Friday, March 30, 2018

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 comment: