop cultural rot where black thugs and whores act like animals, Jewish control of banks and Wall Street which contributed to the financial collapse, and so on. This is like the social decay and deterioration we saw in Germany during the Weimar period. In the turmoil and chaos, the National Socialism produced the most dynamic leader with the charisma and vision to capture the hearts and minds of the German people. The liberal Jews figured that if things continue as usual–pop cultural corrosiveness, economic collapse, social divisions and alienation, etc–, the White Right may eventually unify into a National Socialist mode and come up with a Great White Leader for White People. So, in order to prevent the rise of such fascism, liberal Jews decided to take certain spellbinding and catchy aspects of fascism and let Obama run with it. With Obama as the fuhrer, Jews have killed two birds with one stone. On the one hand, fascism has been, appropriated, tamed, and used for the empowerment of liberals. On the other, the White Right, in attacking Obama as a fascist or Hitlerian figure, undermines their own future investment in fascism. If the White Right trashes everything about Obama’s style and image as being ‘fascist’, then they cannot use or employ that kind of campaign or movement for themselves in the future.

And, though liberal Jews don’t like Ron Paul, they would be only too happy if more white rightists supported Paul because Paul stands for small government(which means conservatives will never gain much political power) and individualism(which means the White Right will remain atomized and disunified as mere individuals whose only ideology is ‘leave me alone’). There is a virtue in individualism, but the fight that the White Right must face is not one they can win through individualism. They must unify as a people and as a race. Individualism of the kind that Ron Paul advises is only good after the victory of white power and assurance of white survival.
So, I would advise white people that they are making a mistake if they attack Obama for being a fascist. Rather, they should attack Obama for deviously stealing elements of fascism from the White Right. We should say he’s a fake fascist, a poseur fascist, merely a tool used by the liberal and left-wing Jews to rile up populist passions for the liberal agenda. Obama is not the return of fascism but the appropriation of fascism. Just as liberal companies have appropriated Marxism and radical leftism for their marketing agenda, they’ve also appropriated elements of fascist imagery and style to serve liberal politics. To many liberals, fascism or fascist style or aesthetics are okay as long as it glorifies, celebrates, or deifies the non-white or the ‘anti-Aryan’. So, fascist imagery that promotes black power or black passions are cool with liberals. Zionism is a form of fascist-nationalism, but it’s okay because it’s about Jewish power as opposed to ‘Aryan’ power. The thing for the White Right is not to scream ‘fascism’ whenever they see Obama, but to develop their own fascism.

The White Right should also realize that for every disadvantage, there is an advantage(just like for every advantage, there is a disadvantage). It’s disadvantageous to the White Right that the liberals masterfully stole and employed the fascist thunder. (Of course, liberals acted in bad faith. All these years, they’ve been denouncing fascism as a style, ideology, and value system, yet there is more than a little fascism in Obama-ism. According to liberals, fascism isn’t fascist IF it glorifies non-whites or if used against the White Right. It’s like saying a gun is not a gun if it’s used to kill a conservative. In truth, Obama-ism has quasi-fascist elements. If indeed Obama-ism is a political and ideological miracle, it is proof that fascism had been right all along. It means that fascism never died and that even liberals have come to drink from its well after the discrediting of communism, welfare socialism, global capitalism, and finance capitalism.) But, if that is the case, the White Right should not reject Obama-ism completely but come up with their own Obama-ism or their own fascism. Our own Obama-ism would be pro-white, pro-Western, national socialist, for bigger government in OUR HANDS, and have its own great leaders. And, if liberals accuse us of acting like fascists, we need only to point our fingers at Obama-ism and say that liberals revived this kind of politics and used it very effectively. If liberal fascism is an option, then so is conservative fascism. We are all socialists now? No, we are all fascists now.

Socialism was purely a materialistic ideology that claimed to scientifically understand the world and how to fix it. But, there is something mythic, inspiring, holistic, messianic, sacrosanct and spiritual about Obama-ism. It has the Vision Thing. It is more fascist in style than socialist. It appeals to the emotions of the masses, to the mythic bonds of unity. Socialism has been dry, technocratic, impersonal, and intellectual. Since it’s supposed to be a system run by rational minds, it distrusted primal emotions and the passions of the community. Of course, communism had a mythic and spiritual element, but that developed later and rather cynically in order to keep power by winning and controlling the hearts and minds of the masses; since communism didn’t work well as it promised on the material level, it had to rely more on myth-making. Also, the radical passions at the core of communism lent it more easily to stuff like mass pageantry and the deification of the Great Thinkers and Leaders.

Anyway, the elitist assumptions of the liberals have failed. Both liberal control of government and popular culture have not led the masses toward independence and liberation but toward enslavement(or addiction) to basest desires, appetites, and passions. What held true for the educated and successful liberal elite didn’t hold true for the masses. Liberal thinkers and activists with their neat theoretical models became ever more divorced from reality. The masses were not too bright, responsible with their freedom, accountable, nor grateful for the new order. Liberals came to realize that the people are essentially emotional beings. And so, the liberals came up with Martin Luther King-ism, Camelot-ism, and Obama-ism. Obama-ism unites intellectual liberalism with the impassioned holism of the masses. It is indeed the apotheosis of what might be called ‘liberal fascism’.

Since liberals who control the media and public discourse have made fascism fashionable again–though they would never call it that–, it gives us a chance to bring back fascism for OUR power, interests, and agenda. Again, if liberals accuse us of reviving or using fascist methods, we need only to point to what they did with Obama. We should do exactly what they did with Obama in terms of marketing the image, the celebration of the Great Man, the loud slogans, the holistic symbolism, and so on. Also, Obama-ism has meant ‘no enemy to the left’. So, liberal policy is never to criticize or attack black extremists, illegal aliens, gay lunatics, feminist bitches, radical Marxists, and so on. They are altogether now. This is not necessarily because liberals endorse the elements of the far left or the nationalisms of minority groups. It just that liberals, cynical and hungry for power, have a Popular Front strategy whereby everyone opposed to the White Right must stick together no matter how sick or demented they might be. The White Right must do the same thing. The White Right is not exclusively white. It should welcome non-whites who believe that the West should remain a white majority civilization(just as white people respect the right of China to be mostly Chinese, of sub-Saharan Africa to be mostly black, of India to be mostly Indiana, and of Mexico to remain mostly Mexican. At any rate, once the White Right understands who their allies are, the policy should be to never attack enemies on the white right. If the liberals say the White Right is allied with ‘extremists’, we have a silver bullet to shoot back because Obama-ism has meant and practiced ‘no enemy to the left’. Despite the revelations about Obama’s allies and associates, the national media–that is to say the Liberal Jew Media–said it was perfectly fine for Obama to have been friends or close associates of radicals and extremists since they are ‘progressives’ or ‘victim groups’. Then, we must follow the same policy. We must never condemn the elements of the far-right(not harshly anyway) but rather argue that even though we disagree with some of their views, they are merely a people fighting for their survival.

Anyway, let’s return to the original topic of why the elite assumptions of liberalism are wrong. Imagine pure snow at the top of the mountain. It is clean, crisp, perfect, and pure. It is icy snow, pure H2O in icy frozen state. Elite liberal ideas are like this. Purely on a theoretical level, they sound pretty good and infallible. But, what happens when the snow on the mountain melts and flows down the slopes and streams and rivers. Near the top, the water is clean and pure. As it moves down more, it picks up more impurities. As it hits the rivers, it picks up mud and dirt. When it finally moves into the lagoons, it isn’t all that clean but festering with all kinds of germs. Elite ideas are like that. What sounds good in its pristine theoretical form at the top becomes muddied, dirtied, and loaded with impurities as it spreads among the masses. This is the case with high and mighty ideas. Nietzsche’s profound philosophy turned into the ugly aspects of Nazism. Aldous Huxley’s cautious and profound ideas on hallucinogenics turned into 60s hippie lunacy and drug orgies. Marx’s theory of economics in actual practice became murderous communism that destroyed entire societies. Elitist Huxley thought that the experience of hallucinogens was so profound that people would not/could not possibly abuse them for stupid. How wrong he was. I highly doubt if Nietzsche would have thought his ideas would lead to something like Nazism and WWII. Of course, not all ideas hatched by ‘great men’ are pure as snow. In many ways, Nietzsche’s ideas were dangerous to begin with. And, come to think of it, Marx’s ideas and visions were pretty crazy to begin with too. Orwell was wrong in Animal Farm to suggest that the noble ideas of Marx were corrupted by those who came later; the ideas were ruthless and murderous to begin with despite all that stuff about justice for mankind.
But, some ideas do sound so pristine, nice, logical, and fool-proof at the top. Liberalism and libertarianism both share this quality. Both are incredibly naive but fool and win over a lot of smart people because of their impressive intellectual mumbo jumbo. Many people, especially the educated, come to think it must be correct since some of the best and the brightest minds came up with or espouse them. But, it doesn’t matter how smart someone is. Knowledge and understanding are always limited to a person’s narrow experience. Also, people are capable of denial even when reality is right in front of their faces either due to cowardice, social pressure, dogmatic indoctrination, or sense of shame(if they were to think ‘taboo’ thoughts).

Elite liberal assumptions may indeed work in a world where everyone shares the qualities of elite liberals. They would not only believe in big government but would be imbued with values related to personal responsibility, diligence, shame, accountability, and contributing to society(as opposed to mere taking). Elite liberals believe in giving-and-taking, but they practice more giving than taking. Also, elite liberals have a moral and theoretical understanding of the tenets of liberalism. They are not liberals only for the sake of self-interest. Indeed, as many liberals are rich, they would be financially better off under conservatism–lower taxes. But, many rich people support liberalism because they see it as a set of moral principles and imperatives, a kind of secular religion and mission; as Jesus said, man doesn’t live on bread alone. (Just like soldiers need not only guns and ammo but a cause to fight and die for, rich liberals need not only success and wealth but causes to live for and champion.)

Rich liberals tend to be knowledgeable and well-read. But, as we go down the social ladder, liberalism becomes less a set of moral and social principles than an easy way for the masses to get freebies. All those welfare mommas in Detroit and South Side of Chicago don’t give a shit about the values or theories of liberalism. They aint never heard of John Rawls or some do-gooder Jew-ass mothafucka. For them, it simply means, ‘them honkeys gonna gimme me mo free lunch. Dang!!!’ All those illegal aliens who cross the border into this country don’t give a shit about the values of ‘sharing’, ‘cooperation’, and all that. They only care for Mexican power and nationalism and getting freebies from gringos. All those white trash who live off the government dole don’t give a crap about the responsibilities of citizenship. In all these cases, it’s about the government giving them more free stuff so they can fatten their asses and have more fun while contributing nothing to society.

So, what started out as a positive, constructive, cooperative, and useful socio-economic theory at the top turned into the worst and lazy kind of self-interest and self-indulgence among the slobs. (To be sure, there are elite liberals who espouse liberalism mainly as an effective means to gain power and privilege.) Just compare the Ivy League educated Jewish liberal with the welfare momma in the black inner city with her 10 idiot children. Just compare the Japanese-American professional liberal with some black thug dope dealer with guns and bling blings. What applies at the top doesn’t apply at the bottom, not even in the middle. (It’s like the physical laws governing the stars don’t apply to the laws governing subatomic particles.) And, the arrival and support of Obama-ism is partly an admittance on the part of liberals that what I say is true. For instance, many affluent white liberals thought the black style of acting, talking, behaving, and feeling was so cool and liberating. A lot of privileged and affluent white kids(especially Jews)put on black airs and disseminated it throughout the culture. Affluent white liberals found it very refreshing, fun, and ‘liberating’. But, what was only a matter of style(like clothes to put on and off) for white liberals was the very substance(the very flesh and bones) for the masses–especially among blacks and trash elements of other races. It’s one thing to be a Jewish liberal who goes to school, does his homework, and gets good grades to enjoy Richard Pryor or some Rap music. It’s quite another to be a stupid Negro who has no father, fails in school, despises his teachers, and is problematic to embrace stuff like Richard Pryor and Rap music. For the Jewish liberal, the black jive-ass act is merely fun stuff to spice up his mostly sound and stable life. For the Negro kid, the jive-ass act becomes the very heart and soul of his being. (Alcohol means different things to a responsible drinker and to an alcoholic.) So, the impact of permissive cultural liberality is very different for the elite liberals and for the trash elements.

Much the same can be said of libertarianism, another intellectual and elaborate but essentially naive ideology. Let us return to the metaphor of the snow at the top of the mountain peak and what happens as it melts and flows down the slopes all the way down to the lagoon. Libertarianism, like liberalism, sounds pretty good when expounded at the top. It is about personal freedom and liberty after all. Who can be opposed to that?

The problem is what libertarians theorize and propose up in their ivory towers don’t translate into their preferred reality on the ground. Libertarianism would work just fine and dandy IF most people thought and acted like elite libertarian theorists, that is to say they not only embraced the philosophy of unfettered individual freedom but also were capable of restraint & rational behavior, accepted full responsibility for their actions, and didn’t blame society for their problems.

What happens is that only the crudest and most easily accessible aspects of any philosophy or theory come to be understood and practiced by the masses. Consider the fact that Freudianism came to mean, for most people, the idea that having free sex is good(thought that’s NOT what Freud meant). For most people, libertarianism is that cool ideology that says you can do whatever you want that gives you maximum pleasure. On that level, most liberals and blacks are libertarian. They want to be left alone to pursue their fun. Liberals want to be left alone to use drugs. Blacks want to be left alone to buy and carry guns and sell drugs. Many people want the freedom to go gambling, buy pornography, and all that stuff. So, the part of libertarianism that means ‘freedom to do as you want’ is understood and even embraced by a lot of liberals. The problem is the responsibility part. Ideological or intellectual libertarians see that as crucial to the philosophy–that a person must have freedom and make his own choices BUT also act rationally and take responsibility for the choices he makes. The latter part of the philosophy just doesn’t trickle down to the masses. Masses are crude, stupid, and childish. A child wants to play with toys but doesn’t want to clean up after playing with them. Similarly, people want to play with freedom but don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of all of their freedoms. They want full freedom to do as they please, but if they mess up, they prefer to blame or scapegoat others and make others pay for and clean up the mess they’ve created. Again, the icy pure reason of libertarianism at the mountain peak turns into muddy water filled with impurities and bacteria once it flows down to the masses. All these theories can work ONLY IF the masses accept not only the freedom(libertarianism) or services(liberalism) but also the responsibility and appreciation. One must appreciate freedom to use it intelligently, and one must have strong values to have the will and courage to admit mistakes, learn from mistakes, and take responsibility for one’s own actions. Too many people don’t fit that mold. Similarly, one must appreciate big government services if one is to contribute to the system as well as take from it. Also, without such appreciation, one never knows the limits of what one may take from the system; he just keeps demanding more and more(always complaining that it’s all unfair because some people have more); and unscrupulous demagogues like Obama or Chavez will come along and play on such emotions to gain power for themselves.

It is for this reason that both liberalism and libertarianism cannot work without a firm foundation in conservatism. ‘Conservatism’ can mean different things, but for modern societies it means a set of moral principles that have stood the test of time. Fads and fashions come and go, but basic truths about humanity remain the same. Of course, both liberalism and libertarianism are not without moral values, but they tend to be vague and negative than positive. Freedom, for instance, can mean freedom to do anything; and even if some freedoms don’t violate others directly, they are personally corrosive. Also, helping mankind(liberal value) is only a vague moral value because collective morality is faceless. If you help out a friend or family member out of personal obligation, there is a strong moral element in your deed. But, if you pay taxes for the good of society, whom is your money going to? It could go to deserving people or it could go to mere parasites. You would never know. And, who handles the government in charge of such things? Paper-shuffling faceless bureaucrats whose main interest is to expand government as much as possible for their own power and benefit.
There is a vague moral component in the idea of everyone helping one another, but the actual practice of such is diffuse and can be immorally exploited by too many people–lazy parasites.
Liberalism also teaches people to be tolerant, and tolerance is a value of sorts, but it too is vague and a negative value. It tells people NOT to do certain things, like calling someone a ‘kike’, ‘nigger’, ‘faggot’, or ‘chink.’ Not acting nasty and rude is indeed a good thing, but liberalism doesn’t fill the individual with the values and virtues necessary for him or her to succeed in life, make wise decisions, or be a good individual(as opposed to merely a good citizen). One cannot succeed or be a functional member of society simply by not doing some bad things. Even if you’re not hateful or hostile toward people of other races, nationalities, religions, or sexual natures, you could still be a stupid, dishonest, lazy, idiotic, childish, egocentric, obnoxious, moronic, and insufferable fool. And, there are many such people in our society. Having been raised under politically correct indoctrination, they know well enough NOT to say certain ‘hateful’ things. They tend to support generic ‘progressive’ policies such as ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’. But, those misguided or vague moral values teach them nothing about what it means to be a good person, a responsible person, a decent person, an honest person, a hardworking person, a good family man, and so on.

In some ways, those vague values undermine stronger moral values. For example, if you’re told that you must take care of society, you would be a fool to work hard since you’d be forking over much of your wealth to the government so that bureaucrats and bums can leech off your labor. (Besides, ‘you should take care of society’ can also mean ‘you should take care of society,’ in which case you might as well try to take it easy so that others will take care of you.) Also, tolerance has limits; beyond a certain point, its moral value becomes as worthless as inflated paper currency. Complete tolerance is at best amoral and at worst, completely immoral. We are seeing the product of this craziness already in Canada and Europe.
The ultra-liberal governments in those places insist and enforce laws that require the majority populations to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of diversity. So, if some white European or Canadian badmouths Muslims, blacks, or gays, he can be put behind bars. This is done in the name of tolerance for minorities and different cultures. But, what if the culture or population that is being protected is itself intolerant, illiberal, or crazy? This is a problem that the liberal West has not been able to resolve. In the name of protecting a (rapidly growing)minority from bigotry, liberalism is actually giving protection to a growing social reality that may indeed come to destroy the West along with its liberal values.

Every idea or policy has its useful limit beyond which it becomes destructive or suicidal–just like medicine; too much will kill you. Imagine having a baby tiger cub in your midst. It is small and cuddly. Suppose there are several storeys in a building. Those at the topmost storey have the most power. As the baby tiger grows, it starts to claw at and bite people at the lower storeys. They complain about the growing power of the tiger and its increasing erratic and aggressive behavior. But, the people at the top are not sympathetic to the complaints of humans below. They don’t want to look at the people below but only cling to the belief that the tiger cub is essentially good, innocent, and nice even if it acts increasingly troublesome. Also, let us suppose the people on top feel a certain guilt because they had long mistreated the tiger cub’s mother. As time goes by, the tiger cub grows bigger and bigger, more confident and aggressive.. The people begin to complain that this tiger is posing a big threat to them and has already killed and devoured some of the people below. But, suppose the people at the top, committed to the religion of tolerance for the tiger, refuses to heed to the cries and demands. Besides, as they are safe and well-protected at the higher storeys, they don’t have to worry about the tiger attacking them or their kids. Of course, eventually the tiger will grow big and strong enough to attack even those at the top, but it will too late by the time the people on top realize the true nature of the tiger.

For this reason, it is misguided for patriotic white folks in America and Europe to see the minorities as their main threat. The main threat is the people at the top who control, shape, and command the national information, ideology, and policy. So, it’s stupid for the white masses to keep pleading with those at the top for attention and help. The people at the top will not listen to white people’s cries. In America, the elite compromises mainly liberal and left-wing Jews, which means they have a special interest to weaken gentile white power as much as possible. In Europe, the Jews are less powerful but the people who control the media, government, and institutions are mostly also of the left. This is partly the legacy of WWII, which morally and mortally discredited the Right thanks to the insane policies of Adolf Hitler. Though most of the Right had nothing to do with Hitler, they got associated with the radical right anyway. Guilt-by-association employed by the resurgent left against the white right did a lot of damage. But, there’s another reason for the cultural weakness of the Right. Because the Right has been so religious and traditionalist, it rejected or dismissed intellectualism, critique, and such things. As we all know, modern societies empower the best educated and the intellectually-oriented(whether their ideas are sound or not) in the fields of media, arts, culture, academia, government, and so on. Because of the Right’s disdain for intellectualism and creativity, the Left naturally took over the institutions that command our social, political, and moral ideas. The stupid thick-skulled religious leanings of the Right has even turned off many conservatives, which explains why so many flocked to the libertarian brand. What intelligent or educated person would want to be associated with the sermons of Pat Robertson or other such banalities?

At any rate, both individual freedom and collective cooperation are useless unless a society is mostly made up of sober, responsible, decent, and steadfast individuals, and the values that imbue individuals with strong moral sense are conservative. Liberal tolerance can be a good thing within reason. Collective sharing can be beneficial if modest in design. Individual freedom that libertarians love so much is crucial to a democracy’s health and progress. But, all must be rooted in and restrained by strong moral values of conservative character. And, people must understand that morality cannot be completely tolerant. Any set of values must discriminate and dismiss other values(or anti-values). Diligence is the opposite of laziness. Honestly is at odds with dishonesty. Decency is the enemy of rudeness and barbarism. But, just look at the kind of culture our society embraces. Liberals defend rap music on the basis that it’s essentially black and that we must be ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of black culture. But, what are the ‘values’ of rap music/culture? Decency? No, it’s about savagery, rudeness, and thuggery. Self-criticism? No, it’s about self-centeredness, self-promotion, and self-aggrandizement. Honesty? No, it’s about fooling, jiving, hustling, conning, and ‘dissing’ the ‘mothafackas’? Friendliness? No, it’s about saying bad things about other guys, women, and their friends and relatives. Law and order? No, it’s about the thrill and fun of criminality, robbery, and rape. Curiosity and intelligence? No, its attitude is that the only cool things in the world be your ego, your guns, your dick, your ho’s, your drugs, and etc. Obligation to family, friends, society, ancestors, relatives, etc? No, it’s about you, you, and you and ‘fuck’ the rest. Rap is liberalism and libertarianism at their worst. It exists under the liberal rubric because stupid white liberals believe that it’s wonderfully ‘tolerant’ to appreciate non-white cultures(no matter how pathological and disgusting they happen to be). It also falls under the libertarian umbrella because Rap is all about me, me, me, my freedom, my passions, my desires, etc. But, notice that the rap community has no appreciation for the liberal concept of mutual tolerance, mutual appreciation, and mutual obligation, and it has no appreciation for the libertarian values of personal restraint and self-responsibility. People of the rap community have little or no interest in the cultures of other people, nationalities, communities. Indeed, they dismiss most of that stuff as ‘pussyass’ or ‘faggotyass’. Also, the egocentrism at the core of rap doesn’t inspire or encourage appreciation of things that aren’t loud, sexy, badass, or toughass.
If Nazism’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures was based on a sense of Aryan cultural and racial superiority, Rap culture’s intolerance and disinterest in other cultures are based on the notion that nothing has any value unless it can kick ass and get as many pussies as possible. Nazism was the radical ultra-arrogance and intolerance of High Culture whereas Rap-ism is the pathological ultra-arrogance of low culture. Rap-ism, were it to take over society would leave behind an even worse impact than Nazism because it would simply end civilization itself. Nazism, had it prevailed, would have established an evil civilization, but a civilization with some noble things just the same. But, rap-ism, which grew out of the jungle-pathologies of black genetic nature, is something that can bring on a PERMANENT Dark Age since blacks cannot create and maintain civilizations. Uganda under Idi Amin was like a society taken over by rap thugs. And, much of Africa has come under that kind of mind set. That kind of mentality cannot set up complex businesses, produce doctors/scientists/engineers, run a responsible government, produce an intelligent and sober electorate, or make way for any social progress. People with rap mentality know how to demand, how to complain, how to bitch and whine, how to shake their fists, how to destroy, how to act wild and crazy. They don’t know how to build, how to learn, how to appreciate, how to make peace, how to cooperate, how to self-criticize, how to make amends.

Our society is producing more and more people with rap mentalities because of the rise in black populations and because so many whites and Hispanics are aping the blacks–a natural process in a society which is obsessed with sports/sex/pop music. As long as blacks dominate sports and popular music, more and more kids of all background will try to adopt or imitate blackness in order to be hip, cool, badass, and etc. Fascism understands human nature correctly for people gravitate toward power.
As Jews gained intellectual and cultural superiority in the West, many gentiles became slaves of Jewish ideology and values. Radical feminism, for example, was created by ugly Jewish hags, but as it was intellectually more sophisticated and elaborate(even if wrong)than what gentile women came up with, gentile women all tried to write, think, and act like the Big Jewish Sister. In the arena of sports and pop music, blacks are the toughest, roughest, meanest, and baddest. So, naturally boys and girls want to be black or black-ish. They respect Power and become the emotional and cultural slaves of blackness. If whites were stronger than blacks and if gentiles were smarter than Jews, this would not have happened. So, despite all the leftist Jewish crap about fighting oppressive power, the real oppressive power is being concentrated in the hands of Jews(intellectual, cultural, economic, political) and blacks(athletic, streets, crime, sexual, etc).

And of course, our pop culture industry promotes, markets, and disseminates much of this. Now, why would well-educated white(largely Jewish)people spread this garbage far and wide? There are three main reasons. One is the simple profit motive. For pop culture industries to compete and win, they need to market what most people want, and most people happen to be dummies. Another reason is many highly intelligent and well-educated people think stuff like Rap has real cultural value. Though rich liberals are part of the elite, they are eager to prove that they are egalitarian. To prove their street cred, they parrot and promote the garbage that issues from the street. Even so, it must be said that many worthy arts and culture did come from below. Though a person who cannot appreciate high culture nor distinguish between a work of art and mere junk is no better than an ape, a snob who cannot appreciate genius and brilliance simply because it didn’t issue from the top is an idiot. Even so, most of what passes for pop culture range from banal/ harmless to demented/destructive.
The third reason why rich liberals shamelessly promote dangerous and corrosive stuff like rap music is many of them have been taught by their radical professors and learned from books that truly progressive people must take a hateful and antagonistic stance against the ‘conservative’ majoritarian forces of society. This explains why someone like Margaret Cho has become a major star in pop culture. She’s ugly, disgusting, and repulsive–an Asian version of Rosie O’Donnell or Sarah Silverman–but, she and her fans fool themselves that her stupid and retarded anti-social attitude amounts to some kind of meaningful statement for the sake of liberation and freedom. It may well be that she had problems growing up and has issues she needs to resolve, but notice that she blames society than coming to terms with herself and accepting that society can never be perfect. But, the idea of people like her is that society is essentially evil–as long as straight white people are in the majority–and the only way to fight for freedom and noble causes is to be ‘badder’ than society. Lots of Jews like Lenny Bruce were the pioneers of this kind of attitude, and we can now see where it has taken our society.