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.

No comments:

Post a Comment