Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Will the Convergence of the First World and Third World Happen? Some Thoughts on Guillaume Durocher's Attempts to Debunk the Convergence Theory and How Jewish Supremacist Power plays into All of This.

Both Daron Acemoglu and Guillaume Durocher are failing to see the big picture and missing the point. There are more than one kind of Convergence, and it is likely to happen due to globalist pressures. And these Convergences will involve mass migration and mass miscegenation. (Or, if genetic engineering becomes a thing in the near-future, various peoples around the world could end up with 'improved' traits in areas of intelligence, temperament, strength, height, and health.)

Old models fail in the globalizing world because all borders have been rendered porous by mass communication & social networking, the predominance of the Zionist-US empire that can intervene or even invade any part of the world -- the USSR limited US expansionism during the Cold War and vice versa -- , easy mass migration of peoples by planes, boats, and even on foot(as national borders, especially in the Africa-Middle-East-Europe-America) are either undefended or have been breached beyond repair. Globalism is replacing settlement-mentality with neo-nomadism of both the 'creative' classes and the 'desperate' masses. It's no wonder that the upper elites of 'creatives' identify somewhat with the lower masses of 'desperates'. Part of the reason is, of course, the elites attend Politically Correct institutions where 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are holy mantras, but it also has to do with the fact that the elites live in their own well-protective bubble of gentrified downtown areas or college communities. For them, the masses of Third World peons have either symbolic value(for 'woke' virtue among their apologists) without having to rub shoulders with them OR economic value as cheap labor to mow lawns and change diapers, especially as elite women are too busy pursuing their careers than rearing their children. So, upper class to upper middle class have much to gain from supporting mass Third World migration. They pat themselves on the back as compassionate 'progressives' while knowing full well that their own social and economic spheres will not be negatively impacted by the newcomers. If anything, the browns from south of the border may be socially useful in serving as a buffer between elite whites/Jews/Asians and urban blacks with criminal tendencies. Why not make the browns take the lumps from the blacks or use the brown mass to push out the blacks so that the communities may later be gentrified more peaceably? In contrast, the Middle Class and Working Class haven't much to gain from globalism and mass-migration-invasion. They are replaced by cheaper H1V holders from India, or their wages are undercut by supply of new labor eager to work for a pittance, that is if the jobs haven't already been shipped to China or some other place.
As Karl Marx said, economics goes a long way to determine consciousness, and the erosion of national economies weakened the elite's sense of connection to their own national folk. In the past, US companies had to hire US workers first and foremost. So, there developed a national bond among owners, managers, and workers. But with globalism, the owners could shop for cheap labor around the world, and when China opened to World Trade, the owner class saw a golden opportunity. All those yellow peons had decent work ethic and were willing to work for fraction of the wages(and without the benefits) of American workers. So, the owner class went on a shopping spree for global labor. As the owner class was no longer economically bound to American workers, it became increasingly cut off from them emotionally as well. It was cheaper for the members of the owner class to champion the Global Diversity because it meant they could gain access to ever cheaper pools of labor. It's like a man's connection to his wife and kids grows weaker IF he could 'shop around' for new women to hump and have fun with. There used to be an economic and emotional marriage between the owner class and national folk in the West. But globalism privileged the upper-owner class in letting them sever their ties to the national masses -- let the white working class wallow in junk culture and died of opioids, and good riddance -- , and they became enamored of the cheaper and more pliable work force around the world. So, the underlying motives of globalism are the most naked kind of capitalism and profiteering ever concocted by man.
But, because it wouldn't be good publicity for the globo-owner class to bluntly admit this ugly truth -- "we dumped the national folks in favor of cheaper peons around the world" -- , they've moralized their agenda with slogans about 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Thus, we are to believe that the super-rich oligarchic class is pushing mass-migration and 'free trade' not because it's insatiably greedy but because it has a bleeding heart for all those teeming masses around the world. Of course, upper classes don't need to worry about the profound social transformations of entire nations as the result of Third World mass-invasions because they themselves live in mansions, haute gentrified areas, or elite college towns. The real brunt of the mass transformation will fall on everyone from Middle Class to Working Class to native Lower Class.
Now, one would think the masses would have the moral upper-hand against the greedy owner class that no longer cares about them. After all, the owner class is only making things nicer for itself by sacrificing the National Working Folk in favor of cheaper and more docile labor(or even oppressed and exploited labor in the Third World with hardly any recourse to legal protections). But because of the Deep State collaboration between Big Capital and Big Think, today's so-called 'progressives' offer up nice-sounding terms and slogans to tip the moral advantage to the owner class. So, you see, the owner class isn't greedily out for more profits and privilege. Oh no, they are just a bunch of do-gooders who want to 'welcome' the World, whereas the National Working Folk are 'far right', 'xenophobic', 'racist', and 'exclusive'. Never mind that no nation is viable as a people, culture, and history unless it has secure borders, emotional bond between elites and masses, and a sense of cultural & historical distinctness. After all, imagine if Israel had open borders and declared that ANY newcomer will be welcomed as a New Jew. How long would Israel or Jewish culture last under such suicidal barrage? Indeed, how was Palestine wiped off the map to make way for Israel? Because of mass-migration of Jews into Palestine, which eventually led to Jews replacing Palestinians as the main inhabitants of the Holy Land. Of course, Jews were sly and sneaky in this. For awhile, they pretended as though they merely wanted to become New Palestinians. Until the creation of Israel, the Zionists labeled many of their endeavors and businesses as 'Palestinian' to give the false impression that they just wanted to be part of Palestine than replace it with a new political template. So, much of Zionist activity had gone under the umbrella of Palestinian-ism. But when Jews began to realize they had the upperhand(not least with the backing of great powers UK, US, and USSR), they made their move to replace Palestinians and turn Palestine into Israel. Given what Jewish mass migration-invasion did to the Palestinians(who are now mowed down by IDF death squads in Gaza and suffer indignities of Apartheid-style colonization in the West Bank, their last remaining territory of any substance), how can any truly conscientious person support mass-migration? The main, indeed the ONLY REAL, reason why Palestinians lost their homeland and were reduced to the sorry state of penury today is due to mass-migration-invasion. Demography Is Destiny or DID, and Jews sure proved it in Palestine, now Israel. Given the obvious historical injustice, why do the supposedly humanitarian US and EU support Israel and Zionists against Palestinians(and other Muslim and/or Arab 'enemies' of Israel)? Because Jewish Supremacist elites control America that, in turn, controls the EU.
Another example of why Open Borders or Broken Borders pose a huge problem is Syria. If Syria had been able to protect its borders, it could have avoided the prolonged war that killed 500,000 people, maimed millions more, and displaced millions who, in turn, barged into other nations. Why did Syria fall apart? Because the nations around Syria, especially Saudi-Arabia-Israel-Turkey, all conspired with Neocons and Liberal Zionists in the US to bring down the secular modernizing regime of Assad. So, they violated Syrian borders and injected toxic Jihadi elements to wreak havoc in town after town. The wonders that befall a nation when it loses control of its borders! It's no wonder Zionist-Globalists love Open Borders for goy nations, all the while doggedly guarding borders for Jews in Israel. Israel is stable, secure, and peaceful because it gets to control who gets in and why. In contrast, Syria lost that power, and it got invaded by terrorists and mercenaries from all sides. The US, which had entered the Middle East on grounds of fighting the War on Terror against Alqaeda, made common cause with rebranded Alqaeda going by the name of Al Nusra and promoted by the Deep State and Media as 'moderate rebels'.
We can easily note the advantage of border control versus the folly of no border control in the relation between Israeli Jews and West Bank Palestinians. There are walls and tight border security to prevent Palestinians in West Bank from freely entering Israel. So, Jewish Israel is safe and secure from potential Arab invasion from West Bank. But Palestinians in West Bank have no border security against Jews in Israel. The Jewish-built walls are meant to defend Israel from Arabs in West Bank, not to defend West Bank from Jews in Israel(and from around the world). So, Jewish 'settlers' -- really invaders and colonizers -- continue to encroach upon West Bank to carve up EVEN MORE territories for Greater Israel. So, from the Jewish-Palestinian dynamics between Israel and West Bank, which side has the advantage? Jews with border security against Palestinians or Palestinians with no border security against Jews? The answer is obvious.

Now, why is the rich, advanced, and powerful West for open borders? Why do they forsake border security and choose to be like Palestinians than like Israeli Jews? Why do they want their homelands to become like West Bank(a territory with no border security for its native population that continues to be replaced by Jewish 'settlers') than like Israel(a powerful nation with security & stability and pride of identity, culture, and history)? It's because Jews have taken over the elite institutions of the West and regard the West as one giant West Bank. With their immense wealth, Jews have bought off so many goy politicians to do their bidding. Jews hate the idea of national borders and security among goy nations because it could mean erecting barriers against total Jewish penetration and takeover. Jews love the idea of Israel for Jews but hate the idea of any goy nation putting its own people, culture, and history first because it means less of a chance for guys like George Soros to take over. This is also why Jews push globo-homo stuff all over the world. It is to weaken national identity, especially among the elites. It is also useful in replacing class politics with neo-aristocratism(as homos tend to be vain and narcissistic and drawn to wealth and privilege) in Progressive Circles. Also, if people get to thinking that a man with a wig can be a 'woman', it undermines the idea of rooted or real identity altogether. If any man can become a 'woman', maybe anyone can become a New European just by setting foot on Europe and learning a few French or German words. Replace Mayday with Gayday.
But Jews don't merely buy off corrupt politicians like Chinese elite minority does in Southeast Asia or Asian-Indian minority does in Kenya. Jews gain control of academia & media and spread the new gospel of 'diversity' and 'inclusion', both of which are just weasel words for New Imperialism. After all, most diversity around the world is the product of imperialism. Latin American Diversity owes to imperialism, 'genocide', slavery, and mass immigration-invasion. Just ask the native browns there. The Soviet Union was most diverse when it had imperial dominion over various nationalities. Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire were most diverse at the peak of their powers. For Jews, diversity is useful because, as a minority elite, they fear a united goy national front against them. So, they seek to increase diversity in all goy nations to use divide-and-rule tactics. The reason why British Imperialism over India was far more effective than European & Japanese imperialism in China was because the British as one people ruled over diverse tribes in India, whereas the Chinese as one people were ruled by diverse imperialists. British rule was finally doomed when Gandhi and other inspired leaders found a way to bring masses of tribes in India together as ONE people.

Jews know that the masses of goyim will wake up to what the Tribe is really up to if it only uses bribery and corruption to buy off goy politicians and the like. So, Jewish Power works very hard to moralize their globo-homo neo-imperialist project. Via mass media(totally controlled by Jews in the US and many parts of the West) and academia -- notice how George Soros sets up gender-studies-centric universities all over the world -- , Jews seek to moralize and idealize the New Imperialism. So, even though Diversity has always been the product of imperialism, peoples all over the world have been made to chant the mantra of 'Diversity is our strength'. If so, why doesn't Israel go about changing its immigration policy so that Israel will become majority non-Jewish? If MORE Diversity is good for all the world, more diversity would be good for Israel too, right? Jewish power also has everyone chanting about 'inclusion' when it's a weasel word for 'invasion'. After all, look what happened to Palestinians because they were forced to 'include' Jewish migration. They ended up being replaced. What happened to American Indians who had no choice but to 'include' mass immigration from the Old World? They got 'genocided' and pushed into 'reservations', losing their sacred homeland forever. Should Tibetans and Uighurs celebrate the fact that they're forced to 'include' the mass-migration-invasion by Han Chinese? I suppose we should remember the British Imperialists as the good guys because they forced 1/3 of the world to 'include' them as colonizers and traders. That is if 'inclusion' is so great. What happened to Syria because it was forced to 'include' every Jihadi armed and supplied by Saudis, Israelis, Turks, and US? It got torn asunder into hell on earth. The Zionist-directed US military still occupies 1/3 of Syria illegally. Or, should we say the US military is making Syria 'include' it? Imagine that. Today's so-called 'progressives' not only support mass illegal-immigration of the West but the West's illegal military-invasion of the Middle East and North Africa. Again, to understand what is really going on and why, we have to notice the Jewish Hand in all this. The fact is Jews use the West to smash any nation hated by Israel in the Middle East. The saying, "Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you" is most apt. Consider that Israel has 300 nukes while Iran has NONE and passed all international inspections with flying colors(while Israel won't allow any inspection of its nuclear facilities), BUT the Zionist-controlled Western Narrative is the US must do something to protect Israel from nuclear Iran. It can't get any more surreal than that. Just think. Israel has nukes and won't allow inspections while Iran has no nukes and allows inspections. But we are reminded over and over that Israel needs to be protected from nuclear Iran. LOL. If you believe that, you might even believe in the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Hoax. (Yet, the very people in media, academia, and government who pushed the biggest conspiracy hoax of all time say that 'fake news' should be shut down for obfuscating the truth.) Netanyahu and Bolton, or Master and Dog.

There is a perverse logic to the Jewish globo-homo strategy of the two-way invasion. Jewish Power urges the US to act as the Lone Superpower around the world. After the implosion of the Soviet Empire, the US too could have decreased its imperial presence around the world. During the Cold War, US empire was at least justifiable as bulwark against the Soviet Empire and vice versa. But with the USSR having given up on empire and revolution, there was no more threat to the so-called Free World. And many Americans were looking forward to scaling down the US role as globo-cop(which was often like globo-gangster). But just around the time the Cold War ended, Jews took over as the New Elites of the US that was made to flex its muscles and shake its fist as the Sole Hegemon. One reason was to bolster Israel as the lone superpower in the Middle East. So, by cooking up one excuse after another and painting every other leader in the Arab/Muslim leader as the New Hitler and every crisis as New Munich, Jewish Power goaded the US into wars in the Middle East and North Africa that turned those nations upside down(while Jews in Israel observed the destruction with amused glee). The New Imperialism said the US has 'inclusion' rights in any nation. If the US power wants IN, the nation-in-question better 'include' the US military... or else be invaded the most violent shock-and-awe manner. The US could invoke 'human rights', 'WMD', 'War on Terror'(even though US was, more often than not, allied with terrorists against secular modern Arab nations), 'stopping nuclear threat'(even though it was none other than Israel that is armed to the teeth with nukes and even sent nuclear technology to Apartheid South Africa back in the day), 'saving Kurds', or any half-baked rationale to invade the Muslim World. And the Muslim World better 'include' the US military invasion because even more bombs will be rained down on the if it says NO. (Notice the US, which claims to care so much about the Kurds, never cares for Palestinians or about restoring stolen Golan Heights to Syria.) Jews love the New Imperialism because they control the West and get to use Western Might to destroy any nation they don't like. Of course, Jews would be opposed to New Imperialism IF Palestinian-Americans were the ruling elites of the US and used American Might to smash Zionists in the name of liberating the tyrannized Palestinian people. It's all about who-has-the-power. Imagine if US government had tons of Palestinian-American elite operatives that called on economic sanctions on Israel for its nuclear program, mistreatment of Palestinians, warmongering against Lebanon & Syria, and aid to ISIS. Suppose these sanctions did to Israel what sanctions did to Iraq in the 1990s: Result in the deaths of 100,000s of Jewish women and babies. Then, you bet that Jews would oppose the New Imperialism. But they are all for it because THEY get to use it anyway they want. Since Jews totally control the media and academia, they get to decide what is 'progressive'. Because New Imperialism is good for Jewish Power, the Tribe pushes it as the 'new progressivism'. And since most goy 'progressives' are mental slaves of Jewish Power, they drink the Kool Aid and go along. But then, things have gotten so bad that some conscientious Jews have said ENOUGH and quit the Deep State neo-imperialist media.

By now, people should wise up to the speciousness of so-called Jewish 'progressives' who are not true Leftists or Progressives but merely using ideology as cover for what is a supremacist form of tribalism. For example, it's so disingenuous when Jews claim to care about Muslim Refugees. Notice that Jews never mention the fact that all those Muslims(along with Arab Christians) became refugees in the first place only because of Wars for Israel in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. There would be no Syrian refugees if that nation hadn't been torn apart. It was smashed because Jewish-controlled US gave the go-ahead to Turkey and Saudi Arabia to fund and support foreign terrorists there. And Israel gleefully egged on the catastrophe from the sidelines, even aiding ISIS and bombing Syria on and off. Notice that Jews never say they want to prevent people from becoming refugees. That's because, in order to prevent such tragedy, there must be no more Wars for Israel. But Jews love these Wars for Israel, and their operatives in academia, media, and government do everything to push for more wars in the Muslim Middle East. Thomas Friedman has openly supported ISIS against Assad. So, Jews don't mind millions of people being displaced and turned into refugees. THAT isn't the moral issue as far as Jews are concerned. Instead, the moral issue is the West must take in these poor helpless refugees. Never mind it was the Wars for Israel that turned all those people into refugees in the first place. Never mind that Israel won't take in these refugees. Indeed, Saudi Arabia, now an ally of Israel, won't take the refugees either. Israel won't even offer up stolen Golan heights for respite for Syrian refugees. Oh no, Jews like Soros and Co. steer all those refugees to the West and guilt-bait white goyim into taking them in... possibly to empty parts of Syria so that Israel can take over to create Even Greater Israel. The very people who've done the most harm to the Middle East and Muslim nations with New Imperialism and Wars for Israel(and sanctions that killed 100,000s of lives in Iraq) go about pontificating like they are moral saints. Imagine Nazi Germany invading Poland, displacing millions of Poles-as-refugees, and then whining about how the rest of the world won't take in those poor helpless Polish refugees. That'd be vile, wouldn't it? It is precisely what Jews do with Western Might in the Middle East.
Of course, unlike Nazi Germans, Jews can get away with it more easily because the West is still ostensibly ruled by goyim. People fail to notice that most politicians in US and UK are mere puppets of Jewish oligarchs. And most people still don't know that Jews control most of the media in the US, which means that Jewish elites get to decide who gets to work in mass media. (Notice how the Jewish oligarchic network in Deep State and Big Tech have worked together to shut down Alex Jones. Now, Jones is a kook who said crazy things, but the real reason why they took him out is not because of his nutty statements about Sandy Hook but honest and true statements about the New Imperialism in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. And it's rich that the very people who pushed the Russian Collusion Conspiracy Hoax and Fake News from the highest levels of government and media-academia-complex are accusing others of 'fake news' and conspiracy theories. It's surreal, like Israel-armed-with-nukes accusing Iran that has no nukes. In the current order, Israel that violates all international norms, bombs Syria, steals Palestinian territory, and has 300 nukes is showered with billions of dollars in aid while Iran that allows nuclear inspections and has no nukes is crippled with endless economic sanctions. Jewish Justice. Based on all evidence, who can deny that US is governed by Zionist gangster-supremacism? Rule of Law is now a myth in America. The 'truth' is whatever Jewish Power says it is. If you disagree and speak the truth, Jews say you're engaging in 'hate speech' and must be shut down and blacklisted.)

Now, why are both Daron Acemoglu and Guillaume Durocher wrong about Convergence? They are wrong for different reasons. Acemoglu, for reasons that are opportunistic/craven or sincere/naive, rejects the Human Bio-Diversity(or HBD) explanation for Global Differences. He thinks blacks are just whites or yellows with black skin, yellows are just whites or blacks with yellow skin, and whites are just blacks or yellows with white skin. Skin Color is the ONLY difference among the races. So, all those Africans are really just Swiss or Japanese with black skin. 100,000s of yrs of evolutionary divergence of various human populations all over the world had no impact on anything but skin color. Some will argue that the evolutionary divergence of Europeans and Africans is 60,000 or 80,000 yrs, but that fails to acknowledge that Out-of-Africa was really Out-of-North-Africa. Even before Homo Sapiens left North Africa, the peoples in North Africa had already diverged from people in rest of Africa by more than 100,000 yrs. So, the evolutionary divergence between Europeans and SUB-SAHARAN Africans is more than 100,000 yrs. Now, different environments -- for most of human existence, people lived in natural environments -- favor different mental, emotional, temperamental, and attitudinal traits. If there were two rooms, and if one room zapped anyone who fidgeted too much while another room zapped anyone who sat still for prolonged periods, the result would be two groups with different temperaments. In the room where people who fidget are zapped out of existence, people who tend to be calmer will survive and breed. In the room where people who sit still are zapped out of existence, people who tend to be mobile and fidgety will survive and breed. Different environments and climates call for different skills and tendencies, and over long periods, populations in different areas will tend to have more of one kind of traits than another. Also, to the extent that cultural factors also play a key role in selective breeding, the cultural priorities of a people will tend to favor certain traits. If there are two communities and if one community favors the strongest while the other community favors the smartest, they will undergo different selection processes, especially in non-monogamous societies. As men like to hump women, the strongest guys in the pro-strong society will breed with the most women and pass down their genes, and the smartest guys in the pro-smart society will breed with the most women and pass down their genes. This can have a big impact in even a few thousand yrs(or even over several centuries; after all, the dog has been domesticated from the wolf for only a few thousand yrs, and look at the variety due to selective breeding). Is it any wonder that Jews often say, "A Jew is more likely to own a football team than play in one"? Jews culturally and genetically evolved in communities where brains were most prized among scholars or merchants/financiers. Most black Africans, until recently, lived in primitive hunter-warrior societies where one's strength as hunter, rhythm as dancer, and prowess as humper(big dong and bouncy booties) were most prized. Then, it is any wonder that Jews are renowned around the world as scientists, writers, intellectuals, professors, lawyers, and financiers whereas blacks are famous around the world as boxers, football players, basketball players, rappers, bump-n-grinders, and 'twerkers'? Black women came up with a style of dancing where they shake their booties like they're having sex with a mega-dong. Notice all TV and music industry are owned by Jews. Notice how so many sports teams and most of mass media are controlled by Jews. Big Tech and Big Pharma are also Jewish-heavy, along with Wall Street and Law Firms. In contrast, blacks are prominent in endeavors that all for strong-song-and-dong. Now, some will argue that this is all about culture, BUT culture had selective pressure on evolution over centuries and millenniums. We can demonstrate this with the Blug-and-Bleek Experiment. Suppose there is a black community in the US, and suppose we randomly divide the community in half. Roughly, the two groups are more or less alike because they were of a single community. Now, suppose we favor the black thugs or blugs in New Group A. Those blacks who are most muscled, aggressive, abrasive, and loud are favored for mating. The blugs are lionized the most, and most women try to mate with blugs. Over time, blug genes will spread far and wide, and the community will be filled with tough and mean blacks like Mike Tyson and NFL defensive linemen. Now, suppose we favor the black geeks or bleeks in the other community, New Group B. We select the blacks who are most studious, intelligent, and even-tempered. They become the most prestigious members of society, and many black women mate with them. Then, bleek genes will spread far and wide. Over many centuries, the Blug community and Bleek community will be markedly different. The Blug community will have guys who can whup the guys of the Bleek community, but the Bleek community will have guys who are more likely to excel in business and enterprise. This is how genetics works. It's how evolution works. But PC says genes have NOTHING to do with IQ and other factors, at least in an inter-group way. So, while PC admits that some individuals are smarter than others, it says no group has a greater number of intelligent individuals than another group. But using this logic, we should also say no group has faster and tougher individuals than any other group. Then, how come tiny Jamaica produces faster runners than all of China, Russia, India, Europe, Middle East, White America, and Brown Latin America? PC is the superstition of our age, and it's not really about equality but about promoting the superiority of certain favored groups, especially Jews, homos, and blacks. James Watson would not have gotten in trouble if he surmised that Syrians might be more intelligent than Peruvian Indians. He wouldn't have gotten in trouble if he surmised that blacks might be smarter than whites(and time will bear this out). He got in trouble because he said blacks are inferior in IQ. This was a No-No because blacks are sacred objects in the West.

After all, why is Mandela so revered by the Jewish-controlled Western Media but Arafat is not even though Arafat also struggled for liberation of his people? It's because blacks are holier than Arabs/Palestinians. Of course, the other reason is Jews are Holy too by PC rules. Because Mandela was seen as struggling against Germanic whites(even though Jews monopolized the diamond trade in South Africa and Israel & Apartheid South Africa were the closest allies) whereas Arafat struggled against Zionist imperialists, of course the Jewish-run media will favor Mandela over Arafat. Also, Jews can use 'white guilt' about blacks to paralyze white pride and agency, but 'white guilt' about Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians would undermine Zionist agenda in the Middle East. If white people began to feel guilt about all the horrible things they've done to Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians, they might stop aiding the Zionist Supremacist agenda in Middle East and North Africa. So, whites are to feel guilty about South Africa but yawn about the countless Arabs and Muslims destroyed by Zionist-controlled US policy in the Middle East and North Africa? All those Iraqi kids killed by US sanctions? All those Palestinian kids mowed down by IDF death squads? All the Syrians destroyed by US-and-Saudi collusion to support terror? Just forget about it.

Anyway, if Acemoglu is wrong about Convergence because he's too cravenly or naively PC to even entertain the possibility that there might be genetic differences among groups other than skin color, Durocher is wrong about Convergence because he still thinks in terms of the Old National Model. For most of human history, invasions were gradual and limited. Both Russia and China expanded slowly. Also, they did as much to repel foreign invasions as move into new territories. Until the Age of Empire, most of the world wasn't interconnected. And even in the 20th century, most people stayed put in their own nations. Mass migration to the US was the great exception because of its vast size and riches. As such, it attracted peoples from all over looking for a short cut to modern prosperity(and/or freedom). Also, despite the global dominance of Hollywood, most nations had national media and national culture/identity. But in the internet age, the entire world has been flooded with the same streams of deracinating junk culture and trashy fashions. The great advantage of the internet is that once neglected voices finally reach an audience(however limited), but then, given that the biggest platforms are now monopolized by Zionist-supremacist oligarchs, there are all sorts of plans afoot to shut down BDS & pro-Palestinian voices, anti-war activists, European defenders of national sovereignty, and critics of Jewish Power & its globo-homo cult as the new spirituality. In Zionist-supremacist US, nearly half the states already have anti-BDS laws that force individuals and businesses into pledging support for the Zionist occupation of West Bank and murder of Palestinians in Gaza.

Jewish Power is trying to make this law federal in the way it pushed 'gay marriage'. So, even Palestinian-Americans with memories of Zionist terror must pledge support to Zionist tyranny against his/her own people if he/she wants to work for or do business with the government. It's ironic that Jews, who've long railed against McCarthyism(that only lasted a few yrs), are now pushing for persecution, censorship, and blacklisting beyond anything conceived by McCarthy and anti-communists. But then, the very Jewish Community that said the Soviet Threat was no big deal in the 1950s -- even though Jewish-American agents sent Stalin the secrets to the Bomb -- is now trying to cram totally unfounded Anti-Russia hysteria down our throats. That is some chutzpah.

Anyway, Convergence is likely to happen because of the spread of globalism to all corners of the world... with the exception of Israel, of course. The very Jews who demand that Hungary and Poland be open to mass migration-invasion say that all the world must support Israeli borders and the right of Israel to remain a Jewish State that prioritizes the survival and continuation of Jewish People, Culture, History, and Territory. Zionism in Israel is perfectly fine and is never demeaned as 'far right'. Netanyahu is just called 'right' or 'conservative'. But Viktor Orban is called 'far right', and why? Does he want to invade other nations? Does he want Hungarians to rule over non-Hungarians? No. The ONLY thing he wants is for Hungary to remain a nation for Hungarians, but THAT is deemed a crime against humanity. And even though he has the support of the majority of Hungarians, he is accused of being 'anti-democratic' because the will of Hungarians goes against the globo-homo agenda of oligarchs like George Soros. So, 'democracy', as far as Jews are concerned, is whatever they say it is. But such twisted logic is to be expected from a people who say nuclear-armed Israel must be defended from Iran with no nukes. It is to be expected from a people who say Israel that has 300 nukes and refuses international inspections deserves to be showered with billions in aid whereas Iran that has no nukes and allows international inspections must be economically sanctioned and strangled(or even invaded and destroyed by yet another War for Israel).

In a sane world, all national leaders should be like Viktor Orban who is nationalist and anti-imperialist. Orban sees himself as a Hungarian leader for Hungarian people. So, Hungarian identity and interests come first IN HUNGARY. That's why it's Hungary. It's the land of Hungarians. Now, Orban respects the right and duty of every other nation to put its people and culture first. He's not one to tell the Japanese that Japan must put Hungary before the Japan or tell the Turks that Turkey should put Hungary before Turkey. He's for the national autonomy and independence of all nations. As independent nations with sovereignty, they can live in mutual respect and peace with other nations, trade, and learn from one another. Orban's position isn't Hungarian-supremacism. He would never argue that Hungarians have the right to invade or barge into other nations or tell other nations how to run their affairs. All he wants is for Hungary to have the right to remain a nation of Hungarians. But according to Jewish Globalists, that makes him a 'far right' and 'neo-Nazi'.
Now, anyone who remembers history should know that Nazi Germany didn't bring about the catastrophe of World War II by minding its own national business. It unleashed a massive war by invading other nations with German Imperialism. Also, all resistance to German imperialism was national. Polish nationalists resisted German invasion. French nationalists resisted German Occupation. Russians didn't so much fight for communism as defense of motherland. So, which side is really nazi-like in the world today? Viktor Orban's Hungary that wants to maintain national sovereignty and not be flooded with mass-migration-invasion? Or Jewish Globalists who inflamed the Middle East and North Africa with Wars for Israel, the premise of which insists that any number of Arabs and/or Muslims may be killed or forced into refugee-hood so that Israel's role as lone superpower of MENA(Middle East and North Africa)is assured? Who are more Nazi-like? It's clearly Jewish-Supremacist power that has turned Gaza into something like a New Warsaw Ghetto. It's clearly Jewish-Supremacist power with spokesmen like Thomas Friedman who says he wishes the ISIS would remain to mess up Syria even more. It's clearly Jewish-Supremacist power that turned Libya into a pile of rubble. Of course, it used goy puppets Obama and Hillary. Jewish Power is now so deranged that it even made common cause with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to pull off a coup against a democratically elected government. Jewish Power acts like this but preaches to the world about 'liberal democratic' values.

Unfortunately, most leaders in the West are not like Viktor Orban. They are more like pathetic puppets like Justin Trudeau, Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel. These worthless puppets totally support the right of Israel to remain a Jewish state even as they renounce sovereignty for their own nations. They also look the other way about Zionist occupation of West Bank and mass-murder in Gaza. Granted, Orban supports Israel too, but it is on a give-and-take basis of "Hungary supports Israel's right to be a Jewish state in exchange for Israel's support of Hungary's right to be a Hungarian state." If anything, Hungary has the moral edge over Israel because, whereas Hungary is only about Hungarians in Hungary, the currently cancerous Zionism isn't only about Jews in Israel but Jews taking over West Bank and fomenting more Wars for Israel all over the Middle East.
Viktor Orban is not an isolationist, let alone a 'xenophobe'. It's just that his internationalism is founded on mutual nationalisms around the world. In other words, before anything else, the national elites should prioritize the survival, security, and well-being of their own people. Once those conditions are secured, they can work with other nations around the world. Jewish elites certainly feel this way in Israel. They put Jewish interests first and foremost. Then, why is it okay when Jews do it but wrong with Hungarians do it? Because the West is controlled by Jewish supremacists who say ONLY JEWS should have national rights while all goyim must be exposed to globalist hegemony. Jews hate the idea of a sacred bond between goy national elites and goy national folks. They want goy elites to pay heed to Jewish globalist masters and snub their own folks. This is why Jews push the globo-homo agenda. As homomania is now replacement of Christianity as a neo-spiritual cult(especially designed to appeal to fancy and haute elite members of society into vanity and narcissism, sensibilities that homos are obsessed with), goy elites who wave the 'gay' flag are more likely to be vapid clowns with heads up in the clouds than serious and mature national leaders with a deep connection to their own folk, culture, and history.

Jewish globalists fear that if national elites connect with their own folks and culture, each goy nation will be a more difficult nut for Jewish Power to crack. Jews want national elites to pledge their main loyalty to Jewish globalist hegemonists than to their own folks. This is an old imperialist trick and nothing new. After all, the British Imperialists insisted upon the local native elites to pledged their main loyalty to the British overlords than to their own native masses. As long as the local elites obeyed the British Imperialists and supported British hegemony, they were handsomely rewarded. But if they tried to reconnect with their own folk and resist British Imperialism, they were ruthlessly crushed. The Ottoman Empire worked the same way. So, if the local Greek elites did the bidding of the Turkish overlords, they were nicely rewarded with carrots. But if they tried to reconnect with their own folks, revive Greek national consciousness, and resist Turkish imperialism, they were mercilessly crushed. As so much of the world has succumbed to the US-as-sole-superpower(and because the US is controlled by Jews), the national elites around the world are pressured to prioritize obeisance to globalist hegemony(dominated by Jews) than loyalty to the national folk. ONLY ISRAEL is to be praised for having a national elite that prioritizes the sacred bond between the national elites and national folks. Nationalism has become a Jewish monopoly in the 21st century. Only Jews are praised for the national unity between elites and masses. As for goy nations, the elites better feel closer to globo-homo hegemony than to their own national folks. So, Netanyahu or any Jewish leader can say, "I'm proud to be Jewish, I love my Jewish people, my main duty is to serve my Jewish people, and our Jewish nation must live forever", and he is to be praised and admired. But if the leader of Hungary or Poland says much the same about his nation, culture, and history, the World Jewry will foam at the mouth and denounce him as 'far-right' and 'neo-nazi'.
Indeed, this is the main bone of contention between Jews and Trumpian nationalists. Most Jews claim to be 'progressives', but they are first and foremost Jewish supremacist globalist-imperialists. A true progressive should support nationalism as the best defense against imperialism. This is why real progressives in the past supported the Cubans, Algerians, and Vietnamese against European and American imperialists. They understood the need for national folks to define and determine their own identity and destiny. So, when Trump says he wants to pull US troops out of the Middle East so that the native folks can decide for themselves, true progressives should be supportive. But notice that all these so-called Jewish 'progressives' howl like mad dogs and insist that the US must remain(illegally) in Syria and other parts of the world. They mouth platitudes about 'war on terror', 'spreading democracy', 'human rights', and etc, but it's all bull. If Jews are really for human rights, why don't they make the US invade West Bank, remove Jewish invader-settlers, and restore the territory to Palestinians? The fact is Jews are addicted to supremacism, and they now support US imperialism because it really amounts to US-rael hegemony. Because Jews control the US and can steer US foreign policy to serve the agenda of Greater Israel, they are now the biggest fans of imperialism. Jewish 'progressivism' has become a mask for Jewish Imperialism, just like the British notion of the White Man's Burden was used as moral cover for British hegemony. You see, the British weren't conquering and dominating 1/3 of the world but only trying to spread the light of civilization. Likewise, if the Jewish-controlled US turns your nation into hellholes like current Iraq, Libya, or Syria, just tell yourself it's all about spreading 'liberal democracy' or 'human rights' or some other BS one hears from MSM. And if you ask why such noble-minded Jews support the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians or partner with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, just shut up and forget about it, as Rex Kwon Do would say.

Many people remain blind to the reality of Jewish supremacist imperialism because the essence of Jewish power is in the networking than national ownership. In terms of nationhood, Jews have only Israel to claim as a Jewish State, and on its own Israel doesn't amount to much as a world power. When the British ruled the world, there was obviously a British people of the British nation that gained dominance over other peoples in other continents. Same was true of the French Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire, Japanese Empire, and etc. Japanese Empire was about the people of Japan gaining dominance over non-Japanese peoples and lands. In contrast, it's not so easy to discern the true depth and extent of Jewish Power. Apart from Israel, there is no nation in which Jews are majority or even larger than 10% of the population. Jews are only 2% of the US, the nation in which they have the most power. And for that reason, Jewish Imperialism uses goy fronts to serve as the Face of Power. Goyim like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump give the impression that US policy is 'goy' and 'Christian' when, in fact, most politicians are puppets of Jewish Money and Media. AIPAC and ADL use their muscle to force all politicians to support Jewish Supremacism as the cornerstone of US foreign policy. So, the US favors Zionist oppressors over oppressed Palestinians. So, the US showers nuclear-armed Israel with billions while strangling no-nuke Iran with endless sanctions. So, even as US invokes 'saving Kurds' as excuse to illegally occupy Syria, it turns a blind eye to the Jewish land-grab of Palestinian territory in West Bank. And even as the US media complex condemns Hungary for its border security to keep out migrant-invaders, it says little about IDF death squads mowing down Palestinians in Gaza who want to return to their ancestral homeland. US power is essentially Jewish imperialism, but many people fail to see this because the puppet leaders have been goys like Clinton, Bush, Obama, and even Trump. We are told that the US is a land of justice, human rights, and equal opportunity, but if so, why does it favor Zionist imperialists over oppressed Palestinians? Why does US foreign policy have one rule for Israel but another for Iran? Why did the US aid and abet Jewish oligarchs' looting of Russia in the 90s but condemn Russia's restoration of national sovereignty to prevent further foreign predatory behavior? Why are Israel and Jews around the world allowed to meddle so thoroughly in US politics and affairs, BUT there is all this crazy hysteria about Russia interference in US elections? It's all Jewish supremacism and imperialism, but because Jews are a tiny minority in the US, people remain blind to the extent of Jewish power. And of course, the fact that Jews control academia and media also means that they get to shape the Narrative and present the Worldview. So, even though US encircles Russia, we are told Russia is the aggressor. Even though Wars for Israel have done so much harm to Muslim nations, it is poor poor helpless Israel that needs to be protected. Even though Jews disproportionately hog power and privilege, we should all be alarmed by 'white supremacism'. Right, it's the KKK teeming with toothless rednecks that controls Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Pentagon, Ivy League, Law firms, and the Deep State. That's why we have Wars for Hillbillies all over the world. That's why we have renewed tensions with Russia. The hillbillies of the KKK have 'white supremacist white privilege' and force us to have another 'cold war'. Jewish imperialism is especially dangerous because Jews camouflage themselves as powerless despite being the most powerful people in the world. At the very least, British and French imperialisms were honest. Brits took pride in ruling 1/3 of the world. French Empire meant French glory. In contrast, Jewish supremacists hide behind goy fronts to push their hegemonic agenda to destroy Iran, further the war in Syria, push 'new cold war' with Russia, fan Yellow Peril against China, and stoke anti-Muslim hatred. If anyone wants to know why so many Americans came to see Muslims as subhuman scum who should be killed by the bushel, he should begin by asking, "Who controls Hollywood?" Jews do, and for over two decades, the main villains were the Muslim Terrorists, the 'ragheads' or 'muzzies'. So many impressionable White Christian kids grew up watching movies that said nothing is more glorious than to blow up a bunch of Muslims. The Jewish Way is to stoke White Christian hatred against Muslims and use Americans soldiers to destroy Muslim nations AND THEN to bring Muslim refugees to the West and hug them as poor victims of white 'Islamophobic racists'. Notice how Jewish moral logic twists and turns depending on the context. When Muslims are OVER THERE, they deserve to be blown up with US bombs and mowed down by white Christian soldiers. But when the Muslims come OVER HERE, they are coddled and hugged as part of the Diversity Coalition that must stand against White Christian America. Moral logic can't get any more surreal than that.

Anyway, with globalism wreaking so much havoc -- militarily, economically, and/or culturally -- all over the world, uprooting entire communities, and steering Third World masses into the West, the result is Convergence by Migration and also by Miscegenation, not least because white males are being feminized and castrated by PC and globo-homo propaganda. Especially because national elites of goy nations are now such spineless puppets who prioritize serving Jewish globalists instead of defending and representing their own national folks, they push policies designed to replace the native or national folks with newcomers, much like how Zionists came to replace the Palestinians. Jews are said to be white but don't identify primarily as white, European, or American but as Jewish(and supremacist). So, the number one priority of Jews is not European power, American power, or Western Power. It is Jewish supremacist hegemony. As far as Jews are concerned, it is the fulfillment of the Covenant. Even though most Jews today are secular, they feel great ethnic and historical pride as the people with the longest continual history, resilience, and tenacity. And especially because they are, pound for pound, the richest and most powerful people in the world, Jews feel that it's a matter of cosmic justice and design that they must secure permanent supremacist hold over the world. Jews are now so addicted to supremacism that merely being a normal people getting along with other peoples is not enough. Jews must rule over other peoples and make them do what Jews demand. Jews see gentiles as horses to break, tame, ride, and make obey. Jews think in terms of "We must secure the supremacy of our people and the hegemony of Jewish children."

So, how are Jews to secure their supremacism and hegemony, to which they've become addicted? First, of course, Jews had to succeed in business and other elite fields. Thus, they gained domination of key elite institutions and industries in academia, media, finance, law, entertainment, gambling(and other profitable vice industries), real estate, and etc. In controlling the academia, media, and entertainment, Jews have been able to mold the minds of goyim, from elite to masses. So, even though the Jewish Agenda is terrible for goyim, so many goyim just go along because their views of history, morality, and justice have been largely molded by Judeocentric interests. Granted, some goy elites do know what's really going on, but they fear speaking out because the combination of Jewish power and goy-collaborationist machinations will destroy them. Other goy elites go along with the charade because they are rewarded handsomely if they do. Take weasels like Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and so many others. By serving as barking dogs of Jewish globalists and Israel, they've gained so much wealth and/or privilege.
Be that as it may, Jews know that carrots-and-sticks only go so far. Carrots are expensive, and loyalty lasts only as carrots can be offered. As for sticks, they are effective but only as long as goyim can be beaten down. But a people who'd been subjugated by the stick will eventually look for vengeance when the time is ripe. Money and Fear are not enough to maintain Jewish Power. So, Jews pushed the Holocaust as a new religion. It is supposed to make Jews seem holy as new messiahs who suffered the 'greatest crime in human history' and to instill guilt in ALL GOYIM as either having killed Jews or not having done enough to save them. Holocaust-as-new-religion has done wonders for Jews as it allows Jewish Power to destroy anyone not only with money or violence but morality. So, if anyone says anything critical of Jewish power or Israel, he can be denounced as an 'anti-Semite' and 'neo-Nazi', and 'It's holocaust all over again', even though it's been the machinations of Jewish Power that led to WWII-levels of destruction in the Middle East and North Africa, all for the benefit of Israel. And never mind that current Gaza is like the Jewish ghetto under Nazi terror. And never mind that no people are as filled with supremacist arrogance and tribal hubris as the Jews are. Indeed, it's insane how we are all supposed to bitch and whine about 'white privilege', 'Russian aggression', or 'Iranian threat', but no one dares to mention the 800 lb gorilla in the room, i.e. that if any people in the world own disproportionate wealth, wield disproportionate power, and create disproportionate havoc(especially in the Middle East and Muslim nations), it's the Jews. The Middle East is in the current state of chaos mainly because of Wars(and sanctions) for Israel, which in turn are the result of Jewish supremacist control over the US. With Jews having so much power, how come no one says anything about it? Again, there is the power of money, threats/violence, and morality-as-hammer. Jews buy off lots of goy politicians. With Jewish money comprising 60% of funds to Democrats and 25% of funds to GOP, most politicians are essentially whores of Zion. But Jews also control the media that can make or break anyone. So, if there's someone Jews don't like, the media go into lynch mob frenzy to tear that person down as fast as possible. Just ask Marc Lamont Hill. And because Jews have elevated themselves as the neo-messiahs-of-the-Holocaust, it is so easy to smear any critic of Jewish power or Zionism. Why, he must be an 'anti-Semite', which must mean he's a 'nazi'. Or, Jews will even resort to outright violence by unleashing antifa and other crazed mobs. If you belong to antifa or some 'far left' gang, you can attack people and cause mayhem but be tolerated, forgiven, or sprung from jail with Jewish money and lawyers. Indeed, Jewish power operates much like a gangster operation. Was anyone arrested for the attack on Tucker Carlson's home? If a 'right-wing' gang did that Rachel Maddow's residence, we know there would be a major investigation and non-stop coverage. But when antifa gangs attacked Carlson's home, the response of Jewish supremacist mass media was ho-hum or even supportive. But then, Jews treat the Palestinians the same way. If an Arab in West Bank thinks he can get equal justice from IDF or Zionist court of law, forget about it. It's like Israel not only gets away with everything but is showered with praises and money, whereas Iran is vilified and punished even when it does everything right with the nuclear issue. It's the kind of 'justice' one must expect in a world governed by Jewish Supremacism.

So, is Jewish Supremacism secure for all time due to their control of Carrots, Sticks, and Sacraments? Money, Threats, and messiah-hood(via Holocaust as neo-religion)? Jews don't think so. Now, Jews have a lot of money, and they don't have to worry about buying off goy whores. But, wielding the Stick is risky. Even as it may intimidate people into silence and compliance, anyone who's suffered the Jewish Stick will hate Jews even more and want vengeance. Indeed, look at the attitude of Muslims in Europe. They've been beaten and humiliated by the Zionist stick in their home nations, and they are now raging with vengeful hatred against Jews. And even white people in Europe and America are getting sick of being insulted and destroyed by Jewish Power. They are beginning to feel, "Why should I support Israel and praise Jews when so many Jews are insulting us whites 24/7 and blaming us for everything?" Also, the internet has made it more difficult for Jews to totally own the Narrative. Voices on both the Left and Right are asserting themselves in strong criticism of Zionism and Jewish Corruption. Alternative Media have highlighted the injustice of anti-BDS laws and the hypocrisy of Jews who, though claiming to be 'progressives' on the side of underdogs, use their influence in both Political Parties to push through legislation that curtails free speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of economic choice. They are waking up to the fact that Jews are trying to force ALL OF US into supporting the ongoing Zionist imperialist land-grab and tyrannical apartheid policies in the West Bank(and IDF death squad mass murder in Gaza). Indeed, consider how the Jewish Media Monopoly in 2018 suppressed the 70th anniversary of Nakba Pogroms that destroyed Palestine once and for all in 1948. Jewish control of media ensured that most people in the West wouldn't even realize that they were complicit in aiding and abetting the destruction of the Palestinian people and culture. As far as Jews are concerned, 'white guilt' or 'Western guilt' must be manipulated and programmed to mainly serve Jews. This is why Justin Trudeau, the crybaby who apologizes and weeps about everything, never expressed remorse for Canada's role in Zionist tyranny over Palestinians and various Wars for Israel that destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East. Naturally, Jews still need Western animus against Arabs and Muslims IF they are to use the US and NATO to pound on any Middle East nation hated by Jews. Sadly, so much of globalist news is non-stop Jewish Hate Campaigns against Syria, Iran, Palestinians, Russia, Hungary, Poland, or whatever people or nation that happens to be on the Jewish globalist shit-list. Incredibly, Jews, the people who bitch most about 'hate speech', demand that all of us hate whatever they hate. Most of us have no reason to hate Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, and European nationalists(who only ask for border security and national sovereignty), but we must hate them because Jews hate them. This suggests that Jews see us as dogs than as humans. We are not to have agency in deciding who is friend or foe? We are not to decide for ourselves whom to love, whom to hate. No, Jews will decide for us, and our emotions are supposed to rubber-stamp the Jewish decision. Jews say they themselves are so lovable, so we better love them no matter what they do. If we don't obey, we are 'anti-Semites' or 'nazis'. And we better hate whomever Jews hate. Currently, Jews hate Russia, so we are supposed to hate Russia. Jews hate Iran, so we have to pile on Iran. Jews hate Syria that survived the regime change agenda of the Jewish-controlled Obama administration, and that means we better hate Syria too. And of course, Jews hate Palestinians, so we have to hate them too. Never mind Iran has no nukes. More sanctions on Iran. Never mind BDS is about justice for Palestinians. Shut it down and support Zionist takeover of West Bank. Love Jews and hate Palestinians. It's hard to think of another people so consumed with hatred and paranoia.

Anyway, because people are beginning to wake up to the true nature of Jewish Power, Jews now believe that even Holocaust-as-new-religion is no guarantee for permanent Jewish supremacy. As more and more people realize the discrepancy between the image of Holy Jews as wholly innocent victims of Evil Nazis AND globalist-supremacist Zionist-Jews who use their financial-media-military muscle to wreak so much havoc around the world, the trick of guilt-baiting goyim with Holocaust Sanctimony is wearing thin. Indeed, every time Jews invoke the Holocaust, a lot of people are more apt to be reminded of the distance between what Jews say and what Jews do. So, there's Madeline Albright writing a book about the dangers of fascism while ignoring the fact that she said killing 500,000 Iraqi kids was 'worth it'. There is Thomas Friedman bitching about Assad the tyrant while supporting the truly psychotic ISIS. There are Jews who call Putin the 'new hitler' but allying with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine. There are Jews telling ludicrous lies about Russian meddling in US elections when, in fact, the nation that meddles most in US politics is Israel, a tyrannical state that terrorizes Palestinians and works with evil Saudis to mess up Syria.

Anyway, because more and more people are waking up to the true nature and extent of Jewish Power -- that it is supremacist, imperialist, mendacious, murderous, hateful, and insane -- , Jews feel that the ONLY way to secure their supremacy is by Diversity that allows for divide-and-conquer and Mass Miscegenation. A united people can eventually come together and overthrow minority-elite-tyrants. This happened in India, Algeria, Vietnam, and many other Third World nations. Indians finally came together to throw out the British minority elites. Vietnamese eventually regained their country from French and American imperialists. The British eventually left Singapore as well. This is why it's important for Jewish supremacist power to increase Diversity among goyim and then pit goyim against one another. This is NOTHING NEW as imperial strategy. It's as old as power itself. And this is why Jews are pushing for mass-migration-invasion of non-whites into the West. If Jews really believe that replacement of national folks with foreign folks as 'New Nationals' is such a hot idea, why don't they push it for Israel as well? Jews have become the majority national folk population of Israel, and it seems Jews want to keep it that way. That's why the ONLY kind of immigration that Israel allows is Replenishment-Immigration, or More Jews for a Jewish Nation. More Jewish immigrants mean more Jews in Israel. Thus, the Jewish state is replenished with more Jews. Israel also has pro-natal policy for Jews. So, Jews like the idea of Israel as a Jewish majority state. Jews appreciate the fact that there is unity of Jewish elites and Jewish folks in Israel. They are one people, united and indivisible. But notice Jews push Replacement Immigration in the West. Jews say white nations should accept more non-whites and call them New Europeans. Jews say whites should welcome being replaced by non-whites. Why would Jewish globalists support only Replenishment Immigration in Israel but push Replacement Immigration for nations like France, UK, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and etc? Why are Jews so eager to turn US, Canada, and Australia into white-minority nations? It's all about securing Jewish supremacist power. By bringing non-whites to the West and then using PC to make non-whites hate and blame whites for everything, Jews are trying to create a permanent culture of dissension and discord among the goyim. Because whites are still the majority in the West, they are the main targets of the Jewish-controlled media, but the real trick is to turn everyone against one another. So, even as Jews urge Muslims in the West to join in the intersectional war against whites, Jews also use media and entertainment to spread anti-Muslim images and messages so that white people will support more Wars for Israel and anti-BDS measures. One bunch of Jews urge browns from Latin America to flood into America, and another bunch of Jews tell whites to focus mainly on the dangers of Illegal Immigration when, in fact, the main power behind the mass deluge of the West by the non-West is Jewish globalism.

Anyway, it is this mass-influx of non-whites into white nations that will lead to Convergence. While browns on their own in Latin America and blacks on their own in Africa may never reach levels of Convergence with the West, they will converge with the West by demographic takeover. Also, eventually, demographic takeover leads to race-mixing, and that too is a weapon of Jewish supremacism. Jews know that a racially mixed populace will be more confused and disoriented, thus unable to form a united front against the elite class. We can see this by comparing South Africa and Vietnam with Latin America. In South African and Vietnam, most of the native populations were unmixed. So, in South Africa, it was essentially black majority vs white minority, and in Vietnam, it was yellow majority vs white minority. This allowed blacks in SA and yellows in Vietnam to form huge national blocs to work against elite minority power. In contrast, the extensive Hispanic rape of the brown natives in Latin America led to the vast population of mestizos. Mestizos, being part white and part brown, have never been sure what they are or with which side to ally with. On the one hand, they felt resentment about the white elites who ruled Latin America. But, being part-white, they didn't identify with native browns either and, if anything, looked down on them as inferior. And so, even to this say, Latin American nations are still ruled by the white Latino elites of Conquistador background. Now, Jews have read a lot of books and know history. They've thought long and hard about Power and how to keep it or lose it. And being in supremacist mode in the West, Jews aim to secure permanent domination over goyim by pushing for massive Diversity and massive race-mixing. Jews look to Latin America as the model for all the West. Given the backwardness and problems of Latin America, one might say such prospect would be bad for US, Canada, and Europe. And most Jews would privately agree. But, Jews don't really care because their MAIN PRIORITY AND OBJECTIVE are securing supremacism for themselves, not doing what is good for the West as a whole. All said and done, Jewish power is virulently Judeo-centric. It's like many globalist corporations know that 'free trade' has had such a negative impact on so many people in their nations. So, why do they keep pushing it? Because their main priority is corporate profit above all. So, all said and done, they don't care about the wider repercussions of 'free trade'. What matters most to them is maximizing profits, increasing market-share, and fattening the portfolios of top shareholders. This is why capitalism, useful as it is, cannot be the defining core of any nation. And it suggests at why Jews make poor elites in the West. Because Jews feel so little connection with the goyim of any nation, they never ask, "What would be best for the national folks?" Jews ask that question ONLY IN ISRAEL, a Jewish state. In goy-majority nations, Jews see goyim as the Other and don't much care what happens to them. Jews really only care about themselves and their power, and from that premise, they think, "What can we do with goyim so that they can be made to support and serve Jewish supremacism?" Of course, Jews will say they're for Open Borders because they care for all of humanity and want them to enjoy the fruits of the modern West. But if Jews really care so much about non-whites and identify with them, why don't most Jews emigrate to non-white nations and use their talents to develop the economies of Africa, Latin America, and the like? Why did Jewish Immigration patterns always favor white, especially Anglo-Germanic, nations over non-white ones? It's because Jews know that whites make and maintain the best kind of societies. So, they want IN into the white world. If Jews have it so good in white nations, why don't they just get along with whites? It's because, being smarter, more ambitious, and more arrogant, it's never enough for Jews to get along with whites as equals. They must rise to the top and gain control over whites. This makes Jews nervous because they fear that whites may eventually grow sick and tired of Jewish power that grows increasingly abusive, corrupt, and tyrannical. So, what can be done about goyim when they turn against Jewish Power? In Palestine, Jews used massive pogroms to expel the majority of the Arab goy population that finally woke up to the Zionist agenda and resisted. But obviously Jews can't do that to whites in Europe and America. There are too few Jews and too many whites. So, to preempt the possibility of White Rage against Jewish supremacist corruption and abuses, Jews push for massive migration-invasion, the aim of which is to replace whites in Western nations. Once whites become minorities in the nations of their own making, Jews manipulate the various goyim to go at each other's throats. Just consider how Jewish Power exploited ethnic and sectarian diversity in Syria to make the various sides fight one another. Diversity easily succumbs to devious machinations. Jews use Diversity to further their own supremacism, not out of any real compassion for people of color. Consider Jewish Power Politics in the UK. For a long time, Jews in UK pushed for mass-immigration and used non-whites against whites. But when Jeremy Corbyn sided with Muslims and Palestinians against Zionist Power, Jews of all stripes shrieked with rage. But wasn't Corbyn merely siding with the underdog against the topdog? After all, Zionists oppress Palestinians in the West Bank. And in the UK, Jews are immensely rich and control media and banks, whereas most of the Muslim population ranges from poor to lower-middle class. So, didn't Corbyn do the right thing by sticking up for Palestinians against Zionists and for siding with Muslim underclass against the Jewish-globalist ultra-capitalist overclass? Apparently not. Jews shrieked in horror and hurled abuse at Corbyn as an 'anti-Semite'. So, as far as Jews are concerned, it's okay for Jews to side with People of Color against whites, but it's wrong for whites(even a lefty one like Corbyn) to side with People of Color against Jewish supremacists.

Now, how will this race-mixing happen? Will it be even-mixing or uneven-mixing? By even-mixing, I mean equal number of men of one race mixing with equal number of women of the other race. So, if there are 100 Green People and 100 Red people and if 50 Green men hump 50 Red women and if 50 Red men hump 50 Green women, that would be even-mixing. Uneven-mixing would be if 50 Green men humped 50 Red women but if only 10 Red men humped 10 Green women. It appears there will be Convergence by Interracialism, but it will be uneven-mixing among the various races. Why is this? Part of the reason is that the great majority of Migrant-invaders coming to Europe from Africa and Middle East are men. Naturally, these African and Muslim men will seek out white women to hump. Also, as Western PC has spread homo-and-trans-gender cult among white men who are warned of 'toxic masculinity'(that is never invoked to denounce stuff like Rap where black guys yammer endlessly about how they can kick butt and every 'ho' should 'suck my dic*', female Pop Idols who act like they got nothing on their minds but sex 24/7, and Jewish-operated Porn Industry), so many white guys have been turned into wussy castrated 'soyboys'. Due to emasculation of white men, naturally more white women in Europe will go with more masculine men from Africa and the Middle East. But there is another reason why there will be uneven-mixing between whites and blacks, with mostly black men humping white women. Despite all the PC tripe about 'race being a social construct' and 'all races being equal', the very message sent by Mass Media and Entertainment is that black men are superior in manhood to white men. People get message from what is shown as by what is said. So, if people are shown a big cake and a small cake and told that both cakes are of the same size, they will HEAR that the cakes are the same size but SEE that they are of different sizes. It's the Ear-Eye Dissonance. PC sermons TELL us that All Races Are Equal, but Sports and Pop Culture SHOW us that races are different. Sports show us that blacks are better than other races in running, jumping, and punching. Pop Music shows us that blacks can sing louder and shake their bodies faster. And one of the running tropes of Western Culture from youth culture to erotica is that black men have bigger dongs and black women are butt-crazy. And even though the media and entertainment are controlled by globo-liberals who TELL us of racial equality, all they actually SHOW us in sports and entertainment is that black men are more macho than white men and that black women are more lascivious than women of other races. We hear one thing through our ears but see something else. So, the dominant image of manhood and male prowess in BBC and Hollywood favors black men over white men. And of course, sports show that races are not equal in athleticism. Even European heroes like Achilles and Lancelot are now presented as blacks in European TV on the premise that black men are the real men while while white men, at least when stacked against black men, are a bunch of sorry losers and wussies. Look at our sports and pop culture, and the message is clear based on what is SHOWN. Black men are the real men, and white men should accept their defeat as a bunch of dorks. So, what is the effect of this message on the white race in Europe? It means white women should abandon white boy losers and go with black men, the real men. And since white guys are a bunch of saps compared to black men, they should gracefully accept their inferiority and worship the superior black men. This trope has become so widespread that a Daily Beast article says that sexual 'cuckolding' is now the number one fetish of white liberal intellectual men.

On the one hand, white liberal men are supposed to believe that 'race is just a social construct' and 'all races are equal', but then, why do they feel a need to have black men hump their white wives or girlfriends? And why do white women want to take part in this? It's because they are turned on by the taboo of racial differences. PC indoctrinated them to believe that RACE isn't real and that all races are equal. And they will say that over and over in polite discourse. But in terms of what they SEE as opposed to HEAR & SAY, they can't help but notice that there are racial differences, and that black men are tougher and have bigger dongs than white men. And this taboo element(that disproves PC dogma) turns them on.
And, this is why Convergence in Europe will mostly be black guys conquering white wombs to produce mulatto babies and white guys accepting their own racial-sexual defeat as happy 'cucks'. Indeed, Hollywood and Western Media(and advertising) promote the black male and white female pairing as the New Ideal. But why black male and white female than white male and black female? It's because of the general consensus, by images if not by words, that black men are superior to white men and therefore deserve white women as the ultimate sexual trophy. So, all this interracial stuff is about uneven-mixing than even-mixing. It's about the black male dominance over white males, and black men taking many more white women than white men taking black women. And statistics prove this in Europe, America, and Latin America. In the past, it was usually white men who humped black women because white man had the whip and gun. But all things being equal, black guys can easily beat up white guys, and this means that white women want to 'go black' because women, especially in our over-sexualized age, like macho winners over 'nice guy' losers. And so, that is how the Convergence will happen in the West. Because most European elites no longer represent and connect with their own national folk and instead serve the Jewish globalists, they will condemn nationalism and push for replacement-immigration, mostly from Black Africa where birthrate is 5 or 6 children per woman. Black African population is exploding, and these blacks now have smartphones and TV. And they see from the Western Media that white men are wussy cucks and white women are slutty skanks,and that both white boys and girls worship black rappers, black athletes, black leaders, black orators, black everything. Furthermore, European leaders like Merkel, Macron, and May say there is no such thing as 'distinctly European'. They say Europe must be remade and reinvented by mass immigration and migration of literally hundreds of millions of Arabs and mostly black Africans. Also, because blacks dominate Pop music and sports, white boys and girls in the West worship blackness as 'cool' and 'badass', the stuff of demigod awesomeness. By Macron's choice of photo-ops with half-naked blacks, his image-message or imessage to Frenchmen seems to be that Frenchmen must be good cuckoisie and welcome the Africanization of France because blacks are so awesome in sports and singing, and because French women, once going black, will never go back. And that is also the 'imessage' of BBC where, so often, black men are placed in roles symbolizing manhood and toughness while white men are relegated to roles of saps, wussies, and dorks.

Another reason why Convergence will happen is due to feminism, elitism, and individualism in the West. Feminism means lots of white women will take good jobs from men. This means fewer white men will have the means to get married and have kids. Elitism has made too many white people value only good jobs and look down on Labor. This is a bigger problem in East Asia but a problem in Germany and such nations as well. Elitism means too many white people will get married and have kids ONLY IF they can be sure to raise 'successful' kids. They don't want to have 'loser' kids with working class jobs, and that means lower birthrate. And that means the West has to import labor from other places. Germany, with the lowest birthrate in Europe, has to rely on non-Germans, so far mostly from Eastern Europe. This means that Slavs and other Europeans will converge with Germans. But as all of Europe has low birthrates, Germany will have to take in non-white immigrants from further away. Already, Germany has lots of Turks but also close to a million black Africans, and many more will be coming. Also, Germans think that promoting race-mixing with blacks and turning Germany into another Morocco will absolve them of guilt of Nazism. Another reason for cratering birthrates is individualism. As most Western people prioritize short-term happiness above all else, they live for fun, fun, fun and don't think of the future and duty to the past. So, by the time white women reach mid 30s, they are often without marriage and children because they spent most of their youth whoring around. Also, elitism undermines marriage and childbearing. As so many people grew up with glamorous images of Pop Culture, every woman wants to meet Mr. Perfect who are actually few and far between. And this means European populations will crater, and the aging white population will figure that SOME OTHER PEOPLE should inherit the West. Since white people are not producing enough kids to inherit the West, it is to be handed to Africans and Muslims who will gladly take it since people like to get stuff for free. And the dwindling number of whites will mate and genetically converge with Africans and Arabs, with most of it being black men taking white women while white men are reduced to wussy beta-male-ism. Europe will resemble North Africa or even sub-Saharan African in 70 to 100 yrs.

Now, we know Convergence is happening between the US and Latin America. As Jews control the US, they use all sorts of legal, financial, media, and political means to prevent restoration of border security and drastic decrease in Replacement Immigration. So, already, the entire SW territories are being Mexicanized. It's 'reconquista' by demography. Even something so basic as border walls to keep out illegals is near-impossible in the US because Jews and their goy puppets have most of the control. Jews regard white Americans like they regard Palestinians: A people to be conquered, humiliated, and replaced. And of course, non-white immigrants side with Jews because they prefer to come and settle in white or white-made nations than in their own nations that are poorer, more corrupt, and dirtier. Because so many non-whites have been unable to transform their own nations up to Western levels, their ONLY chance of enjoying Western-style modernity is by running from their own people, land, & culture and starting over in white or white-made nations. They feel that they must go to and be with whites to enjoy Western standards of living. Deep down inside, they prefer whiteness over their own kind, which is why they want to drop everything and leave their own people/culture behind and start all over in the West and raise their kids to be 'Americans' or 'New Europeans'. They may bitch about how 'racist' whites won't welcome or accept them in sufficient numbers, but the fact is they themselves prefer to live with whites in white nations than stick around with their own peoples and cultures. In their preference for whiteness over their own kind, they are closet-white-supremacists in some twisted way. We know black African men prefer to leave Africa and go live in Europe and have sex with white women. And Asian women prefer to leave Asia and go live in the West and have kids with white men. Yellow people are obsessed with whiteness and want to move to white nations, marry whites, look white, and have white-looking kids. The high rates of out-marriage among yellow women in the West points to Convergence. The white-yellow mixing, like black-white mixing, is of the uneven-mixing kind. It is generally about white men taking yellow women as the general impression is that white men are more manly than yellow men. There used to be something like a Japanese-American community in the US, but it barely exists anymore because so many Japanese-American women mixed with white men while many Japanese-American men died childless. So, that is another kind of Convergence.

Now, what about East Asia itself? Perhaps, because China is still ruled by a patriotic nationalist elite, something can be done to bolster Chinese identity and culture. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are all puppets of the US, and their elites are little more than lapdogs of Western elites who, in turn, are lapdogs of Jewish supremacist elites. So, globo-homo stuff has spread like wildfire in East Asia to turn the men into a bunch of super-wussies and 'herbivores'. Also, globo-culture via the internet has turned yellow women onto ever stronger doses of Western Pop Culture that, of late, has pretty much come down to black guys yapping 'suck my dic*' and white girls with jungle fever imitating black 'biatches' who 'twerk' all night long. Needless to say, Media and Entertainment in the West are mostly owned and controlled by Jews.

In terms of elitism, individualism, and feminism, the East has all the social malaise of the West. Furthermore, just as globalism has emasculated white men vis-a-vis black men, it emasculates yellow men vis-a-vis white and black men as both whites and blacks are bigger than yellows. This means more yellow men will lose heart and withdraw into their own spaces, and it will mean more dissatisfied yellow women. And with cratering birthrates(more severe than in the West), the East will have to rely on foreign labor from lower-IQ nations. That means more Japanese women will have kids with manlier foreign men while more Japanese men die alone. And it will mean Japan will eventually be demographically colonized by lower-IQ people from other Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations. And this pattern will likely be followed by Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. It all spells Convergence.

Won't this kind of Convergence lead to degradation of civilization and decline of the Modern World? What will happen to Europe teeming with 100s of millions of black Africans and Muslims? It will likely be hell. And what will happen to Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan with plummeting populations and loss of manhood and virility to produce new generations? It will mean the native populations will grow old and die out while more and more foreigners come to take over and gain more power. In 100 yrs, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan will more likely resemble Philippines or Indonesia. And it spells Convergence.

So, Convergence will likely happen but by mass-migration and mass-miscegenation than by the Third World finally figuring out how to run things to catch up to the First World. The fact is the First World, in West and East, learned to use their minds and talent to create wealth and build lots of things, but they lost the human element, a sense of heritage, and feeling for folk and kin. They just became atomized individuals and consumers of electronic blips and blaps that offer them entertainment but no deeper meaning. People who put 'materiality' before 'organicity' will eventually die out. The West and East may have an edge in IQ and ingenuity, but they created inorganic pleasure-inducing gadgets that took the place of organic life. Imagine someone invents the perfect dildo vibrator that pleasures women in the most intense way. Suppose women prefer it over real penises that produce life. There will be pleasure but no life, and that will eventually spell doom. The current West and East are just high-tech dildos that feel good but produce nothing of meaning and purpose. That is why the West and East will be overtaken demographically by the Third World that, for all its stinking problems, hasn't forgot how to produce life. That is how convergence will happen.

Thursday, January 3, 2019

A Leftist Defense of Family Culture and Home Values of Heart and Hearth — Why both Leftism and Rightism are Essential to Neo-Fascist National Humanism — Need for Temporal Socialist Consciousness

Even in the post-macro-ideological globo-homo 21st century, we have so many people discussing power and politics in terms of Left vs Right. So, it’s not uncommon on those on the Right to denounce the globo-homo agenda as ‘leftist’ and associate it with communism or ‘Cultural Marxism’. Because of the rise of movements centered around POC(People of Color) Identity Politics, New Feminism, and Homomania, many on the Right decry that the Left is winning and has always been winning, whereas the timid Right always follows in the Leftist footsteps. But has the Left been winning? Or has the elements labeled as ‘leftist’ been winning? While labels are important, they are not the content of the thing. For example, suppose bottles labeled ‘milk’ decline in market value and are on the verge of being dropped from store shelves. Suppose the bottles continue to be labeled ‘milk’ but come with beer than real milk. Suppose they begin to sell in huge numbers. Because of the labels on the bottles, should we say 'milk' is the hottest item even though the content is really beer? Consider today’s China. It’s still ruled by the Communist Party, but is China’s economy really communist? Isn’t it closer to capitalism and market economics? Or consider the EU that calls itself a union of Liberal Democracies. Are European nations really liberal and democratic? Or are they essentially globo-homo autocracies managed by craven cuck-collaborators who serve globo-homo Jewish Masters of the World? While labels should ideally identify products with accuracy, it’s often the case that something goes by the name of something else. So, just as so much that is called ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’ isn’t any such, much that is called ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ isn’t any such either.
Most of today’s so-called Liberals don’t care about individualism, liberty, and freedom of conscience, the hallmarks of Classical Liberalism. And today’s so-called Leftists are far more likely to rhapsodize over narcissistic elite homos sponsored by capitalist oligarchs than about workers or the downtrodden of society. Sure, these ‘leftist’ elites pretend to care about poor Third World masses clamoring to enter the First World, but the only real value of immigrant/migrant hordes to the proggy elites is their utility as helot-scab-workforce or mercenary voters for the Sorosian Agenda. Also, so much of today’s ‘leftism’ and ‘liberalism’ are ultimately puppet-strings pulled to serve what is essentially Jewish Rightism of the Supremacist Kind. (There is rightist-nationalism and rightist-imperialism. Rightist-nationalism says each people deserve national autonomy and sovereignty, whereas rightist-imperialism says that a superior people should rule over other peoples. Jewish globalists are rightist-imperialists.) After all, there is hardly any moral logic or consistency to the supposed Jewish commitment to Liberalism and Leftism. Jews denounce group identity among white goyim and insist that white people must either be atomized individuals(along libertarian lines) or deracinated ideologues(along universalist-leftist lines), but the same rule doesn’t apply to Jews and their allies. So, while Jews tell whites to be either lonely individuals or universal ideologues, they themselves remind each other to be proudly Jewish, support Israel as a Jewish State, and manipulate World Events to be favorable to Jewish power and hegemony. And even though so-called Jewish Liberals deny right-of-identity to whites, they encourage black pride-of-identity because black complaints and claims are useful in paralyzing white pride and confidence. And while Jews denounce Russian nationalism, they support Ukrainian nationalism against Russia. Of course, two-faced weasel-Jews often play two sets of cards at once. So, while Jews promote Ukrainian and Polish nationalism AGAINST Russia, they pull every dirty trick in the book to weaken Ukrainian and Polish nationalism against the globo-agenda of Homomania(proxy weapon of Jews) and Afro-Islamic Migration-Invasion. So, we need to be more careful when we use labels. What is often called ‘leftist’ isn’t really. What is often called ‘rightist’ may not be so. Cuckservatives are certainly not true conservatives. How can they conserve anything of their race, culture, and heritage when their modus operandi is ‘suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos’? The core Western value according to Conservatism Inc. is to conserve the very forces that are rapidly replacing the natives(whites) with non-whites. According to this School of Bought Thought(especially in America), the essence of Conservatism is the preservation of ideas and values(favored by transnational elites and Jewish supremacists) than tangibles like blood and soil. Following this logic, it doesn’t matter if Europe becomes all black, yellow, and brown. As along as they support low-taxes and ‘free trade’, Conservatism will have triumphed. (Never mind that Western Values cannot survive for long without the white race because other groups have different racial personalities and abilities. It’s like blackness cannot survive without blacks. If black Africa were replaced entirely with Chinese and Japanese, the result would be, despite all the efforts by yellows to be the 'new black', they wouldn’t be able to maintain authentic blackness because the natural inclination of yellows simply isn’t black. This is also why ‘whiggers’ aren’t very convincing. While blacks can draw inspiration from whites and vice versa — and even though some individual blacks can be convincingly white and some whites can be convincingly black — , the collective personality of blacks don’t make for maintenance of Western Civilization, just like collective personality of whites cannot sustain blackness in a world without blacks.) Another bogus aspect of Conservatism Inc. is its sheer craven hypocrisy when it comes to Jews. So, Cuckservatives like David French and Paul Ryan will denounce in the harshest terms any sign of white identity or interest but then go out on a limb to lionize Jewish consciousness and pride. According to their ‘moral’ logic, Hungary and Poland are oh-so-wrong to say NO to mass-migration-invasion, BUT Israel is morally justified in using ruthless firepower to gun down Palestinians who want to return to their homeland. One wonders if these people are blind hypocrites or just craven opportunists naturally prone to suck up to any dominant Power. Paul Ryan tells the 97% of him that is white to shut the hell up but ecstatically celebrates the 3% of him that is Jewish. Such is hardly the basis of true conservatism. By its very nature, Rightism must favor the tangible like home, family, race, land, and nation. In contrast, Leftism is more about ideals borne of intellectualism. If there is a tomato, rightism’s main focus would be to preserve the tomato itself as a tomato. In contrast, leftism is prone to come up with ideas as to what can be done with the tomato. So, both rightism and leftism are necessary. We need to be mindful of what are real & tangible and seek to preserve them. And yet, we aren’t merely animals but creative beings with the power of reason and imagination, and so, it is our nature to come up with ideas that may make better use of the materials we have. There is validity in the rightist will to preserve the tomato and the leftist desire to make tomato sauce out of it. The problem with today’s so-called ‘leftism’ is it believes that if the tomato is called a carrot, it is a ‘carrot’. There are good ways to use tomatoes and bad ways to use tomatoes. Rightism insists on preserving true tomato-ness whereas leftism seeks the broaden the use of tomato-ness. With ONLY RIGHTISM, the tomato would be preserved but would only be a tomato. With ONLY LEFTISM, the tomato might be used for atrocious radical experimentation such as ‘tomato ice cream’, ‘tomato as baseball'.
Another difference between rightism and leftism is the former tends to be eternalist whereas the latter tends to be universalist. Rightism believes that certain truths are so profound and/or sacred that they are relevant and applicable to all times: The truth is just as legitimate today as it was 2,000 yrs ago. In contrast, leftism believes that certain truths are so essential and necessary that ALL OF HUMANITY must be made to share it, even if by force. Judaism was essentially rightist in that it didn’t care to share its ideas and values with all the world but it reminded every generation of Jews that the Laws of Moses must be preserved and obeyed by Jews for all eternity. In contrast, Christianity is both leftist and rightist. Its universalism hopes for all of humanity to share in the same faith as revealed by Jesus Christ. It was a decisive & revolutionary break from Judaism. And yet, Christianity presents itself as the New Covenant for all mankind til the end of time. So, Jesus didn’t just start something new but finalized it as well. He revealed the ultimate truth, and the mission of mankind is to pass down this truth to all future generations; this Truth cannot be altered by whims of fashion. Muhammad too was leftist and rightist, a revolutionary of his time who also claimed to be the Final Prophet who laid down the definitive truth for all peoples and all of time.
But the modern conception of ‘permanent revolution’ rejects eternalism while clinging to universalism. And this has been a source of profound contradictions in Modern Leftism. If it were purely a vanguard movement for a small cult, it could keep evolving and changing at rapid pace regardless of the larger humanity. It could work as edgy elitism. But radical elitism + radical universalism makes synchronicity of the two modes difficult, often impossible.
Now, an eternalist idea can serve as the basis of universalism. While the idea began with a small band of people and took time to spread to the larger humanity, there would be unity and consensus of theme, meaning, and destiny between the creators and the converts. After all, eternalism means unchanging(or gradually evolving) wisdom over time. So, even if many or most people came to the idea much later, they are bound to believe in the same tenets as conceived by the original finders of the Truth. Eternalism and universalism can thus support one another. But what happens when a creed or ideology is universalist but anti-eternalist? It means that the core-vanguard keeps reprogramming the code as the momentary truth. The result is a web of contradictions. After all, once a certain Truth has been ‘universalized’ and spread among the larger humanity, the core vanguard goes about revealing and insisting upon a 'new truth'. Thus, it's difficult to maintain meaningful unity between the creators and converts. By the time the masses have embraced the latest Truth, the command tower says, "Never mind the previous directive, here’s the new one." So, the problem of ‘intersectionality’ isn’t merely a matter of different groups failing to see eye-to-eye but a matter of time-lag between PC command central and the larger populace. So, the very command central that was once for defending all speech as free speech is now for banning anti-globalist speech as ‘hate speech’. The very command central that was once for Female Identity(of Sisterhood) now says men are ‘women’ too if they say so. Of course, as the command central of PC is really controlled by Jews who have near-monopoly over media, academia, finance, law firms & courts, and high-tech, the core motivations behind alternations of Official Dogma is really predicated on the algorithm of "Is it good for the Jews?"

National Humanist Neo-Fascism insists on correct use of terminology, and it believes that most of what goes by the label of ‘leftist’ isn’t leftist and often anti-leftist, by which I mean anti-real-leftist. And even supposedly leftist communist/anarchist groups like Antifa either have been infiltrated by Jewish Zionists or are protected by globo-homo capitalist oligarchs only to be used as cudgel against White Liberationists. Just like German Conservatives(who controlled much of the industry and institutions during the Weimar Republic) provided favorable protection to Nazi street-fighters to be used against communists and other radicals, super-wealthy Jewish oligarchs offer special protection to Antifa gangs because there is nothing that Jews fear more than White Liberation and Emancipation. (When white people call for liberation from Jewish supremadcism, Antifa is encouraged to attack them. And when white people fight back against antifa scum, Jewish power and its cuck-collaborators go easy on Antifa thugs while throwing the book at the white defenders who merely pushed back against Antifa janissaries or Antifanissaries of the Jews.) The key difference between Weimar Germany and 21st century America is that while the National Socialists had a chance of coming to power, no such possibility exists for Antifa communists and such ilk. They are so lacking in mass support that their only utility is as violent street-goons for the Jewish Capitalist Elites. If there really were a powerful Antifa-led communist movement in the US that could topple capitalism and strip the oligarchs of their wealth, Jews would think twice about fanning the flames of Antifa. As far as Jews are concerned, there is absolutely no chance of communist victory in the US, whereas there is a real possibility of mass white civil and racial disobedience to the Jewish globo-homo elites. White Emancipation from Jewish supremacism is a possibility, especially as vile and vicious Jewish globalists are now coming out of the closet in record numbers, spitting in the face of whites, and telling them that they must be replaced by People-of-Color as the Diversity Scab Army of the Jews. (Until now, most white rightists have defended Jews against signs of 'antisemitism' among the POC, but if Jews go on loudly proclaiming that they support massive immigration-invasion by POC precisely to use against whites-as-the-scapegoat-for-all-the-wrongs-in-the-world, then more white rightists will turn against Jews-as-the-main-enemy. Also, if white power comes to be permanently crushed in the US, the only recourse left for white rightists would be to side with POC against Jews who hog the most power and privilege. It would be sweet revenge, giving the Jews a taste of their own medicine. The world is witnessing that very trend in the UK where white pride has been so broken that the only game left for most 'pozzed' whites is to side with POC against the Zionist oligarchs who seem to hog the most wealth and influence. Consider the rise of Jeremy Corbyn's standing not only among POC and PC crowd but among 'anti-Semites' who, feeling they've lost their nation and culture, now opt for the Samson Option and seek to bring down Jews along with the whites.) Besides, even though Antifa brandishes communist labels and symbolism, it’s more about globo-homo consumerist-decadence-and-degeneracy than about spartan economic-based commitment to revolution. Your average antifa member is likely to be a homo, tranny, druggie, incel, punk/grunge fan, body-piercing/tattoo freak, or a drunken hooligan than a sober and well-read soldier of the Revolution(like Strelnikov in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO).

And because Antifa freaks are either too stupid or cowardly to go up against the real power, they are happy to bark and bite at ‘nazis’, which may include Milo Yiannapolis and Gavin McInnes(and even Jordan Peterson). There was some truth to B.F. Skinner’s experiment with conditioning. Consider how, over time, the Power has mastered the reward-and-punishment technique to direct Antifa ire at its favorite targets. Initially, a bunch of Antifa types were attacking globo-capitalists in the 1990s. But Antifa extremists who took part in such mayhem were more likely to be arrested and charged. But when Antifa lunatics attacked the Alt Right or White Liberationists, they were not only treated with kid gloves but showered with praise. Antifa may be scum but they are nevertheless part of the human species, therefore prone to be shaped by social conditioning. Organisms tend to recoil from actions that are punished and repeat actions that are rewarded. Antifa are like dogs or children conditioned by Jewish Power to go easy on Wall Street and hard on ‘nazis’. Jews are indeed very clever.

Anyway, I will now try to use a proper and useful definition of the Left, and then explain why this truer understanding of the nobler aspects of Leftism supports the Family and the essential values associated with it. True Leftism must dwell on the kind of people-who-have-less. Less wealth, less privilege, less power, less protection. These people could be in the multitudes or could be in the minority. For most of human history, the great masses were without power that was concentrated in the hands of the monarchs, noblemen, and the clergy. Under imperialist rule, the foreign elite minority had power over the native majority. The British imperialist elite had power over the vast hordes of natives in India. And until the end of Apartheid in South Africa, the white minority had power over the black majority. In some ways, all societies are minority-ruled in one way or another. Even in a totally homogeneous society, the ruling elites constitute a tiny upper class whereas the ruled masses belong to the majority-classes(middle-class to underclass) that have far less. So, even a homogeneous society is ruled by a tiny upper-crust class over the much larger lower classes with less privilege and influence, and this is true even if the society happens to be a democracy/republic. After all, the masses get to vote only every four or five years. Also, even the candidates they vote for tend to be lackeys vetted and paid for by the upper elites who control most of the wealth and power.
In a diverse society, the inequalities can seem starker. Take Latin American nations, most of which have white minorities that, nevertheless, happen to occupy the uppermost positions in society in terms of political, economic, and cultural power. Thus, such nations are not only ruled by the minority-class but the minority-race... as opposed to a nation like Japan or Poland that is ruled by a minority-class but one that happens to be of the same ethnicity as the great majority: Polish elites ruling Polish masses, Japanese elites ruling Japanese masses.
There are many cases around the world of minority groups ruling over the majority masses. Most of Latin America is an obvious example. (Minority-Aryan-ruled India was a precursor to the state of affairs in Latin America.) In such cases, the minority elites could be the invasive folks or the native folks, depending on the historical trajectory. In Latin America, the white ruling elites are the invasive race over the brown native majority. But if the native ruling elites welcome large scale migration of foreigners for whatever reason(usually for labor to cut costs or to replace a shrinking native population that has lost the will to reproduce), the result will be a society where native elites rule over the majority of foreign origin, that is until the day arrives when the majority-of-foreign-origin decide to take power from the native elites. It’s possible that such will be the future of France, UK, Sweden, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. As the native majority folks are no longer reproducing much and/or won’t take on 'dirty' jobs considered to be lowly, they are filling up with foreigners who will work for any pay(or just come to take welfare). Unless trends change, all the nations mentioned above will end up with native minority rulers over majority foreign masses. Such future has already come to fruition in California. California came into prominence with white settlement and development. So, within the framework of American History, one could say the white folks have been the native population of the Golden State. It was with their effort that California really took shape as a recognizable and integral part of the United States. And this glorious California was solidly white majority, patriotic, and conservative. But the native whites began to take things too easy. They put down rifles and took up surf boards. And they didn’t want to do menial jobs like the Okies had done. Mexicans seemed to provide cheap labor. And white birthrates began to drop as white women turned to feminism, careerism, and contraceptives, while the men became more infantile and refused to grow up. And rise of PC instilled white natives with ridiculous radical ideas and ‘white guilt’. California also began to go bad with decadent culture centered around Hollywood in L.A. and Hippie-Homo excesses of the Bay Area. Whites lost pride of place and meaning while non-whites kept pouring in from South of the Border and across the Pacific. So, what is the state of California today? It is still mostly white-run at the top but over a non-white majority. Granted, one could argue that one key reason why white elites got so stupid and pushed crazy policies was because they were under the thumb of an even more powerful Jewish minority elite. Then, California today is ruled by the Jewish minority(with homo minority) that controls the white elite minority that rules over the non-white majority. These are cases of minority having power over the majority, but there are also cases of majority having power over minorities. In today’s South Africa, the black majority has power over the white minority. In Israel, the Jewish majority has power over the Palestinian minority. Russian majority has power over the Chechen minority. In some cases, it’s more complicated as the majority has more political power whereas the minority has more economic power. Jews are a small minority in Russia and lack the dominant position over the majority, but they still have great power due to their wealth and connections. The Chinese minorities in Southeast Asian nations are under majority political power but have considerable economic pull, in some cases owning or controlling the bulk of the economy.

At any rate, for our intents and purposes, what is relevant is how leftism figures into any of this. I would argue that leftism sympathizes with and lends support to whichever side that happens to have less power, and this isn’t always easy to discern. People with less power could be the minority or the majority.

The underlying difference between libertarianism and neo-fascism(of the National Humanist School especially) owes to their difference in their conception of individuals in a society. Libertarianism imagines every individual to be an upright stick, ideally free and independent of other sticks that are also upright and standing on their own. This view of humanity has a certain validity, but humans, being social animals like dogs and dolphins, can’t be free agents all the time. Now, to be fair to libertarianism, it isn’t for anarcho-chaos or barbarism where anything goes. Libertarians do believe in upkeep of social order that makes Rule of Law and Property Rights possible. They believe that, within the framework of basic guarantees of law and justice, people should be free individuals who pursue their idea of happiness, which could be more money, more sex, more drugs, more pleasure, or more whatever.
In contrast, Neo-Fascism views people as sticks that lean on each other. The First Fascism of Mussolini had the bound-bundle as its symbol, one that implied the submission of the individual to the order of ‘totalitarianism’(though, within the Italian context, it meant something other than what it came to mean in the Orwellian-Stalinist state; Mussolini meant interconnectedness of all the forces in society, not total ownership and control of everything by the state). Neo-Fascism counters the radical rejection of individuality in First Fascism or Fascism I. It respects individuality and individual rights but differs from libertarianism in that it understands humans-as-social-organisms who naturally find the most meaning and purpose in relation to others. People are innately interdependent with others in ways that go beyond freedom, materialism, and happiness(always a fleeting sensation outside the context of family and community). ‘Dependence’ in the Neo-Fascist sense doesn’t mean what it has come to mean in Liberal Democracies, i.e. Dependence, even addiction, to the Welfare State, the benefits and programs of which often have degenerative effects of fostering laziness and parasitism. Rather, Neo-Fascist conception of Dependence means something mutual, a sense of give-and-take. We lean on others, but others lean on us. This is as much a matter of culture(or national character) as well as of ideology. For example, ideology is never enough to shape the future of a society. The problem with Fascist Italy was that the Italian National Character tended to be shamelessly parasitic, craven, and deceitful. The reason why Social-Democracy and National Socialism worked better in Northern Europe owed much to cultural issues of character. So, whether Germanic or Scandinavia folks were under right-wing autocracy or social-democracy, their societies tended to be more trusting, cohesive, conscientious, and mutually considerate. In contrast, despite Mussolini’s insistence on a new dawn of Italian Consciousness, too many Italians remained as chronic liars, cheaters, complainers, or back-stabbers. Still, a properly instituted ideology can change the national character of a people over time. After all, Germanic folks were once rowdy barbarians who were hardly known for a culture of conscience or mutual consideration. Granted, it’s difficult to change the national character when the racial character(rooted in biology than culture) goes against the grain of the desired ideology. Gypsies, for example, evolved over many centuries as thieves, crooks, and leeches. So, the kind of Gypsies who were most adept at parasitism stole the hearts of the Gypsy community and had the most kids with the most women. Thus, the gypsy-thief-gene got spread far and wide among the people called the Roma. So, it’s more difficult to reform and reshape the mindsets and attitudes of a people like the Gypsy. (The problem with Jews is they are like higher-IQ Gypsies. Sadly, the once-noble Greeks have become like a bunch of mid-IQ Gypsies.) As for Negroes, their racial character is so naturally jivey and oogity-boogity that it is near-impossible to properly civilize and lead them to higher values and principles. Blacks only understand brute power, which is why whites cannot win with blacks. It's a case of damned if whites do, damned if whites don't. In order for whites to make blacks respect civilization, whites must use ruthless violence to teach blacks a lesson, like with the whip under slavery. But whites will compromise and sully their moral standing if they resort to such violence. But then, if whites abandon such ruthless means and expect blacks to embrace civilizational norms out of their own volition, that too is a losing game because the natural propensity among blacks in a state of freedom is to go oogity-boogity and go ‘burn, baby, burn’. So, the ONLY way whites can maintain a valid moral order is by securing separateness from blacks. Whites co-existing with large number of blacks can keep civilizational norms ONLY by suppressing blacks with ruthless violence. But such use of violence will demoralize whites and fill them with guilt, not least because white racial character tends to be 'philosophical', which fosters moral reasoning. Then, whites will try to make amends by being nice to blacks and enforcing equality(and even special set-asides) under the law. But then, things will get worse because of the BAMMAMA — blacks are more muscular and more aggressive — Factor. Blacks will run wild with freedom and soon realize that they can whup the weaker and wussy-ass whitey. So, even though whites rejected racial-repression-and-brutality, the result will be even more brutality, what with wild and rowdy blacks rampaging around with their freedom(of apes and savages).
Indeed, in some ways, black neo-savagery in the West is worse than primitive savagery and law of the jungle. At least, primitive savagery is met with primitive savagery. Primitives act wild and aggressive toward outsiders and enemies, but their savagery is counter-balanced by other primitives. They sting but also feel the sting. It’s the same with animals. Animals act viciously, but no animal is immune to the universal viciousness of nature. So, all animals are taught the cold hard lessons of life. In contrast, black neo-savages in the West are protected by the law. So, when they act savagely, they are no longer summarily captured and lynched but provided with lawyers and all sorts of rights. And this is made even worse because the Cult of White Guilt and White Fever(in admiration of Negro as master of song, strong, and dong) has turned blacks into sacred idols for so many whites who now want to, at once, beg forgiveness and beg to suck the black dic*. Consider CucKen Burns the documentarian. It’s the Mandela/Mandingo Complex. So, even as blacks act more savagely and out-of-control(as Colin Flaherty has tirelessly documented over the years), the Western Way is to protect, coddle, flatter, and apologize for blacks... and this may soon become a bigger problem in Europe than in the US because so many millions of black Africans are now invading the Northern Continent in endless migratory waves. While savage blacks come to Europe to plunder and rape, so many whites(from elites to masses) are under the spell of blacks as holy saints, cool & badass mofos, or hapless children in need of help. Figures like MLK and Mandela have served as icons of the Magic Negro Cult. Black success in sports, pop music, and sexual culture had led to White Fever(Jungle Fever for white women, Cuck Flu for white men). And all those BBC news reports about poor blacks in Africa have made whites see black Africans as an eternal childlike race that needs to be saved from itself by beneficent whites. It’s all very confused and contradictory. In some ways, blacks are regarded as poor, weak, and incompetent, therefore utterly in need of white compassion, which is flattering to white do-gooders who see themselves as ‘saving the world’. Especially given that Western Civilization was, to a large measure, founded on Christian precepts, many white folks crave a sense of moral justification by trying to save the world. In the past, as their own nations were plagued with poverty, disease, and backwardness, they didn’t need to look to the rest of the world to feel justified with do-gooderism. There were enough problems within Sweden or Norway to satisfy the righteous urges of the reformers. But then, the basic problems were overcome in those nations with growing economies and state programs. This was a great achievement but also a moral-emotional dead-end. It robbed them of a sense of struggle, meaning, and purpose. As cursed as Sisyphus seems to be in his futile attempts to roll up a boulder that always rolls back down, in some ways he is fortunate because he will forever be occupied with some great feat. After all, what would he be left with if he were to succeed in rolling the boulder all the way to the top? Imagine if you could satiate your hunger and thirst once and for all with your latest meal. The problem of hunger and thirst will have been solved, and you will never feel hungry and thirsty again. But does anyone want to live without eating and drinking anymore? Even as we eat and drink to neutralize pangs of hunger and thirst, don’t we look forward to the time when we will be hungry and thirsty again? When the struggle is no longer necessary, life begins to feel empty. Then, it's not surprising that 'too much' peace, affluence, and trust in Northern Nations led to apathy, boredom, and hunger for meaning. And so, Sweden now sees itself as a moral superpower trying to roll the African boulder up the hill. Even though all evidence points to the futility of this project, it is that very sense of insurmountable struggle that is appealing to Swedes and like-minded people. It is like an Eternal Struggle that forever bestows meaning to the Good People engaged in Saving-the-World. So, even as one side of whiteness sees blacks as godlike(mainly due to oratory) or superhero-like(especially in sports), another side of whiteness sees blacks as childlike(like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman) and eternally in need of the kindly and loving White Hand. How is this contradiction resolved? How can it make sense for whites to see blacks as both the natural master-race and eternal child-race? In some ways, childhood and master-hood are related. After all, there are many images of Jesus as baby and adult Messiah but almost none of Him as a older child or teenager. A baby is helpless but a kind of a master because he is the center of unconditional attention and affection. There is nothing a baby can do wrong because he is in a state that is before-good-and-evil. He is blissfully ‘innocent’ and pure-of-heart. If the baby is before-good-and-evil, the master-messiah-figure is beyond-good-and-evil, or His vision of Good is so beyond our limits of understanding that we mustn’t question but only accept with faith(like Job finally did with God). Because the Negro is seen as both a child-race and master-race, he is seen as both before-good-and-evil and beyond-good-and-evil. The poor black Africans, in their childlike state, must never be judged, only loved and showered with compassion... like a bawling baby in a crib. And the masterful blacks of sports or neo-messianic cults must not be questioned but celebrated and/or worshiped because their prowess(as athletes or studs) or divinity(as neo-messiahs) are beyond the comprehension of white humanity as cold 'ice people'. So, the contradiction in the white perception of blackness is resolved by the following logic: Blacks are the natural master-race but held back from reaching their potential due to (1) history of white ‘racism’ (2) harsh conditions of hot Africa (3) excessively exuberant nature of blacks who are too overflowing with inspiration to commit to the ‘dull, lame, and boring’ duties of civilization. So, it is the role of ‘guilty’(due to history of ‘racism’), ‘lucky’(due to having evolved in the temperate zone), and ‘lame’(due to their coldness and lack of natural rhythm) whites to realize that their ultimate purpose in life is to turn helpless black babies into divine black gods. Whites must build Wakanda for blacks because, whereas whites are trapped in a very human world of good-and-evil, blacks exist in a world that is either before-good-and-evil or beyond-good-and-evil.
Anyway, if the symbol of libertarianism might as well be upright sticks standing independent of each other and if the symbol of First Fascism was the tightly wound bundle, the symbol of Neo-Fascism could be the image of sticks leaning on one another. The image allows for both individuality/liberty(as the sticks are not forcibly bound together) AND mutuality/dependence(because the sticks would fall if not for the mutual support they provide for one another). When one makes a campfire, he or she must set up the sticks in a way that they form into something like a cone. Thus, the fire becomes concentrated in the center and spreads throughout all the wood with utmost efficiency. Each stick of wood leans on others just like a wolf leans on other wolves in the pack. It’s like football and soccer are team-efforts where the various players must learn to ‘lean’ on each other. Each must do his part as an individual, but ultimately, the game is won if and only if all the players come to depend on each other as a cohesive team. So, each line of the Neo-Fascist symbol represents how we lean on each other, and the circle represents the radiant unity, the inner light, of the collective effort. (Perhaps the Cathedral of Light as choreographed by Albert Speer had a similar meaning. When the individual beams of light all converged and ‘leaned’ on one another, they formed something bigger than any single light beam. They formed a sun in the night sky.)
Of course, in the end, the burning sticks will begin to crumble, and then, the fire too will burn out... which is why it is necessary to add new wood to the fire before it goes out. Life is the same way. All young people will grow old, grow weak, and die; therefore, before they expire and fade away, they must create and serve as support system for new life that will take their place in the fire of culture and civilization. Every generation is the new wood added to the existing fire. Thus, even as the earlier wood smolders and crumbles in the center, the flaming structure is maintained with the addition of new wood. Human culture/civilization survives the same way.

Now, how could family-centrism be considered an essential tenet of leftism(though doing so wouldn’t negate its essential place in rightism as well, and if anything, positive recognition by both leftism and rightism only validates its worth as the core organic-and-organizational principle of society)? If true leftism is about moral concern for the most vulnerable members of society, who are more vulnerable than babies and children? While vulnerable adults have it bad, vulnerable children have it worse. It’s like a homeless puppy is even worse than a homeless dog. So, true leftism must be most concerned with the well-being of babies and children, the vulnerable young ones of society. Then, the question must be asked, "What is best for children?" Best for children both economically and emotionally. Undoubtedly, it is sound family life. Babies and children are best off with both parents in a stable family full of caring and commitment. Even before children come to understand the world, they feel an emotional need to connect with their parents or parental figures. And once their consciousness begins to take shape, they begin to wonder about their origins. If they live with their natural parents, mom and dad, they sense the truth of life right there in the home. But if one or both of the natural parents are missing, children feel a gaping hole in their lives and seek an answer. There is no greater tragedy for a child than losing one’s parent(s), especially once the bonding has taken place. But even in cases where the bonding hasn’t taken place, the child(in an orphanage, foster care, or the home of adoptive parents) wants to know about his true origin and why he grew up without the very people who brought him into this world. Did they die in some tragic accident or horrific crime? Or did they just abandon their child like trash? Either way, the truth can only be depressing to the child. This is why a good society is one that maintains pressure on all its members to lead morally responsible lives. A moral society with stable families are best for babies and children, the most vulnerable members of society. So, if true leftism is about concern for the weakest, most powerless, and most vulnerable members of society, it must do everything to bolster and reinforce the kinds of mores, values, and laws that make for sound and stable family life, one in which the greatest number of children will feel safe and loved.
Also, true leftism must more on prevention than on treatment of social ills. After all, what is the worth of a doctor who encourages unhealthy behavior among his patients and then treats(at huge cost) the ill consequences of harmful behavior? He may be an expert at treating illnesses, but the fact remains that he fostered them by encouraging self-destructive habits among his patients. A truly decent doctor would insist on healthy behavior among members of the community so that most of them will not need medical care. It’s better to prevent disease than treat them. When it comes to health, medical treatment should be the last resort. People should strive to be disease-free with healthy habits and diets. If they indulge in bad habits and gorge on garbage(and fail to exercise) like pigs, the resulting health problems may be contained but cannot be reversed by treatment alone. Restoration of optimal health depends on change in attitude, habits, and diet. What’s true of health and medicine is also true of family and society. A good society instills and enforces the kind of manners and values that lead the greatest number of people down the path of morality and responsibility. Though no society can be perfect and problem-free, a superior society is one that keeps social problems to a minimum, and such can only be achieved when most people live with sound morals & values, healthy attitude and outlook. And such a society has stable families in which children can thrive and grow into mature adults with a sense of priorities. Such a society effectively prevents a host of social problems(that always end up hurting children the most) because most members possess and practice basic moral sense. Though it too will require some measure of extra-family programs(mostly by the state) as no society is perfect, most children will grow up in stable households with caring parents. It is best to prevent problems and keep treatment to a minimum than to encourage problems and expand treatment to the maximum. Besides, while treatment can contain the problem, it cannot reverse and overcome the problem. For instance, surgery can treat the heart or lungs of a heavy smoker, but if the patient continues to smoke heavily, the problem will remain and the disease is likely to return and grow worse. What goes for the body also goes for society. The Current West is one that encourages problems and then maximizes treatment as the solution to the problems. A perverse alliance of libertarian permissiveness and therapeutic Statism works hand-in-hand against true rightism and true leftism, the two sides of National Humanist Neo-Fascism. The cult of radical individualism, narcissism, and hedonism encourages(and even enforces via pop-fueled peer pressure) a mindless pursuit of Happiness of the Moment. As so many people are fixated on the ‘cool’(style over substance) and immediate gratification(often addictive and robbing users of self-control), much of the population become infantilized and trashy. Their degraded sensibility leads them astray in their personal choices, and they end up causing lots of social problems.
The worst problems concern children because all babies are born innocent and helpless. If their own parents aren’t up to the job of taking care of them, the therapeutic state must step in with the treatment of government programs. But as with health, treatment alone cannot restore people to well-being. Single-parents and their children may be provided with food and shelter by the government, but they will remain in a soul-sick condition unless they face up to their own problems, change their ways, and choose the path of righteousness. Just like a doctor can contain the problem but cannot restore the patient to full health, the state can provide basic services to troubled lives but cannot cure them of the deeper problems of the soul and immorality. If we want to be cynical, we might surmise that the medical industry willfully does little or nothing to prevent diseases that, after all, are their bread and butter. A society of healthy people would put doctors out of business. More patients mean more profits for doctors and big pharma. Likewise, a cynic may suspect that Big Government actually wants a society with lots of problems because they justify more statist expenditures for burgeoning bureaucracy, professional 'experts'(of all stripes), and social workers. A society that prevents most social problems could get by with small government. Big Government is justified only when society has lots of problems, and a lot of problems happen to be the result of too many immoral louts acting like idiots. But if a society produces than prevents problems and then calls on the need for Bigger Government to fix those problems(that never get fixed because the treatment can contain but not cure), it isn’t doing anyone any favor(unless one happens to have a government job). Progs love to yammer about how they support more programs to take care of poor people and children, but they conveniently overlook the fact that so many lives have been ruined in the first place by moral decadence. After all, children in a stable family that receives no state support are happier and healthier(mentally and materially) than children in unstable families(usually led by single-mother who acts like a whore) that receive lots of state support. So, if statism is the key to family well-being, the children of families that receive the most benefits from government should be better off than children of families that receive none or little. This is true even if we control for family income. Suppose there are two poor families, the difference being that the parents of one family have sound values and raise their kids morally whereas the single-mother parent of the other family acts like a whore and raises her kids on cultural sewage. Suppose the single-mother family obtain the same income as the two-parent moral family because it receives extra-support from the government. If we follow proggy-logic of the therapeutic society, the family that receives more benefits from the government should be better off. Welfare Statism is Treament-centered and argues that the key to solving social problems is for the state to spend more on programs for the troubled. So, according to this logic, the single-mother family that receives more from the government should be doing better than the other family that receives far less or no aid from the government; the latter is poor, but both parents work and scrap by, and furthermore, lead moral lives and do all they can to raise moral kids. Such an approach is prevention-centered, i.e. the underlying philosophy is that the only real solution to social problems is a moral order in which people think and act with a sense of duty, honor, and shame. Treatment-centrism is 'externalist', whereas Prevention-centrism is 'internalist'. 'Externalism' believes there is little or nothing the individual can do to improve his or her lot through self-control or self-understanding. The solution must come from the outside, ideally from Big Goverment. In contrast, 'internalism' believes that moral sense and habits are the most essential qualities needed for personal healing and social advancement. While internalism doesn’t reject externalism — just like micro-economics need not reject all tenets of macro-economics — , it believes external factors can do only so much. Unless there is sound inner quality to make good use of external quantity, the problem will not go away. It’s like it takes two-to-tango, something just about every Liberal understood in the New Deal Era. It’s like wood must be able to internally burn on its own after the initial external contribution: fuel and lighter. If the fire relies on constant addition of external fuel and cannot burn on its own, it lacks ‘internality’ and autonomy. It was beginning in the mid 1960s that American Liberals began to believe that problems could be solved with external solutions alone. Notions such as morality and personal responsibility were dismissed as old-fashioned, un-scientific, or overly judgmental. So, why not just leave it to the experts to come up with the best-and-the-brightest plans funded by big government. Meanwhile, the internal character of so many young Americans, especially among Negroes, came to be shaped by a pop culture growing ever more vulgar, trashy, hedonistic, narcissistic, gross, and irresponsible. So, it’s hardly surprising that the Negro Problem is always addressed in externalist terms, especially made worse by the Magic Negro Cult that would have us believe that blacks are all born with souls radiating with some holy glow from within. No matter how terribly blacks act in real life, the Jew-run media fill white minds with images of blacks are oh-so-cool-noble-and-wise about everything. Even though blacks are more likely to commit acts of crime and violence, the Jew-run media have so many white women convinced that white men are the biggest threats to their well-being while Noble Negroes want to protect them(and fill their wombs with holy mulatto babies than innately ‘racist’ white babies). Because most people’s worldview and ‘humanview’ come from the media that enter into every home via the TV and come alive on every hand via mobile devices — notice how so many Chinese still revere the cult-myth of Mao as a ‘great man’ because of media/academia influence is still controlled by the CCP even though the real historical Mao was a psychopathic monster — and the academia(especially as most people never bothered to study history, society, and culture beyond what they got from high school and college), there is no guarantee that their view of reality will correlate with actual reality. Indeed, consider how Jew-run Google rigs the algorithms to warp our understanding of history and humanity. Going by Google or Jewgle results, one might think the greatest scientists in the US have been black while the biggest criminals are white.
Top Results for Google Search for American Scientists
Top Results for Google Search for American Scientists
Anyway, a true leftist must ask himself (1) who are the weakest, most vulnerable, and most powerless members of society and (2) what kind of socio-cultural order and moral values best serve these most needy members of society? The answer should be obvious. The members of humanity who are most deserving of attention are babies and children — some will argue that the unborn are the most fragile and need of protection, but abortion is a topic for another day. Furthermore, the vulnerability of babies/children cannot be eradicated(as a form of social injustice) because human life can only continue through cycles of birth and death. Children will always be dependent, and that means society must be geared to serve children well. (Of course, old people are also weak and vulnerable members of society, and true leftists must ponder as to what kind of society is best for older folks. A humane society is one where older people are worthy of respect, younger people believe in showing respect for older people, and all good people believe it is a grievous moral transgression for young people to attack or harm older people. For such society to exist, adults must master the art of aging gracefully. If adults remain childish or stupid as they grow older, they will be undeserving of respect. Consider the sheer disgrace of many boomers still acting like they are ‘hot stuff’. Furthermore, society must teach young people that youth is just a phase; there is no race or group called ‘young people’. Youth is a time when children gradually but also dramatically mature into adults, and they must mature and learn to put away childish and silly things. The problem with the current culture is it emphasizes youth as the be-all-and-end-all of existence. So, even as they gain in yrs, young people fail to grow more sensible and wiser. Instead of looking forward to a higher, more advanced, and more elevated state of existence, there is only growing resentment and bitterness. So, the so-called ‘cougar’ is a common and pathetic sight in the current disorder. As women grow older, they don’t see themselves as stepping onto a higher plane but being knocked off the pedestal by younger competitors. Because older women cannot compete with young ones in pure sexiness, they exaggerate their sex appeal by making themselves even trashier and sluttier than young women. It’s like an old whore putting on more garish makeup to make herself seem younger. It’s no wonder that so many aging women become even stupider and more childish than young girls and young women. As they live in a culture that shows little appreciation for anything but youth, aging women desperately cling to impossible youth instead of aging gracefully to a more elevated existence based on experience, reflection, and understanding. Needless to say, this is a problem with men as well, especially as something like video-games and superhero-comic-book movies have become the main cultural fare of so many males since the so-called Generation X, with whom the video-game industry really took off[even though excessive attachment to youth began in the late 50s with rise of Rock n Roll culture]. Consider the estranged father-character in SPECTACULAR NOW, a disgusting cuck-movie that nevertheless conveys the moral degradation of American family culture. Today, it seems like so many parents, from bottom to top, believe that having kids is all about offering them as soul-sacrifices to Mammon.

Anyway, as people grow into sunset years, they grow old and feeble. They become easy victims of crime. So, if a true leftist really cares about the weakest members of society, he must ponder what is best for old folks. The best way for people to grow old and retire is to have children and grandchildren who love and care for them. For older folks to be surrounded by love and affection of family members, they will have had to have been good spouses and parents. If they wasted their youth on stupid behavior and loose sex, the chances are they WON’T be surrounded by loving family members in their golden years. They will die miserably and alone, with no one grieve over them in the final days. The fact that so many older white people are committing suicide suggests they are lost and lonely, and why? The chances are that their youth was spent on Live-for-today lifestyle with little or no thought of long-term consequences. But then, beginning with the rise of youth culture in the 1950s, young people were inundated with the message of consumerism for momentary thrills and pleasures favoring fads and fashions than the deeper facts of life and death. True leftism must acknowledge old people as especially vulnerable and ask what kind of moral values, cultural norms, and social outlook make for a decent society for aging older folks. True leftism must understand how everything connects together, how one thing affects another. It must understand that excessive youth-centrism is bad for old people because it regards growing old as ‘lame’, fosters zero respect for older folks, provides no blueprint for aging gracefully, and leaves people feeling lost and lonely in their sunset years because they'd wasted their entire lives in pursuit of cheap thrills in the conceit that their youth would last forever. Granted, a society that is excessively elder-centric isn’t good either, but an elder-centric society can still maintain civilization whereas a youth-centric society will eventually turn barbaric and savage. But today’s decadent proggies fail to see the big picture. Instead, they are fixated on ‘empowerment’ through pursuit of maximum pleasure and thrills[especially of sexual nature and pop music] that prevent too many people from aging gracefully and preparing for the future. The overriding message is ‘live for today’, and if you feel lost and lonely in the final stretch of your life, just rely on the government and demand more programs. There is nothing more rewarding to old people than the knowledge of their children having children of their own. Such generational continuity is reassuring, and one can die peacefully knowing that they are loved by their children who, in turn, will be loved by the grandchildren. For this to happen, young people need to think in the long-term and develop moral relationships so that, by the time they are old, they can look back and look at their children & grandchildren and appreciate the rewards. But what does our society tell young people? Just live-for-today and don’t worry about tomorrow. Or remain ‘young at heart’ forever, which is taken rather literally, what with older women pretending to still be hot and sexy as ‘cougars’. It’s the difference between mindfully saving for the future & having enough after retirement AND mindlessly spending everything now & hoping the system will take care of you in rainy days ahead. In truth, no internally ruined life can be fixed by external remedies. And when there are literally tens of millions of internally ruined lives, there is only so much that the system can do for such people. Then, it is hardly surprising that so many aging white people have lost all meaning in life and turn to drugs and early death or even suicide. They may have had lots of fun in their youth, but once youth, the only thing prized in our society, has passed them by, they have nobody and nothing to live for.)

Children are most vulnerable in any social order. They must be protected, clothed & fed, educated, and led to adulthood. Given this fact, proggies and libby-dibs raise a lot of fuss about how the government must do more and so forth and so on. Now, there is a need for externalist factors to protect children and provide them with proper care. Surely, if the parents are irresponsible lunatics and taking horrible care of the children, the state should step in and save the kids. Also, poor people may need assistance at times, especially during severe economic downturns. But no amount of externalist programs can solve the problems stemming from the decline of internalism as the guiding spirit. It’s like there is so much the coach can do for a kid with no will to train and play hard. The coach cannot make the kid keep up with the training on his own. The kid must have inner-drive, and the coach can only work on that drive. It’s like teachers can only do so much with students who don’t want to learn(and aren’t pushed by their parents). While coaches and teachers are essential to the training/education of children, they can only provide external influence and pressure. They must be met halfway by the internal spirit, the will and determination to train hard and study hard. This should be as clear as day and 2 + 2 = 4, but we are not living in that kind of world, not least because the West has come under the spell of Negromania that believes blacks to be holy. So, all the black failures in school cannot be attributed to lack of academic commitment(and/or lower IQ among blacks). All the blame is placed on external factors, i.e. MORE must be done to bridge the gap between white achievement and black achievement. But even putting blacks aside, so many truths cannot be addressed and so many criticisms go unsaid because democracy depends on the support of voters who prefer being flattered than slapped with the hard truth. If any politician shows real integrity & courage and speaks his mind & says what must be said, his opponents will invariably accuse him of being ‘uncaring’ and ‘out of touch’. Almost always, the politician who blames anyone and anything but the voters wins over the politician who lays at least some of the problems at the foot of the voters themselves. And profit-driven mass media are generally careful not to offend their readers, and therefore, so much that needs to be said go unsaid. Thus, democracies are both free and unfree. They offer guarantees for free speech but also effectively stifle honest discussion because the honest truth-teller, more often than not, comes to be voted out of office or fired from the job.

In some ways, people could argue that children and old folks are the best-treated in the Modern West. After all, a lot of funds go to education, and there are many laws on the book that protect children from all kinds of abuse. And old folks get social security, medicare, and host of other benefits. True enough, but a society can't be judged merely by laws and programs that can only do so much. No matter how much funds are allocated by the state to provide programs and protections for young ones and old folks, many children and the elderly will suffer in a world of social, cultural, and moral degradation. If couples divorce and young ones must grow up without both parents, it’s a terrible state of affairs for the kids EVEN IF the government provides all sorts of programs for them. And even if old folks get social security and other benefits, their final years will be miserable if they don’t have children and grandchildren. Or, if their memories are cluttered with remembrances of trashy behavior and chronic infantilism. A culture that fosters stupidity and idiocy will end up with a huge population of adults-as-dolts, and when they finally grow old, all they have left is memory of wasted years. Wasted priorities, wasted opportunities, and just waste. Also, no matter how much the state spends on the elderly, a society where oldness is devalued and even disparaged in favor of wanton celebration of youth-as-self-indulgence will create a hostile climate for old folks. This has been made worse among whites because of PC vilification’s of their race. Prior to the 60s, older white folks could expect modicum of respect from young white folks(and non-white folks). But today, even old white folks who’d done much to contribute to American society and economy are put on the moral defensive as ‘racists’, ‘sexists’, ‘anti-Semites’, ‘homophobes’, and etc. It’s one thing to criticize the old order but quite another to spew levels of virulence unimaginable in the past. Today, all these NPC-SJW-types think they are the greatest and ultimate moral arbiters of everything because they coast on the waves of latest fads and fashions in ‘progressive’ politics. They are about as shallow and stupid as the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution, but in some ways, more pathetic. At the very least, the Red Guards rampaged against real figures of authority like teachers, bureaucrats, and even leaders. Granted, they did so at the behest of Mao(who wanted to be rid of rivals by unleashing youth violence), but many people in positions of power and privilege were brought down. In contrast, the latest children’s crusade consist of pathetic snarly kids who are little more than teacher’s pets and windup toys of the Jew-run system. Indeed, it is hilarious that all these PC kids who purport to be anti-supremacist say and do NOTHING about the very real Jewish-Homo Supremacism that controls the West; instead, they fixate on the bogeymen of ‘nazis’ and ‘kkk’ as the gravest threats. Only brainwashed dolts could believe that Nazis or KKK types have any power in the current order. But PC kids are like dogs whose sense of ‘truth’ is utterly dependent on the provided scent. Just like hounds mindlessly chase after whatever scent is put before their noses, PC kids mentally and emotionally run around in packs and seek to maul whatever is deemed ‘hateful’ by the system that is currently controlled by vile, vicious, hateful, and hideous Jewish globalist-supremacists.
It should be obvious by now that the goodness of a society cannot be measured primarily by its laws and programs. Even if a society has Rule of Law, modern amenities, and programs for the needy, many people will suffer if the soul-culture-morality of society is dead. There is a limit to which government policies and programs can help people. Just like the Laffer Curve shows the point at which raising taxes further will not increase revenues but, if anything, decrease them, there’s a threshold after which more government spending and intervention will not improve matters and, if anything, make them even worse. People must always be mindful of the Useful Limit. Among some, there is a dogma that more government programs will improve things because they worked in the past, especially during the New Deal and WWII era(though some economists argue that the New Deal actually didn’t do much to fix the economy, though one can still argue that even if the New Deal per se didn’t really do much to end the Depression, the new spirit allowed for a bigger role of government in the overall economy). But in the New Deal Era, most Americans were family-oriented & religious, valued tradition(at least far more than people do now), and respected hierarchy(especially in showing modicum of respect for older people). So, what the government achieved was fixing the external problems of an internally sound people. The state improved conditions for the bodies of people with souls. In the current world, the culture is decadent and degenerate, spirituality is a sham(with most churches and temples bending to latest ideological and idolatrous fads), morality has been turned upside down(with Holy Homos as the new objects of admiration), and attitude/behavior is grossly out of whack(what with the pornification of culture that has reached down even to Disney). There is no sense of moral hierarchy or personal priority other than Jews are holy, Negroes are holy, and homos are holy, an especially dangerous proposition since Jewish globalist elites are demented in their addiction to power, Negroes are into thug-biatch nastiness as the essence of their culture, and homos think their narcissism should be the foundation of all that is deemed ‘cool’, ‘hip’, and ‘proud’. (The reason why even American Conservatives were such easy suckers for the Milo character was because his identity and lifestyle embodied elements of the Holy Three: He’s part Jewish, a flaming homo, and must have Negro dongs up his bung.) Anyway, externalist solutions can only go so far and do so much. They can do much good for a people with souls but not for those with dead souls. Imagine two groups of poor folks. Both are equally poor in the material sense. But one group believe in family, church, and morality whereas the other group believes in fun, fun, fun. Now, suppose the state offers aid to the first group. The members show appreciation and take the opportunity to improve their lot, indeed even to the point where they become net-taxpayers than tax-takers. Because of the success with this group, suppose the state decides it could replicate the success with the second group. But the second group, being shameless, trashy, and stupid, just take the aid and spend it party and act crazy... and then they demand more and more freebies with the attitude that it is their ‘right’ to leech off society. Why did the state fail with the second group? Because while the state can put a coat over someone's shoulder, it cannot insert a soul into his heart. The soul-thing comes from family, proper upbringing, moralization, church, tradition, and a sense of community. It doesn't come from a faceless bureaucracy.
But what has been done to modern society as the result of Pop Culture, Consumerism, radical individualism, excessive materialist philosophy, Political Correctness, and neo-idolatry? Pop Culture tells everyone that youth is all that matters and that hedonism is the highest value. Consumerism says your value rests on brand names and products, an endless need to keep up with new fashions. Radical individualism puts oneself at the center of the universe. Excessive materialist philosophy tries to diagnose and fix social problems on the basis of programs and products, e.g. maybe black kids will do better in school if each child is supplied with the latest computer without taking into consideration that, maybe just maybe, the real problem of black academic failure has to do with poor attitude and contempt for learning(as well as generally lower IQ due to genetic factors). Political Correctness or PC defines morality in terms of identity than personal accountability: If you’re Jewish, Negro, or Homo, you are automatically good; if you’re Mexican or Asian, you are okay; if you’re white and female, you are okay ONLY IF you side with Jews & People of Color against white males; if you’re white male, you are okay ONLY IF you agree that white males suck, with the compensation that you yourself suck less than most white males because at least you’re proggy enough to know that white males are the source of 90% of all the problems in the world — the other 10% is blamed on Muslims so that Zionists can cook up more excuses to destroy Arab/Muslim nations deemed as threats by Israel. As for neo-idolatry, it measures value in terms of fame and celebrity(even notoriety in our thug-biatch culture of ours); it prizes fashionable sensationalism as one of the highest goods. Obviously, such a society as ours does a miserable job of instilling sound values(that allow for the development of the human soul) among the populace. If things aren’t all bad, it’s because enough people still live by the values that really matter and do the right thing even if it goes against the grain of Pop Culture, PC, and idolatry. Fortunately, even people who have consciously thrown in their lot with Pop Culture and PC don’t necessarily live by degenerate anti-values or insipid dogma imparted by them. In their personal choices in daily life, they remain largely cautious(conservative) and critical(liberal). If most Americans were to totally embrace degeneracy-as-new-values and deception-as-correctness, things will fall apart sooner than later. Thankfully, even many people who’ve consciously surrendered to post-modern craziness carry on with responsible life choices. But maybe that is a bad thing. Maybe, such lingering 'bourgeois' habits and manners amidst all the decadence and degeneracy only serve to make depravity stronger. After all, decadence and degeneracy will come to a quick end if people wallow in them whole hog. No social order can last long with rampant decadence and degeneracy as widespread behavior. In other words, as bad as decadence and degeneracy are, their one saving grace is quick self-immolation when practiced on a large scale. In contrast, the current order has so much filth, ugliness, and dementia in Pop Culture and PC, and furthermore, so many people partake of this garbage as entertainment or value-system, BUT sufficient number of people still remain in responsible ‘bourgeois’ mode and get things done. So, even as the culture and ideology grow even more insane, there remains a solid social edifice and economic engine to keep the system going. Crypto-bourgeois habits still remain at work to prop up a system that is philosophically demented and spiritually empty. But then, negative values and ideological lunacy may gradually chip away at ‘bourgeois’ habits as well. Currently, many successful people are culturally & ideologically decadent/degenerate but habitually ‘bourgeois’ and self-disciplined. But when the culture is so foul and ideology so mendacious, won’t every new generation grow increasingly either jaded/cynical or lazy/crazy? Imagine a person who comes to consciously champion junk food and bad drugs but nevertheless continues to eat healthy and exercise regularly. Such is the state of the modern West: Soulless and rotten in ideology and idolatry but still populated with many members of society who, despite their corrupted attitudes and sensibilities, have retained ‘bourgeois’ habits of work ethic and self-discipline. The question is, "For how long can the body stick with sound habits when the soul has become sick with filth and falsehood?" This is a relevant question in Japan as well. Our impression of Japan is a nation of work ethic, social order, and good manners. And this is still true of many Japanese who diligently apply themselves to sustain the system. But current Japanese culture ranges from inane to insane, and no one really believes in anything. So, for how long can Japan survive as a nation of affluence and efficiency? Will cultural decay and ideological apathy among the Japanese eventually lead to social breakdown? In a way, we are already seeing this. Though Japan is still a relatively safe nation, it is a society of isolation, loneliness, desperation, and/or apathy. No one believes in anything anymore in a nation where the only living expressions of culture are video-games, animated fantasies, and pornography. The sheer nonsensical state of Japanese culture goes to show that a high IQ populace isn’t enough. Culture can rot just the same if people lose their sense of soul and meaning. In the West, the breakdown of family among all races is a sure sign that the system is cracking. How are strong families possible when young people are told that marriage is merely an afterthought? Young ones, boys and girls, are told that they should pursue loose sex with maximum number of partners possible. So, marriage is not a priority for which people should mindfully prepare but merely something one settles for after one’s lust and/or looks have flamed out. The elevation of mere sexual pleasure over marriage & family goes to show that society now favors the moment and the individual over the long-term and the community. Never mind what loose sex might do to one’s future prospect of love and marriage. Just live for the moment and don’t think about tomorrow; that is so ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’. What you, as the Iron Individual, want at any given moment trumps all other considerations.
Then, is it any wonder that so many couples file for divorce? Instead of putting the needs of the children first, immature or stupid parents favor their personal prerogatives. Never mind what this will do to the children. Their needs are secondary to the egotism of parents who decide to break up for some dumb reason or another. A society that has become overly tolerant of divorce has violated the principle of true leftism. Because of individual-and-moment-centrism, there is this widespread notion that whatever pleases the adult-individual(possessed of all rights guaranteed by society) is more ‘progressive’ because it feels so ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’ for each and every person, he or she. But if true leftism and progressivism are about prioritizing the needs of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, then the current mania for individualist-hedonism is anything but leftist or progressive(in the genuine sense). Rather, it’s the triumph of capitalist-consumerist-hedonism that is all about short-term gratification(of body or ego) than about long-term good, especially for young ones. After all, children are best off living with both biological parents. Also, old people want to see their children in lasting marriages that bear fruit. Old people don’t want to see their children and grandchildren’s lives ruined by divorce. Now, I understand that, in some cases, the conditions get so out of hand in some marriages that divorce is all but inevitable and necessary, but the high rates of divorce indicate that too many people are breaking up for stupid, shallow, or childish reasons. And because of the selfish egotism of these parents, the children(the most vulnerable members of society) suffer terribly(like in the Noah Baumbach film THE SQUID AND THE WHALE).

This is the result of cultural and moral decay, and there is nothing the state can do to cure it. Problems of internal rot, the degeneration of souls, cannot be fixed with external remedies. The government can provide benefits to broken families, but the agony and trauma(especially felt by children who grow up bitter and numb) cannot be reversed with yet MORE government programs or social work, no more than a doctor can do much for a patient who, even after so many costly treatments, continues to lead terribly unhealthy lifestyle of drugs, junk food, reckless lifestyle choices, and lack of exercise. So many problems wouldn’t exist or be far less dire if enough people acted more responsibly, but such sentiments have no traction in a culture where homos and Negroes are the main moral arbiters. Homos never admit that the AIDS crisis would have been far less deadly if they had acted more responsibly. To admit as much would indicate that homos are far from perfect and that true progressivism must be predicated on self-control and personal accountability than on blaming ‘society’ and then demanding that ‘society’ come up with the solution. So, homos don’t admit that their wild behavior spread HIV all around. They insist that they did nothing wrong and, if anything is to be blamed, it is ‘society’ for not having come up with a magic drug soon enough to allow homos to continue acting as they do without the danger of dying of a horrible disease. And Negro logic isn’t much different. Blacks never blame themselves and just blame it all on ‘society’ and then demand that ‘society’ come up with all the solutions.

Anyway, family-centered true leftism isn’t only about the children. Even adults will be better off with family life. Sure, individuals must ‘sacrifice’ certain thrills for the good of the family, but life is always about priorities. As even the Rolling Stones sang, "You can’t always get what you want." Any choice means the abnegation of other choices. If you choose to study to be a doctor, you won’t have time to major in other things. If you choose to spend your hard-earned money to buy a boat, you can’t afford other goods. The key question comes down to what are the main priorities in life that lend the greatest meaning and sense of purpose to individuals? And it is the family. Indeed, one of the sicknesses of the modern economy is that so much is geared to narrow individual indulgences than group family-interest. So much of the economy now revolves around purchases of video-games, gambling, sex industry, and vanity-shopping. A truly healthy economy should be centered on parents spending their money mainly on their children. An economy that is largely geared toward keeping families together is moral and sound. In a good society, the bulk of economic activity should center around needs of the family. Now, look at the economy of Japan where much of the spending is on video-games, pornography, and prostitution by men who remain single. And Japanese women spend most of their money in nightclubs and on vanity products to make themselves look like sex dolls. It’s a pachinko-pornography economy than a family-centered one. In the films of Yasujiro Ozu, we see the bulk of economic activity centered around family life, but in Neo-Japan since the 1970s(when Japan turned into a sterile and soulless wonderland of artifice) the main economy has been about lonely men and lusty women wasting most of their incomes on nicknacks and trifles of the most vapid kind. It’s a dead-end economy based on individuals seeking momentary escapism via junk food and pop culture than an organic economy based on individuals forming family units and providing food, clothing, and materials necessary for the continuance of the nation with new generations of decent citizens and patriots.

Even though the lifestyle of individual-indulgence may be fun and feel ‘liberating’ and ‘empowering’ in the moment, it actually weakens individuals in the long run by severing them from deeper meaning and purpose in life. A woman who spent all her money traveling around, buying shoes, and hopping from bed to bed may have had lots of fun in her youth. But, at the end of the day, what does she have to look forward to? The fun times she had are now all in the past and exist only as fading memory. In contrast, let’s say a woman didn’t blow all her money on herself and good times. Let’s say she devoted her life to family and raising children. While she had less fun and may have felt less ‘liberated’ and ‘emancipated’, she has children to look forward to. She has a family in which she is loved and appreciated. In the long run, she is more empowered. And she is liberated from the addiction to vanity and self-indulgence that, in the long run, is just a dead-end of life. It’s like the student who neglects study and just has fun in school may seem to be more ‘liberated’ and ‘emancipated’, but he is only ruining his long-term prospects. Upon graduation he has memories of fun times as a class clown or troublemaker but has nothing to look forward to because he blew his school years on self-indulgence than in constructive preparation for the future. In the end, those who think of the future than merely of the now end up much better off. Those who think to care for others, especially by forming a family unit, are much better off than those who only live for themselves. While family life and its demands can be trying and even burdensome at times, there is long-term meaning and reward in having created a personal domain in which love and devotion exist among family members, the only people who really care about you. (But then, love is always a burden. That's precisely why it's meaningful. It's like the Hollies song, "He ain't heavy, he's my brother". It takes patience, money, and effort to raise a dog or cat, but it's worth it because of the deep bond between you and the animal-friend. Nothing of true value comes easy. The satisfaction comes from the knowledge that you gave yourself to someone or something out of love and devotion.) In the end, when someone dies, who are the only people who really care? It’s not next-door neighbors, business associates, co-workers, clients, and etc. Even much-liked teachers die without their ex-students knowing or caring. And when a doctor dies, how many of his patients know or care? And friends come and go. In the end, the only people who really care about the death of someone are the family members. While we can all sympathize with the grief of others, the tragedies of non-family members don’t stick with us. A son or daughter will forever remember his or her dead mother but not the dead mother of friends, associates, or other people. So, all people, not just children and old people, are far weaker and more vulnerable than they like to think. People like to think of themselves as ‘strong and independent and imbued with agency and choice and freedom’, but in the long run, unless one’s freedom and agency choose family life and mutual love & interdependence within the household, one will end up as lost and lonely individuals for whom life is bearable only because he or she is hooked to escapist fantasies of video-games, trashy TV shows, or some nonsense cult, like with spread of interest in witches.

The Modern Left emerged as a movement to protect the rights of individuals from tyranny but also developed to advanced policies that are good for the whole than merely for individuals. Politics of individualism is complicated because individuals range from homeless bums on the street to billionaire moguls. Most individuals don’t have much wealth or privilege(and almost no power outside his personal sphere), and their individual rights and liberties must be protected from powerful institutions that can easily slide into tyranny(because the logic of institutionalization is to concentrate ever more power in elite or governing organizations). So, leftist defense of individualism focuses on protecting the basic rights of ordinary individuals from the power of big institutions and big industry. But not all individuals are regular folks like you and me. Some individuals are obscenely rich and/or powerful. Take the Koch Brothers, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg, the Google oligarchs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Hollywood moguls, and etc. Surely, the individualism of a super-oligarch unfolds differently from the individualism of an ordinary middle class person. The super-rich individual can buy politicians, rig results, and win favors. By throwing money around, he has a lot of pull. In such cases, true leftism seeks to protect the people(as a collective) from the ultra-privileged and ultra-connected individuals. Ralph Nader and Jimmy Dore speak for American People as having a collective interest against oligarchs like Jeff Bezos and others whose tentacles are all over the Deep State.

So, it is stupid to see the world if terms of pure right vs pure left OR pure individualism vs pure collectivism. There is a need for both rightism and leftism. There is a need for both protecting individualism and checking individualism. Ordinary individuals can lose their basic rights to the ever-expanding power of the state. This is why true leftism opposes even Stalinism and Maoism. Power became so concentrated in the Soviet Union and Red China that individuals essentially became slaves of the system despite Marxist-Leninist rhetoric about liberation of the workers. A man like Alexander Solzhenitsyn stood for individual conscience and courage in a system that grew monstrously tyrannical. It was the individual vs tyranny(though, to be sure, Stalinism and Maoism were as much tyranny by individual dictators as by the system; indeed, it was when those individual titans died that the system became more humane). But just because individuals stood up to tyranny(one that was ideologically rationalized in the name of the collective) doesn’t mean that the individuals are always on the side of freedom while ‘collectivity’ always stands for tyranny. Solzhenitsyn was a man of conscience who barely survived the Gulag. But consider certain individuals in the US like Sheldon Adelson, Tim Cook, Jewish sharks who run Disney, the top dogs of Goldman Sachs, Jack Dorsey of Twitter, and etc. They have amassed tremendous fortunes with which they bought a lot of 'friends' and influence. Adelson has turned the GOP into a brothel for Big Casino. As so many GOP pols are whores of Zion, they support insane Middle East policies that encourage Israeli bad behavior while doing incalculable harm to Arabs and Muslims in nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran. Of course, Adelson is merely the biggest fish in the Zionist shark tank. He has lots of company among super-rich Jews who also spend their often ill-gotten fortunes on buying up whore politicians. After all, the Democratic Party is just as servile to AIPAC as the GOP is. On the matter of Israel and Zio-globalist interests, the Democrats vs Republicans dichotomy is like two whores competing to prove who can give a better blowjob to a Jewish Pervert. When so much wealth, influence, and power is concentrated in a small number of individuals with super-wealth and mega-privilege, only a seriously retarded ultra-libertarian moron sticks with the notion that the individual always represents freedom and liberty whereas collective demands spell tyranny and repression. But look all around, and the super-rich individuals of Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Finance, Big Media, and etc. are all colluding together to restrict free speech and free spend. This wouldn’t matter if US had a competitive economy where people who are denied service could go elsewhere. As so much of the economy and communication has now become concentrated into monopolies, denial of service by the oligopolies means virtual socio-economic death for ordinary people. Google isn’t merely one search engine among many. It is THE dominant search engine, and it got so big by assuring all of us that it would play fair to all sides. We all helped it get super-big by supporting it on that basis, but as the predominant player, it is now using its monopoly powers to rig search results to favor certain interests(especially those of Jews, Homos, and Cucks) over others. And these decisions are made by super-rich individuals.
Why are Big Media so full of shit? Partly, too many journalists are ideologically biased idiots. But the main reason is that the top dogs of Big Media — the super-powerful individuals — order the managers and employees to push a certain narrative. In other words, journalists don’t have all that much power as professionals. Big Media are really controlled by a handful of super-powerful individuals. Then, it should be clear as day that individualism also can be tyrannical, oppressive, and abusive. We now have Tim Cook(or Tim Crook) going around saying that God blessed him by making him take penises up his bunghole and preaching demented sermons about how it is a ‘sin’ for super-powerful individuals of Big Tech to allow free speech and free exchange of ideas on the internet. A super-rich oligarch and individual-tyrant, he sucks up to individuals even more powerful than him: the ultra-mega-rich Jews who, with control of finance and media, can bring down even a super-corporation like Apple.
So many libertarians foolishly romanticized individualism and convinced themselves that rich people are heroes who made it to the top with vision, ingenuity, and hard work. So, the individual, no matter how rich and privileged, stands for freedom & integrity and never tyranny and repression. But as the 2008 financial meltdown revealed, the uber-rich capitalist class are mainly about protecting numero uno than upholding principles. The very people who’d tirelessly used the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal to pontificate about ‘free markets’ and supply-and-demand as the only worthy arbiters of winners and losers suddenly had no problem declaring that the Banks were ‘too big to fail’ and in need to be bailed out by the government. And they hired the best lawyers and used their influence/connections to make sure that 99% of people in Wall Street never got to spend a day in prison.
The so-called ‘left’ today isn’t truly leftist because, in their tribal interest(if they’re Jewish) or ideological fanaticism(if they are NPCs manipulated by Jew-run media and academia), they are totally on the side of globo-capitalist oligarchs, the mega-individuals who have near-monopoly power over who gets to exercise free speech and free spend. If you’re a Zionist supremacist, you can say whatever you want and spend(and earn) as much as you want. But if you’re a white liberationist or a Palestinian-American who supports BDS, the chances are that you will be deplatformed, censored, or denied financial services. These dirty tricks are not the acts of the ‘collectivist’ state but of super-rich individuals(many of them Jewish) whose main interests are either egotistical(thereby opposing anything that stands in the way of more trans-national globalism that makes the rich even richer), tribal(as in doing everything necessary to defame and deplatform anyone or anything that speaks truth to Jewish/Zionist tyranny), or pseudo-spiritualist(because the super-rich are not only materially but morally vain and prone to believe that their currently fashionable emotional commitments — LGBTQ nonsense being ‘holiest’ at the moment and there is also the cult of ‘diversity’ — are the highest truths known to mankind, and if you think different, you better just shut up, and if you won’t shut up, you will be shut up because the oligarchs have monopoly power of over so much in the internet age). Against such oligarchic individualist tyranny, true leftism(and true rightism) works to rouse collective action by the People against the robber-barons. Individuals can be the oppressed struggling for freedom and justice, or individuals can be the oppressors using their vast plutocratic wealth, privilege, and connections to deny liberty and freedom to others less fortunate.
Granted, there are moral institutions(such as the church) and managerial institutions(such as the government) that should ideally be immune to forces of both impassioned populism and imperious elitism, but, in the end, ‘money talks and bullshit walks’. Money can turn even bullshit into truth, and the moneyless are helpless to prevent the truth from being smeared as bullshit. Look what the power of Jewish money did to academia in the US. The collusion of Jewish money and Jewish mind have turned most top academic institutions into bastions of Jewish-Zionist tyranny. As academia trains so many minds, even decent and idealistic do-gooders came under the influence of Jewish-peddled filth like LGBTQ-ism. And then, these decent do-gooders spread the filth even into churches. So, the corrupting power of money need not be direct. Even people who never took a bribe(and would never take one no matter how big it is) can unwittingly come under the power of money. As Jewish Money has been spent lavishly to promote LGBTQ nonsense in the media and academia, many decent and well-meaning people have earnestly and sincerely been duped with the pseudo-iconography of the Holy Homo. They didn’t take a dime from Jewish groups or homo groups, but they came under the influence of academic institutions and media industry that were greatly influenced by the power of money. Because most people fail to connect the dots, they idealize the academia as an institution committed to the pursuit of truth. They have no idea how much of a role Big Money plays in academic policies. Donors have tremendous power over colleges. Why did University of Illinois fire Steven Salaita the Palestinian advocate? Why did Depaul University refuse tenure to Norman Finkelstein? Big Jewish Money threatened both institutions with withdrawal of funds or media attack unless they relented to the Jewish-Zionist demands. Of course, such blatant corruption is justified and whitewashed in the name of combating ‘hate speech’, ‘political extremism’, and other weasel-terms.

Anyway, if true leftism concerns itself with the most vulnerable members of society/nation, then it must always be mindful of the changing power dynamics of society. If a society is ruled by an oppressive bureaucratic system where individuals have little or no freedom, then the proper true leftist position would be to side with the individuals and their demand for basic rights. But if that society eventually evolves into one where most of the power and means are owned or controlled by super-rich oligarchic-individuals, then true leftism must take the side of the people whose voices are being muffled and whose minds are being poisoned by an academia and media that are essentially in the pockets of oligarchs. (Things are now worse than ever because Jews are the ruling elites of the US. Jews are smart and talented but utterly lacking in the concept of honor and dignity. Anglo-American elites also had their share of monsters, lunatics, and a**holes, but there were norms and standards in Anglo-American culture that pushed back against excessive corruption and collusion that were deemed ugly and vulgar. Also, the Anglo-American intellectual class believed that its duty was to be critical of the Anglo-American economic class. In contrast, Jewish oligarchs have no sense of limit to their vulgarity of depravity and corruption. Also, Jewish intellectual class will generally close ranks with the Jewish oligarchic class. If Anglo-American intellectuals believed their main duty was to criticize abuses and corruption of their own kind, thereby paving the way for great Reform Movements, what we mostly see among Jewish-intellectuals and pundits is criticism of everyone and everything BUT the Jewish oligarchs who have the most power in the world. These various Jewish intellectuals and journalists would rather yammer about ‘fellow white people’ than about the super-rich and super-powerful Jewish capitalist oligarchs who really control the world and have done so much harm to nations like Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and etc. These so-called ‘leftist’ Jewish intellectuals care more about super-rich Jews in Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Big Tech than about working class folks facing hard times and desperation in flyover country. They care more about Zionist IDF death squads than about innocent Palestinian women and children who are mowed down by them.

In order for us to move forward, we need a reevaluation of what it means to be leftist or rightist. We need to ask if the left and right must always be opposing sides, as if one can only exist by excluding or extinguishing the other. Or, is Neo-Fascism(and Zionism, at least in nationalist as opposed to imperialist mode) correct that the best system is one that sees leftism and rightism as integral and organic partners? Zionism is a blend of capitalism and socialism(and of traditionalism and modernism) under the auspices of nationalism. Hasn’t that be a sound program? If Cuban Revolution had been more like Zionism and allowed some measure of capitalism along with the socialism, it would have done so much better. Indeed, what accounts for the rise of China since the 1980s? Though still communist in name, China since then has been mostly in neo-fascist mode. There is socialism and capitalism. There is renewed respect for tradition and the past as well as acceptance of science, technology, and the future. With this new formula, China has grown into a genuine great power. Why should anything be one thing or its opposite, as if the good and sound elements of both cannot be combined? But in fact, every human being is the product of the fusion of male DNA and female DNA. No life was ever created by purist male-ism alone or purist female-ism alone. Likewise, most work is accomplished by the use of both left hand and right hand, left leg and right leg. For the branches of the tree to grow upward, the roots must penetrate downward. This is why Neo-Fascism is about the creative and organic coordination of the left and right. While the ardent left and the arch-right can be enemies, why go for either/or fanaticism than an understanding of the need for both? What white liberationists(or emancipationists) must do is stop labeling itself as exclusively ‘right’ while labeling everything they oppose as ‘leftist’. This is giving too much credit to their enemies. History of the modern world has shown the there was good and bad about the Right and good and bad about the Left. A truly sane movement takes the good of the Right in tandem with the good of the Left. That is Neo-Fascism. By calling all of globalism ‘leftist’, the so-called ‘dissident right’ ends up creating the impression that the Jewish Zionist oligarchs are on the side of the vulnerable and the weak(as historic leftism had often been on the side of the powerless and downtrodden). A true movement must be left-right, not ‘alt right’ or ‘dissident right’. And true leftism, in assessing the most vulnerable members of society, must favor Family Culture that is most beneficial to children and old folks and ultimately to adults as well because life is most meaningful when people live for something more than ‘me, me, me’.
Also, family culture provides the kind of morality that is most empowering of the masses of people who don't have much. After all, right-and-wrong isn’t a matter of who has more money or power but a matter of who has done right and who has been wronged. True morality has value independent of money or power. So, even a man of humble means can be more right than a super-rich or super-powerful person. This is why morality is a great advantage to the regular folks. They can’t boast of much in terms of wealth or privilege, but they can claim the pride of righteousness. This is why the elites fear a moral majority. The majority of people with sound values and dignity can stand with confidence and pride against the corrupt and powerful. But what happens when the masses themselves are morally corrupted and turned into soul-zombies whose idea of culture is drugs, loose sex, tattoos & piercing, endless tirades of foul language, and shameless vulgarity? Consider the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Consider the caring grandmother in RAISIN IN THE SUN. Consider the famous painting by Norman Rockwell of the noble common American in the Four Freedom series.
It’s an image of a simple man with plain clothes but notice the air of dignity about him. Now, imagine him with a stupid haircut(and green hair), a ring through his nose, a tattoo running down his neck, and grunge-torn jeans. What moral authority would he have when he seems as piggish and self-indulgent as the decadent rich who wallow in excess. The natural tendency of humans is to over-indulge in pleasures and vanity, which is why so many rich people and their children came to a bad end. Too much privilege led to decadence and even degeneracy.
People of humble means aren’t innately superior in morality but are forced by circumstances to be moral. So, if a regular guy is married to a woman, he may remain faithful and play the role of father to his kids because he can’t expect much else in life. But suppose he comes into a ton of money and can dump his wife and marry some hot babe and live like a king. Many men and women may well choose glamour and self-indulgence over morality and its obligations. In the past, as most people had no time to indulge in such fantasies, they remained moral and took modest pride in morality, which was all they had left during crisis periods in American history such as the Great Depression. After all, what holds the Joad Family together in John Steinbeck's THE GRAPES OF WRATH? It’s a sense of obligation to one another.
Now, people can become rich and remain moral, but there have been too many cases of temptation winning out over obligation. Consider what happens to the man in Pearl Buck's GOOD EARTH when he comes into fortune. He neglects his wife and buys a concubine. Lots of rich people can't help showing off their having more and enjoying more. Most people lack riches and are limited in their choices, but they can still take pride in being good decent moral folks with a sense of obligation to family and community.
But even this moral nest-egg began to crack in the boom yrs of post-war America. With the spread of prosperity and the rise of youth-consumer culture(and delaying adulthood), even non-rich Americans could grow up with an attitude of self-indulgence and libertine hedonism. And with Rockers and vulgar comedians becoming the main idols of society, many grew up not only amoral(or even immoral) but shamelessly and even proudly so. Thus, people who aren't rich lost the one advantage they had over the rich. They lost the Moral Factor, and this happened in the UK as well as in the US. Our hearts can easily go to the traditional working class in Britain with their patriotism and family values. Consider the father and son who try to rescue British soldiers with their small boat in DUNKIRK.

But we are more likely to feel revulsion for the current British working class that is mired in rap culture, punk attitudes, alcoholism, gluttony & obesity, and shameless vulgarity. It’s like a class of Lena-Dunham-wanna-be’s. And even though Kevin Williamson was needlessly nasty in his article in the National Review about how the rural white working class should just fade away(and move elsewhere and find some other work), we can sort of see where he is coming from. Too many of today’s white working class types are foul louts and moral morons whose idea of culture is WWE ‘wrestling’, ugly talkshows, pornography, drug & alcohol abuse, addiction to gambling, and etc. Granted, one could argue that the working class became this way because the capitalist-oligarchs pushed junk on them, but as people do have agency, they deserve blame too. (Also, even though many of the pushers of filth and foulness have been Jews, these cultural trends are now nearly universal. Japanese entertainment and media are not owned and run by Jews, but just consider how demented they are: A society where mainstream culture for most people consists of stupid video-games, dumb soap operas, mindless comics, soulless consumerism, and out-of-control pornography. And heaven knows decadence and degeneracy of Ancient Rome were mainly the product of pagans and their myriad ways of self-indulgence without sense of shame or limits. While Jews certainly take advantage of filth and degradation, it takes two to tango, and too many goyim are willing to blow their earnings on gambling and other indulgences that only make the likes of Sheldon Adelson richer and richer. It seems Jews, due to their higher intelligence and deeper sense of history, tend to be less naive in losing themselves into spirals of self-destructive excess. And even when Jews do get crazy, something usually holds them back from the abyss because the element of intellect plays a bigger role in Jewish lunacy. The mind, even when committed to craziness, tries to make sense of things, and that very cerebral activity may serve as a brake from sliding totally into self-destruction. It was in this that the field of psycho-therapy has been useful in holding Jews back from totally losing themselves to craziness. While Jewish psycho-therapy may have been crazy in its own right, it required the clients to at least think about what they were doing and why. That may be why Jewish comedians have lived to ripe old age, whereas the likes of John Belushi and Chris Farley didn’t last long. The intellect serves as a brake against the instinctive. Excessive intellectualism can lead to neurosis, which can also be debilitating, but a person trapped in neurotic doubt is less likely to be as self-destructive as someone who hurls himself into the romanticism of raw instinct. Sam Peckinpah came to a bad end partly because he lacked sufficient intellect to serve as skid against his instinctive drive for personal fulfillment as the maverick romantic of American cinema. (Though Peckinpah had a brain and was well-read & well-versed in intellectual matters when he wanted to be, he was essentially a man of violent emotions that fueled his fury toward swift decline and death, far earlier than it should have been. In contrast, Sidney Lumet lived much longer. And Woody Allen is still alive.)

Finally, if socialism is about thinking of the greater good, then some degree of temporal socialism is in order. Too often, we think of socialism in the material sense, e.g. how to allocate wealth from those people to these people. Material socialism justifies redistribution on the basis that all members of a society are ‘in it together’. What temporal socialism seeks is to assess the theory of justice in the life-span of individuals. After all, in a way, every person is multitude of individuals through time. In every moment of his life, he lives out another layer of himself. Day after day, he is the same person but also ‘different’ person. There are 365 versions of him over 365 days. At any given moment, there is only one version of him, but every moment of his life is intricately and inseparably linked with all the other moments of his life. So, he must never think that ‘this moment’ is isolated from all other moments. Whatever he does at any moment has implications for his future selves. If he smokes now, he may mess up his lungs in the future. If he cheats on his wife, he may harm the marriage in the future. Frank Capra’s IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE is as much about temporal socialism as material socialism. George Bailey does what he can to make for a more just social order in Bedford Falls, but he also comes to realize at the end that every moment of his life is linked to other moments of his life. Every action sets off a chain reaction for good or bad. So, whenever people do something, they must be conscious of the fact that they are not just doing it for the here-and-now or living-for-today but taking a course of action that may have implications, good or ill, for his future selves. Thus, his past selves, his present self, and future selves are all in it together. He mustn't only care about himself in the NOW but in the past and future as well. The reason why so many aging white people feel hopeless and commit suicides in alarming numbers could be that too many of them lived in the past without thought of tomorrow. They lived ‘greedily’ for the moment without thinking of its karmic temporal socialist implications. Temporal socialism reminds people that their childhood self, younger self, adult self, older self, and dying self are all connected. They are all parts of the same person but as inhabitants of different time periods. We can’t time-travel, but everything we do in the now has implications for our past selves and future selves. Does our current action betray our dreams and hopes in the past? Does it pave or block the path for what we wish to happen in the future? If material socialism makes society a bit fairer, perhaps temporal socialism can make a people bit wiser.