It is generally assumed that leftists are anti-nationalist and pro-globalist, but this overlooks the fact that leftism was as much a father of nationalism as rightism was. Indeed, at certain moments in history, it was leftism that was pro-nationalist while rightism was anti-nationalist. Of course, the meanings and connotations of ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ have changed in relation to the dynamics of the ruling power, international conflicts, levels of economic/industrial development, reigning credos, and dominant idols/icons. Also, we must be mindful of the difference between core principles of leftism/rightism and the pragmatic, opportunistic, or unscrupulous manipulation/exploitation of them(as essentially political fronts) to push through certain agendas that, upon closer scrutiny, have less to do with ideological principles than tribal interests or elite policies.
Contra those who assume that leftism must necessarily be anti-nationalist, consider its origins. The leftist French Revolution was nothing if not nationalist. What did it demand? It was for the National Interest of all Frenchmen. It posited that the leaders must represent and serve the national folks. In other words, the people didn’t exist to be subjects of kings and noblemen, but rather, the ruling elites existed to voice, defend, and represent the needs and will of the people.
The French Revolution also argued that the ruling elites must primarily identify with the national masses. Against this, the French monarchy and aristocracy tended to regard the people as subjects whose main purpose was to serve the ruling elites.
Also, as royalty and noblemen, the French elites were more likely to identify with kings and noblemen of other domains. Indeed, the royal houses all across Europe were united by blood. Despite the periodic battles fought among various kingdoms and principalities, the ruling elites regarded each other as kinsmen and brethren bound by royal or noble lineage. It’s like elite athletes battle each other on the playing field but identify more with one another than with the masses of faceless fans who cheer for them. It’s the same way with the gods of mythology. Gods may lock horns with other gods, but they are still part of the fellowship of immortals who reign over the pitiful mortals.
Then, it is no wonder Jews did something very clever with their God. By making Him the one and only God, He could not form alliances with gods of other tribes against the Jews, the people who worshiped Him. Furthermore, the Covenant meant that His main purpose on Earth was to make things better for Jews. In that sense, Jews were proto-nationalists on the cosmic level. They made sure that their spiritual ruler served them as much as they served Him.
And yet, Jewish cosmo-nationalism was problematic as it was inherently proto-imperialist. If God is the ruler of everything, everyone, and all-that-is, His power isn’t limited only to Jews but over all mankind and all the world. But then, given the special Covenant with Jews, He mustn’t be an impartial emperor over all mankind but a ‘racist’ ruler who favors the supremacism of Jews over all other groups.
This contradiction within the Jewish conception of God as both the ruler of all and the special protector of Jews led to the rise of Christianity and then Islam that altered the terms of the Covenant. If God is the ruler of all, He must be a fair heavenly emperor to all peoples and tribes. Anyone or any group that would worship, serve, and honor Him should be just as precious in His eyes.
If anything, Jews should be less favored in His eyes because, according to the new covenant, they clung to the stinginess of the original Covenant that said God is theirs alone.
From the Jewish perspective, Christianity and Islam are not only vile heresies but the greatest thefts in history. It was a case of goyim stealing God from the Jews with the aid of Jewish traitors such as Jesus, Peter, and Paul. This is why Jews will do anything to destroy Christianity. While Jews do have a legitimate grievance in feeling that the goyim stole their God, their spiritual conception made the rise of universalized derivations of Judaism almost inevitable.
After all, if God is the only God and the ruler over all(as well as full of love and justice), why should He favor the Jews over others? Also, given that Jews themselves admitted over and over in their sacred texts that they’d often been disloyal, treacherous, and verminous in the eyes of God, why would He stick by the so-called Chosen who too often chose to act like a bunch of cretins and psychos?
Anyway, those at the top love their power and privilege. And they naturally look down on the less powerful, less rich, less privileged, and less connected. The ‘best’ prefer the company and the acknowledgment of others with the ‘best’ status. They look down on hoi polloi as mere employees, servants, consumers, and/or subjects. The problem with individualism as a political ideology is it results in hyper-elitism than the equal dignity of individuals.
While Jeff Bezos and his innumerable employees are all individuals with the same set of basic rights, Bezos-as-individual is worth the power and wealth of all of them put together. He’s an elephant-individual while his minions are ant-individuals.
The politics of individualism doesn’t mean that each individual counts equally with all the others. It means a relatively few individuals come to accumulate so much wealth & power and tower over other individuals who mean little to nothing. It’s not a forest of more or less equally tall trees but of giant redwoods that reach ever higher while the rest remain at shrub level.
Elite psychology is the same whether the system is aristocratic or democratic. Those at the top come to feel a certain contempt or at least condescension toward the masses, just like star athletes look upon all those faceless fans as a bunch of ‘losers’.
In some ways, aristocracy is more honest in its brazen elitism, whereas democracy is usually disingenuous, with the ruling class pretending to represent and serve the people when it’s really a cabal of oligarchs, elite managers, and commissars. And, the elitism could easily be worse if the ruling class tends to be dominated by a group whose identity differs from that of the great majority.
While the US was always an oligarchy, white Christian elites once felt some degree of sympathy for and camaraderie with the toiling white masses, not least because rags-to-riches white elites remembered their own years of poverty and hardship. But with Jews(and their proxies, the homos) as the current ruling elites, forget about any genuine elite feeling for the masses. While rich and powerful Jews feel something for fellow Jews in Israel and around the world, they mostly feel hatred, fear, and contempt for the masses of goyim.
In the age of kings and aristocrats, nationalism didn’t matter so much. Indeed, most peoples of Europe were ruled by the Family than by something like national leadership. Due to intermarriage across domains, many of the kings, princes, and dukes were related by blood, and many of the elites preferred to speak French than the language of their subject peoples. Also, monarchical systems tended to be imperialist, and this meant boundaries often shifted to incorporate various ethnic groups with little or no affinity to the ruling class.
The most extreme example was perhaps the Austro-Hungarian Empire that was dominated by Germanic ruling elites who constituted only 20 to 25% of the entire population. Nationalism was problematic for the ruling elites of empires because it meant they must favor their own people, i.e. if the imperial ruling elites favored their own national folk, resentment would spread among the other imperial subjects.
Indeed, the Jewish rule over the West Bank is problematic in its duality of nationalism and imperialism. As good nationalists, Israeli Zionist leaders favor fellow Jews, but this means resentment among the Palestinians who are treated as subjects of an empire than as citizens of a nation. (Ironically, the Jews have taken on the role of the Romans.)
A system where all peoples are treated as either citizens or subjects is bound to be more stable than one where one people are treated as citizens while others are treated as subjects. If both Jews and Palestinians were treated as subjects, at the very least both groups would be in the same boat. But when Jews are treated as citizens while Palestinians are treated as subjects, it is grounds for grievance and resentment among the latter.
Therefore, nationalism and imperialism are like oil and water. Nationalism works best within national borders; it becomes problematic in imperialist mode across national borders. If the ruling elites want to rule over a stable empire, they must treat ALL peoples under their power as either subjects or citizens. Either even foreign peoples must be granted the same rights as citizens or even the national folks must lose their rights and be treated as subjects. In the current neo-imperialist globo-homo New World Order, the New American Way is to treat even non-Americans as ‘fellow Americans’ & ersatz citizens while, at the same time, eroding the rights of American citizens with ever less protections of free speech, gun rights, border security, and freedom of assembly & association; in other words, make American Citizens more like subjects.
Neo-Imperialist Globalists learned the lessons of the past. They figured that the main reason why the European Empires failed was they were national-empires and, as such, bred much anger and resentment among non-white subject peoples. If the European imperialist rulers had treated all peoples, even their own, as subject peoples, then there would at least have been the equality of tyranny. Whether one was a white Briton or brown Hindu, he would be no better or worse than any other subject in the empire.
Instead, British Imperialism was also nationalist whereby the British elites felt racially, legally, and politically bound to favor white Britons who were granted rights and privileges in the UK and across the empire that were denied to nonwhites. It was this nationalist or ‘racist’ element in British Imperialism that especially bred so much animus among nonwhites, not least among local non-white elites.
Non-white elites, despite their riches and privileges(and collaboration with the foreign overlords), realized that, in some ways, they counted for less than even the lowest white Briton. Even the lowest White Briton was treated as a citizen of the mother country whereas even the highest non-white was regarded as a subject of the empire.
Then, it was only natural that many non-white elites decided to struggle against the empire and create their own national orders. In a way, they were aping the Europeans because most non-white cultures hardly had any tradition of people power. The masses had long been treated as mere subjects by the local elites, and in more ways than one, nationalism served not only to drive out foreigners but to undermine the traditional order. Even as white imperialists were pushed out, the Western national ideal of ‘leaders serving the people than vice versa’ came to define non-white societies.
At any rate, today’s globalists are on neo-imperialist footing, and they don’t want to sacrifice their global hegemony with the ‘old mistake’ of nationalism. In order for them to rule the world indefinitely, the current ruling elites of the US and EU must send a message to all mankind that they have the same regard for nonwhites and non-nationals as they do for whites and the nationals. Indeed, the current PC goes out of its way to demonstrate that any white person with nationalist sympathies/passions will be targeted, blacklisted, fined, and even imprisoned.
Even after Brexit, nothing has been done about the dangerously high levels of non-white immigration-invasion into the UK. The only group that is allowed to practice national-imperialism is the Jews, but then, Jews are not only the richest, most privileged, and most powerful group in the world but shrouded with the holy-holocaust shield. Even as Jews elevated themselves to sacro-saint-victim status, they have no qualms about acting like cutthroat gangsters with elaborate and complex intelligence networks to gather dirt on just about anyone.
Also, via control of the media and moral hysteria about ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘Russia-Russia-Russia’(or ‘Russysteria’), just about anyone in professional life can be smeared one way or another over the tiniest infraction(or micro-aggression). Consider how antiwar activists and honest journalists have been smeared as ‘Anti-Semites’ or ‘Russian agents’.
Another reason why Jews and only Jews are allowed national-imperialism is to ensure that goy-elites will serve as comprador-collaborationist-elites to Zion. In other words, while goy elites can be rich and successful individuals who function as managerial elites of the New World Order, they cannot stand as one with their own ethnic folks lest such unity serve as a bulwark against Jewish Supremacist Power. After all, goy national unity means the goy elites of a nation must primarily represent and defend their own peoples than serve an alien power, the Jewish Supremacists.
Generally, empires fear other empires as they clash for imperial spoils. But empires also have problems with nationalism because nationalism wants to be left alone and may want out of the imperial power game(if only to join with another empire). It’s like the various Greek kingdoms didn’t want to be drawn into the quasi-imperialist adventurism of Agamemnon against the Trojans.
Imperialism regards nationalism as an obstacle to its overweening ambitions. Franco’s Spanish nationalism wanted no part in Adolf Hitler’s imperialist ambitions, angering Der Fuhrer to no end. Polish nationalism that insisted on neutrality between National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union was a stumbling block for Hitler’s eastward push. When empires seek to invade or contain certain domains, even the neutral surrounding territories may be pressed into service as military bases or launching pads for invasion by hook and by crook.
The Jewish-run US has no ambition to colonize the Middle East with Americans, but it uses countries like Iraq and Pakistan to encircle Iran. And the US uses Japan, Korea, Philippines, and Taiwan to encircle and contain China. This is why even the mere neutrality of humble nationalism is often regarded as a hindrance to the imperial world order. Imperialism fears that if it tolerates one neutral nationalism, other nations may demand the same and insist on being left alone. Then, empires lose their bases of operation to expand their hegemony. It’s no wonder the Jewish-ruled US insisted on gaining control over Ukraine. It was to target Russia.
At any rate, nationalism, though currently regarded as a ‘rightist’ or even ‘far-right’ ideology(except when Jews and Israel practice it), has had a leftist as well as rightist pedigree. The rise of nationalism in the French Revolution was certainly leftist. Also, even the founding of the United States was, ideologically speaking, more leftist than rightist, as it was about the creation of an independent national republic where the leaders would be mindful of the interests of the national folks. The Declaration of Independence argued that the American colonies were no longer bound to British Tyranny that regarded the colonials as subjects; rather, the peoples there aspired to be heard and represented by their leaders. (Much of the accusations against Britain was greatly exaggerated, but the elaborate justification for independence had to do with leftist-nationalist aspirations, and it’s hardly surprising that the American rulers were supportive of the French Revolution despite the fact that the French King had done so much to bring the struggle for American Independence to fruition.)
Furthermore, most of the post-WWII national independence struggles against European Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism were associated with leftism. In many cases, communists led the struggles for national independence, as in Cuba and Vietnam. Or, it was national-socialists like Nehru of India.
Also, even though the Catholic Church has been regarded as a ‘right-wing’ and ‘reactionary’ force in world affairs, the role of the Church in Poland wasn’t merely against communism but unfettered capitalism & globalism. In economic theory, Catholicism has been closer to socialism than capitalism.
Indeed, only in the US and UK has it been commonplace to associate ultra-capitalism, ultra-individualism, and anti-statism as ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’. In most European nations, such positions are considered ‘liberal’, and it is often the right-wing parties that call for a bigger role of the state. What both Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler understood was that the winning formula was the combination of nationalism/patriotism with some measure of socialism. For the most part, Bismarck succeeded because he focused on the German nation. But in World War I, Germany lurched into imperialist mode(along with other European nations) in Continental affairs and brought itself to ruin. Hitler also succeeded on the national level with his formula of nationalism and socialist-capitalism, but then brought Germany to total ruin with another round of imperialist ventures.
The point is nationalism has never been entirely ‘rightist’ or ‘leftist’. It’s been a combination of rightist and leftist tendencies. In its focus on People Power, nationalism is indeed leftist and partly egalitarian. Under nationalism, people aren’t mere subjects of the ruling hierarchy. They reason-for-being isn’t to kneel before noblemen and bow before kings. They are citizens of the state with certain rights. Under the Old Order, only the aristocrats had rights that were recognized by monarchs. But under nationalism, the concept of rights was universalized to everyone within the national realm.
And yet, nationalism is also rightist in that it limits the guarantee and administration of those rights within the boundaries of an organic political realm. So, even as a nation like Poland or Hungary subscribes to the notion of universal human rights, its role is to ensure and protect those rights for the national folks within the realm. It isn’t their obligation or ambition to spread such values or practices to OTHER nations. While it is hoped that all nations and all peoples will, of their own accord, come to see the light and practice the Western form of human rights(prior to the rise of degeneracy as the New Normal), it isn’t up to any single nation as ‘liberal hegemon’ to play crusader and force all nations to conform to the one true vision of universal justice.
Furthermore, as communism demonstrated all too powerfully, a set of principles and the system built upon them are NOT the final chapter in human progress simply because of their dogmatic certainty. As it turned out, communism was the god that failed. So, even though the notion of Human Rights is a noble idea, it isn’t infallible and, furthermore, there are many more ways than one to conceptualize what constitutes ‘human rights’.
Also, ‘universalism’ can be generous but also threatening and tyrannical. It can mean the sharing of good ideas with the world but also the forcing of one dogma on the world. The wars between Christendom and Islam, as those between Catholics and Protestants, were battles of universalisms that led to countless deaths.
Apart from the dogmatism of something like the Crusades and the Inquisition(and later communism), there is the cynical exploitation of universalist rhetoric — globo-babble about ‘spreading democracy’ and championing ‘human rights’ — to push what are essentially tribalist, capitalist, or imperialist agendas.
Notice how Jewish Supremacists veil their essentially tribalist agendas with think-tank yammering about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘free enterprise’, ‘rules-based liberal world order’, and etc. If they’re sincere in their declarations, why the silence over the Zionist tyranny over the Palestinians.
Indeed, the notion of ‘universalism’ has been so corrupted by Jewish supremacists that countless minions now believe there is no greater or more urgent ‘human right’ than an infamy such as ‘gay marriage’ or lunacy such as ‘trans-gender’ rights. In the Current West, decadence and degeneracy are deemed the gold standard of ‘human rights’. The ‘gay rainbow’ is now a more sacred symbol than the US flag or the Christian Crucifix. And, the so-called ‘conservatives’, who take their money from scum-weasels like the late Sheldon Adelson the casino crook, do NOTHING to push back against this foul tide. If anything, current ‘conservatism’ seems perfectly content with creatures like ‘Lady Maga’ being the face of New Conservatism. Or with Donald Trump hosting ‘gay weddings’ at Mar-a-Lago.
Leftism, like a chameleon, changes colors in relation to what is considered most relevant. Under British tyranny, what was deemed most urgent, courageous, and worthy of sacrifice among the Irish was national independence. Thus, the Irish Left were full-blown nationalists. Back then, Irish Leftism was Irish Nationalism.
Leftists love the idea of being underdogs struggling against the Power.
Prior to Irish national independence, the Good Fight was all about resisting the British Empire, the mightiest power in the world, and struggling for national liberation and sovereignty. It is then no wonder that such romanticism attracted many Irish with leftist leanings. By joining the national struggle, they could see themselves as warriors for justice & freedom against tyranny.
Also, leftists play with the cards they are dealt with. If their domain happens to be mostly homogeneous and limited to national borders, leftism will tend to favor the working folks, thereby de facto supporting nationalism. Indeed, consider Swedish Leftism prior to the rise of globalism. It was limited to Swedes in Sweden. Swedish leftists regarded the Swedish working folks as the underdogs in need of representation. As the working class traditionally made up the bulk of the national population, a pro-prole politics could only be nationalist in practice even if not by design.
National leftism, by urging the working class to demand better wages and more benefits, had a galvanizing impact on mass politics. Also, such mass demand from below led by leftist activists compelled the ruling elites and the rich class to be more concerned with the economic well-being of all the people of the nation than with profits-uber-alles.
Thus, in a homogeneous national order, leftism can actually serve to reinforce national unity and national consciousness. It can lead to the fusion of capitalism and socialism that works out for everyone. It can remind the ruling class that the workers matter as the bulk of national folk.
Indeed, consider the effects of the New Deal on American Nationalism, which cast a long shadow well into the early 1970s. Despite its excesses and problems, it did produce a national consensus from top to bottom that Americans must be one people where even the lowliest worker must possess the basic dignities of life. Leftism could strengthen nationalism. If the American Right was focused obsessively on individualism & ‘muh profits’ and therefore had a splintering and alienating effect among the classes, the American Left pushed for pro-worker policies that made the Common Man feel that he had a stake in the system and in the national order.
That said, leftism was useful to nationalism because relatively homogeneous nations operate on the basis of race-ism. The Swedish Working Class made gains because the Swedish Left championed them against the Swedish Rich. And the White American Working Class made great strides because race-ist America was one where white elites were compelled to represent and offer better opportunities and conditions for the white working folks. During the Great Depression especially, there were tons of poor white folks like the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Back then, leftists didn’t need to champion nonwhites to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou as even plenty of whites were homeless or just barely eking out a living.
It’s interesting how leftism can so easily go from nationalism to anti-nationalism. Within a homogeneous political-and-cultural context, leftism often aids and abets nationalism by standing up for the working masses. It forces the ruling elites to connect with and be responsive to the totality of the national folks. In a homogeneous setting, leftism is invariably about the people. It may not be particularly ethnocentric or race-ist, but its overall effect is to bolster People Politics. As most people within a homogeneous political order share the same ethnicity, leftism unites the working masses to be heard as a national folk.
Ideally, to prevent the spread of radical leftism, it is best to have a right-wing or centrist government that comes under pressure from the left. Because of its virulent nature, leftism-in-power tends to be restless in trying out NEW policies, most of which turn out to be useless or, worse, harmful.
However, when leftism serves as a critical/supportive force than a dominant one, it has a way of pressuring the ruling elites to be more responsive to the masses. It sends a signal to the elites to be more mindful of the national folks lest the people turn more restless and radical. (For some reason, however, May 68 lunacy happened despite France’s fulsome investment in the nation as a whole.)
Indeed, Social-Democratic reforms in late 19th century Germany buttressed nationalism by making the working class feel as beneficiaries of the system. They were citizens than merely faceless units of labor. Wittingly or not, German leftism, by cooperating and compromising with the Ruling Class, lent credence to the German Right. Indeed, German Nationalism was the intersection of rightism and leftism.
And yet, leftism can just as easily turn anti-nationalist. How can something that could be so useful to nationalism be so detrimental as well? Because the CORE principles of leftism are not about tribalism, nationalism, or particularism but radical messianism, universalism, egalitarianism, and/or underdog-ism. Furthermore, the core leftist psychology is about holier-than-thou-ism and moral/spiritual puritanism.
This is where leftism is different from libertarianism. Decadence and degeneracy as libertarian rights are all about freedom and liberty, not about moral sanctimony. Libertarianism doesn’t morally defend self-indulgence and depravity; it merely defends the right of individuals to partake of them. In contrast, when leftism merges with decadence/degeneracy, it feels a ‘spiritual’ urge to sanctify and ‘sacralize’ them as the ‘new normal’ or even the ‘new holy’.
Though leftism has largely been approached and analyzed ideologically, it can also be understood as a psychological tendency. In some ways, the psychological factor may be more important. After all, if leftism is primarily about ideology, it should have died with the fall of communism. Besides, what is more hierarchical than globalism that has created a Master Class of super-oligarchs versus the rest of us? If leftism functioned as an ideology, it should primarily be anti-globalist and anti-hyper-capitalist.
And yet, so much of today’s ‘leftism’ sides with the Deep State, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, and super-capitalism. Ideologically, it makes little sense, but psychologically it makes perfect sense. Even if leftist ideology is pretty much dead, leftist psychology is alive and well, and it cannot be extinguished because it’s a psycho-emotional tendency that some people are genetically more disposed to.
Some people are born with psycho-leftist tendencies, just as some are born with psycho-rightist tendencies. While sanctity matters a lot to both psycho-rightists and psycho-leftists, the former are more into preservation of familiar symbols & entrenched values, whereas the latter are more into the moral outrage of the moment. Thus, psycho-rightist emotions are rarely as heated as psycho-leftist ones. Obviously, defending the realm requires less hysterics than changing the world does.
Granted, psycho-rightism is not without passion. Many psycho-rightists have a deep and powerful sense of connection to their land, folks, customs, & history. Psycho-rightism is about the sacred mansion, psycho-leftism is about the holy mission. Also, because psycho-rightism is rooted to the soil, it is more resilient in the long run IF it can weather the storm of change. It’s like trees with roots deep in the ground recover and regrow after harsh storms, cold winters, and even forest fires.
However, because leftism is without roots(or is anti-roots), when a particular leftism is discredited, rejected, and passes from history, it vanishes with hardly a trace. However, there are ways in which psycho-leftist fervor can overwhelm psycho-rightist passion. Because psycho-rightism is more an emotion — the feelings one has for family, home/homeland, heritage, and etc. — , it tends not to be articulated or intellectualized. It’s something you feel without knowing.
In contrast, because psycho-leftism is about finding faults in the system and changing it radically or altogether(and even trying to change the entire world), it has to be more than a passion or hysteria. It has to be intellectualized into a system of ideas or a worldview.
As such, leftism tends to be more articulate and ‘rhetoricized’ than rightism is. It’s like someone who believes in ‘home sweet home’ feels a certain sentimentality, which satisfies his sense of purpose and meaning.
In contrast, someone who says the home should be torn down to make way for something new, different, and better has to explain why his plan should be realized. Precisely because leftism goes against the grain of the ‘natural’ and normally-accepted way of doing things, it has to justify itself morally and intellectually. Thus, leftism gains greater mastery over the Politics of Words. As words have the power to convert minds and as converted minds go about joining the crusade, words can change the world.
Between the psycho-rightist mentality and the psycho-leftist mentality is the psycho-libertarian mentality that neither feels a strong attachment to folks, culture, land, & heritage nor feels a particular tendency toward moral outrage & redemption through transformation. Psycho-libertarians find psycho-rightism to be stuffy and repressive and find psycho-leftism to be rabid and virulent. If psycho-rightists want to keep homos in the closet, psycho-leftists want to elevate homos in the church. Psycho-rightists want to restrain perversion, deviance, and difference to maintain the Traditional Way or the Current Norm, whereas psycho-leftists want to restrain tradition, natural norms, and ‘reactionary’ views to push through the New Agenda. As both are founded on sacred emotions — psycho-rightism is about the holy, psycho-leftism is about being holier-than-thou — , there is a limit to which either can accept freedom and liberty. If freedom threatens what is sacred to psycho-rightism, it must be curtailed to preserve what is believed to be noble, essential, and true. If freedom threatens what is holy to psycho-leftism, it must be curtailed to ensure the momentum of the march forward. Because psycho-libertarians hold nothing sacred, they have a difficult time understanding the rightist emotional attachment to tradition/heritage and the leftist emotional attachment to ‘social justice’.
Granted, there is one thing that is quasi-sacred to certain psycho-libertarians. As idealists of the Individual, psycho-libertarians tend to idolize the super-individuals who achieved the most, especially in business. So, as often as not, psycho-libertarians will slavishly agree with whatever the richest bunch of oligarchs have to say.
So, if super-duper rich oligarchs and corporations use monopolies to curtail free speech and push globo-homo, the psycho-libertarians may approve in their star-struck infatuation with the rich and successful. It’s all about ‘muh private property’. Indeed, this is why so many psycho-libertarians are fully on-board with Israel and Zionism. Not because they have a sentimental attachment to Israel or regard Jews as the Chosen but because they are so impressed with Jewish wealth and Jewish achievements as individuals.
Because the globalist elites know that ‘leftism’ now functions essentially as a psychological than an ideological agent, they’ve used their control of academia, information media, entertainment, and the deep state to manipulate and exploit psycho-leftism. Globalist elites know that psycho-leftists are concerned less with ideological consistency and intellectual honesty than with emotional fulfillment of being self-righteously outraged and/or smugly & snidely feeling superior in being ‘more evolved’ or ‘on the right side of history’.
Leftism used to be wedded to a particular set of ideals and ideological worldview. Now, it’s mostly about ‘muh feelings’. Just like someone who is fixated on the orgasm doesn’t care about love & commitment as just about any sex partner will do, a psycho-leftist doesn’t really care what he or she is up-in-arms about AS LONG AS it provides him or her with the emotional rapture of being holier-than-thou and self-righteous.
So, as long as globalist elites find clever ways to tickle their ‘outragenous’ zones, the psycho-leftist rabble are happy. It’s like dogs need to hunt for or chase after something. It can be ANYTHING as long as they get to run after it. It could be a rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, ball, or a stick. As long as a dog is given something to chase after, it feels alive. Likewise, as long as the psycho-leftist is given something to throw hysterics about, he or she feels fulfilled with the moral-orgasm or ‘morgasm’.
Indeed, the Jewish globalists prefer this because ideological leftism insists on an underlying consistency of ideas and principles. Thus, ideological leftists are harder to manipulate hither and thither. This was indeed why Jews eventually lost out under communism. Communism, being an ideological form of leftism, stood steadfast on a set of principles. It was anti-wealth, anti-individual, and anti-enterprise. It favored mediocrity and conformism above all. In a system governed by such principles, Jewish communist elites were targeted and brought down several pegs in the name of equality. So, even though Jews started out strong in the Soviet Communist Order, they kept losing power as the years went by. In contrast, Jews went from strength to strength in the US because it allowed individualism and meritocracy, two areas in which Jews were advantaged for their pushy personalities and higher IQ.
To an extent, Jewish leftism was useful as a moral cover precisely because Jews were rapidly gaining in power, privilege, and wealth. If Jews were only associated with money and position, people would look upon them with envy and resentment, even hatred. But if associated with the Left, it would create the illusion of Jewish commitment to ‘equality’ or ‘equity’.
While capitalist Jews and leftist Jews didn’t see eye to eye on lots of things through much of the 20th century, the depressing fate of Jews under communism, the amazing success of Jews in the US, the galvanizing cult of the Shoah, and the rise of Zionism all led to a mutual understanding between the two camps.
Jewish capitalists would keep getting richer and richer and gain greater control of society while Jewish ‘leftists’ would make a lot of noise about ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ to lend the impression that Jews are more about ‘social justice’ prophecy than material wealth & profits.
In other words, Jews pretty much gave up on ideological leftism and formulated ways to manipulate psychological leftism via their control of media, academia, and deep state to manufacture new idols and narratives to rile up moral panic and hysteria. Ideology and ideas now matter far less than idols and icons, especially those of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, Homos as ‘gay rainbow’ angel-fairies, and Negroes as Mandela/Mandingo stud-skank-saint-victims.
So, never mind what Zionists are doing to the Palestinians and to Ukraine. Just go hunt for ‘New Nazis’ to punch. (Of course, if anyone proposed the kicking of genocidal Zionists, the Jewish supremacists would freak.)
And never mind that Homos are deeply embedded in the Deep State and work with CIA and other goons to spread US neo-imperialism(aka Wars for Israel) that have devastated entire nations and peoples. Homos are now holy-schmoly, and it’s so gratifying for many to wave the ‘gay’ flag while shrieking about ‘homophobia’.
And never mind that blacks kill blacks(and other races). Just chant the mantra of ‘Black Lives Matter’ as if blacks are the ones in need of protection from the ‘white racist police’.
And never mind what Jews, Liberals, and ideological leftists once said about McCarthyism, ‘anti-communist paranoia’, and ‘red-baiting’. It’s now vogue to panic about Russia-Russia-Russia as the root cause of all our problems — how could it be not when it rejects the holy crusade of Globo-Homo, one of the holiest of the holies in the current psycho-leftist window display?
And never mind how Obama turned out to be just another neo-imperialist stooge who did the bidding of Zionists and spread more Wars for Israel. Why, he is the first black president, and that means he’s holy and a symbol against the evil of ‘racism’.
With psycho-leftists, it’s really a game of ‘fill-in-the-blank-slate’. As ideological leftism is dead, today’s wanna-be leftists have no long-term vision or deep set of principles to master and live by. Psycho-leftism is like a gun that wants to fire off endless rounds. It doesn’t matter which ammos are loaded into its blank cartridge as long as it gets to fire them.
One thing for sure, today’s ‘leftism’ isn’t about equality or anti-imperialism as so many on the so-called ‘left’ cheer on US neo-globo-imperialism, defend the deep state, and praise Wall Street & Silicon Valley.
Now, why would ‘leftists’ be for the super-rich and globalist imperialism? Because having no real ideology to ground their worldview, today’s ‘leftists’ are mostly psycho-leftists who mainly crave moral outrage and holier-than-thou antics about something, anything.
As most of them are too stupid, lazy, and/or ignorant to form their own perspectives, they rely on the powers-that-be to supply the idols and fashions to get most worked up about. It’s sort of like the Weekly Billboard 100, or the hit parade of moral outrage, the latest buzz on what’s hot and what’s not.
Just like dogs themselves cannot throw the ball or stick and rely on their masters to do so, psycho-leftists rely on Jewish globo-homo overlords to provide the hot topics to chase after. This is why today’s ‘leftists’ are so malleable and so arbitrary in their moral outrages. Their moral outrage is not the cart behind the ideological horse but rather the horse itself that will pull just about anything loaded onto the cart.
Consider that most ‘leftists’ showed little concern about the so-called ‘refugees’ detained during Obama’s administration. They hardly batted an eye over the US deep state’s use of Neo-Nazis to pull off a coup in Ukraine. They mostly ignored the Obama administration’s tacit support of the bloody military coup in Egypt that toppled a democratically elected government. They had no concern for the Kurds in Syria.
But, as soon as Trump entered the Oval Office, these very same people suddenly began to foam at the mouth over the very topics they’d blithely ignored under Obama. The very people who didn’t give a damn about Muslims when Obama’s wars were killing bushels of them were suddenly weeping crocodile tears over the injustice of Trump’s so-called ‘Muslim Travel Ban’.
For a better grasp of psycho-leftism, consider the ridiculous case of Justin Trudeau whose smug moral posturing and one-upmanship contradict one another. One day, he dresses up as a Muslim and ‘prays’ in a mosque but on the next day waves the ‘gay’ flag at a ‘pride’ event. Now, what do Islam and ‘gay pride’ have in common?
Never mind the ideological inconsistency. What matters is both provide the instant gratification of ‘virtue highs’. Mingling with Muslims he is one with much-consecrated Diversity and against ‘Islamophobia’, and dilly-dallying with homos he is one with the holy ‘rainbow’ and against the dark sin of ‘homophobia’.
The fact that ‘transphobia’ became the latest craze and the object of a new crusade virtually overnight goes to show that psycho-leftism is almost entirely about senses and emotions than about ideas. As sleazebag Joe Biden and others have pointed out, the rise of globo-homo owed less to ideological or intellectual debate than the power of idolatry and iconography via TV shows, movies, advertising, and pageantry.
In a world where image and sound count for more than ideas, where chants-mantras-slogans-platitudes have precedence over words as tools of logic and facts, people have forgotten how to think. Indeed, so many people now want to be rid of Free Speech because certain words, even if true and factual, offend their sense of the sacred, mostly about Jews, blacks, and homos.
In a homogenous order, leftism will tend to side with the working masses against the rich elites in a kind of national leftism. But in a diverse order or in an order(even if homogeneous) where diversity has been sacralized, leftism will side with the diversity of minorities, immigrants, and foreigners against the national core — we may call it ‘global leftism’.
While national leftism and global leftism don’t see eye to eye, they share a common trait at the psychological level. Both are predicated on the need to feel moral outrage and self-righteousness. National leftists feel holier-than-thou in supporting the poor and toiling workers against the rich and privileged. They feel like secular saints standing with the have-nots against the super-haves.
Global leftists also feel holier-than-thou but in their coddling of marginalized minorities, distrusted foreign elements, and struggling immigrants. For global leftists, the peoples of the Third World are even needier than the white working class in the West.
Because leftism is about feeling self-righteous by sticking up for the little guy against the big guy, its logic is usually incumbent on who happens to be designated as the ‘littler’ guy. In a homogenous setting of nationalism, leftists see the national proles and poor as the little guys(like in populist Frank Capra movies). In a diverse setting of globalism, leftists see the global poor as the little guys in need of protection and representation.
But such a mindset can come into play EVEN BEFORE diversity becomes a decisive factor. Before homogeneous Sweden embarked on its agenda of Diversity and national suicide, its media and academia instilled countless Swedes with the idea that Diversity is not only good but downright sacred, implying that National Sweden was an imperfect and even vile place for its lack of essential vitamins and minerals of Diversity.
Once Swedish psychology became inculcated with the notion that Diversity is next to godliness, Swedish leftists kept pushing for more immigration. And once non-white immigrants got a foothold in Sweden, Swedish leftists went about embracing, championing, and coddling them as the new ‘little guys’, the sacrosanct victims deserving of the most love and sympathy.
Swedish elites, who only care about money and privilege, figured they could be spared the leftist ire if they signed onto the Diversity program. Why would they care when they got the money and means to keep themselves safe and sound in their affluent enclaves even if Sweden were to fill up with foreign hordes? Besides, affluent Swedes and Swedish leftists could scapegoat the Swedish nationalists(mostly lower-middle class and working class) as the ‘racist’ villains as the cause for either insufficient diversity or the problems of diversity.
This is why the world needs National Humanism or Neo-Fascism as the only workable formula for fusing the right with the left for the sake of national preservation and pushback against imperialisms of various stripes.
