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

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Commentary on "Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part One"(by Andrew Joyce)

Jewish Involvement in Contemporary Refugee and Migrant Organizations — Part One

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/12/28/jewish-involvement-in-contemporary-refugee-and-migrant-organizations-part-one/

Look all around the media and academia, and the the elites believe spreading falsehoods is okay(and even necessary) because, according to PC wartime logic, lies in the service of the Holy Crusade are more justified than truths in the service of Evil Tyranny. The value of the Noble Lie.

It's the mindset during wartime. Wars are so extreme that truth is secondary to winning. Both Right and Left agree on this in times of war. US and USSR told tons of lies in World War II, but because the overall understanding was that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were so utterly Evil, all means and methods(even deceitful propaganda) were justified in taking them down. (And of course, Germany and Japan did the same, often sacrificing truth for their own formulation of the Noble Lie.)

Now, if there had been no war, truth might have been favored over 'us and them'(or 'good vs evil') mentality. But the war was on, and the enemy was seen not merely as a rival or competitor but Evil Incarnate. This was why so many on the Right were willing to tell lies about the Soviet Union and communism. Even if they peddled in lies and half-truths, such were apparently justified because the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire. Its defeat was so necessary that even lies that served against communism were preferable to truth that suggested the USSR wasn't all bad(thereby weakening the righteousness of anti-communist moral furor; besides, moralism or moral-high is addictive like drugs; people love to 'vape' on that stuff).

The central fact of PC is that it is on war-footing as Jonathan Haidt pointed out.

It's like Sonny Corleone laments that Tom is not a wartime consiglieri. Tom is 'business'-minded and believes that negotiation is still possible with the other side. He feels that what the Tataglias and Sollozzo pulled wasn't evil. Nasty yes and very ugly. But it was 'business' and all sides have done similar things. In contrast, Sonny(and later Michael in a more calculated way) believes it's a matter of us or them. Only war, not peace, can settle the differences. One side must win, the other side must lose. When Michael takes power, he removes Tom from the role of consiglieri. Michael will only pretend to negotiate but really gear up for war and go for blitzkrieg take-out of the heads of the Five Families.



While NPCs or SJWs make the most noise, they are mere 'buttons' and 'buffers' of the ultimate power of the GLOB(that is dominated by Jewish Power). Jewish globalists see the world in terms 'We rule and they obey'. Goy autonomy is like a slave rebellion to Jewish Globalists who've achieved the summit of power. No other option is tolerable.
Of course, if Jewish globalists laid out the the terms of PC in such brazenly tribal and supremacist manner, no one would follow them. If anything, NPCs or SJWs will turn against Jewish Power as being nazi-like. So, Jews have masked what is essentially an us-versus-them tribal agenda with a good-versus-evil universal calling. Thus, most people are blind to the struggle between Jewish Hegemony and Goy Autonomy AND instead see the world in terms of Diversity & Inclusion versus 'Racism' & Nazism(which today means even Hungarians and Poles who want to be left alone) It used to be that Nazism represented the invasive force while anti-Nazis represented defensive resistance. Today, however, Europeans who resist the globalist bankers and third world hordes are the 'nazis', whereas the invasive forces -- Zionist-controlled US military or African mobs -- are the crusading angels against 'hate'. But then, we live in a world where a man pretending to be a woman is said to be 'properly gendering' himself whereas someone who sees him as still a man is 'misgendering' him.

War warps the mind. As the saying goes, "First casualty of war is truth." In some ways, the motto is a complaint, but it's also an admittance of the usefulness of 'necessary evil' in extreme times. After all, there are moments when lies are justified. If some thug is out to rob you and hurt your loved ones, does it make sense to offer up any truth that will advantage him? No, you'd be justified in telling any lie to survive, keep your wealth, and protect your family. In crime movies like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and HIGH AND LOW, lawmen use deception against the crooks who are seen as undeserving of fair play; they are criminals who violated the social contract after all.

The problem is such a mentality can outlast the 'war' context and come to poison politics by continuing to warp reality by appeals to wartime footing. (Since the context no longer exists, its facsimile is projected onto the world via the media and think-tanks that inform the political culture.) Sharper or more experienced minds saw how this played out in the aftermath of the Cold War. Finally, the world could breathe a sigh of relief and hope for better relations all around. But the Neocons, Anti-Communist nostalgists, and Warmongers had to cook up new cold wars(that even led to hot wars) by projecting Cold War mentality onto a host of other conflicts(actually of limited regional relevance). But then, this mentality could be sourced back to the aftermath of WWII, what with Jews and Interventionists invoking 'new nazis' and 'new hitlers' to justify their power move. (For a time, many Jews felt Joe McCarthy and the American Right were the 'new nazis', whereas hardline anti-communists argued that the Soviet Union was just as dangerous as Nazi Germany.) Iran has become the perennial 'New Nazi nation', and there is now a 'new cold war' with Russia because its opposition to 'gay marriage' is apparently neo-Stalinist.

In GOODFELLAS, Paulie tells Henry that he looked the other way on the drug-dealing because Henry was in a tight situation and had to do whatever was necessary to survive while in prison. But now that Henry is a free man on the outside, he mustn't get involved with narcotics because the risks are too high. So, what was justifiable in one situation isn't in another. In the end, it's the drug trade that brings down not only Henry but all those fingered by him. Paulie was right.



The truth that must be recognized is that the predominant Jewish Power sees the world in terms of Us versus Them, or we Jewish Superiors who deserve to rule versus You Goyim Inferiors who exist to serve us. Because Jews are so vastly outnumbered by goyim, they feel they mustn't ever let up on their War on Goyim. But then, since Jews cannot win an openly Jews vs Goyim War, they use PC to re-frame it into Diversity(and Social Justice) versus Nazis(and White Supremacism), though in the Middle East and North Africa, the Narrative is re-framed into Forces-of-Liberal-Democratic-values(that includes white American soldiers in battle gear to mow down tons of Muslims and Arabs) against tyrants and oppressors(such as Assad and rulers of Iran). Use whites against non-whites in the Middle East in the name of spreading 'Western values' & 'liberty' AND use non-whites against whites in the West in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Both agendas serve Jewish Hegemony, but whites are fooled into believing they are spreading 'democracy', and non-whites are fooled into thinking they are upholding the magic of 'diversity' by fighting 'racism'(even though their immigration patterns of favoring white nations over their own would indicate that they believe whites are better than their own peoples and cultures; shouldn't that count as 'racist'?)

Anyway, because Jewish Power is in constant war-footing, they use their control of finance, media, academia, and government to push wartime mindset in journalism and think-tanks. Jews in media and academia know what the real game is(though some idealistic Jews like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal rebel against this), and goyim in journalism schools are trained to be attack-dogs than tracking-dogs. So much of journalism is about mindless frenzy of hunting the enemy and tearing it from limb from limb than about tracking down the truth. Fact-hunting in today's journalism isn't about tracking down the truth as the highest good but about mauling any 'inconvenient fact' into shreds to send a message that certain views simply cannot be allowed to inhabit the media-sphere and academisphere. In recent years, certain exiled or banned facts made their way back through internet platforms, but the Jewish ethno-monopoly is now working to hunt them down to extinction as well.

Because Jewish Power sees everything in terms of Us(who deserve to win and rule) versus Them(who only exist to serve us) AND because NPCs or SJWs(usually goyim who've come under Jewish influence in media and academia) see everything in terms of war between Resistance and the Nazis, they favor the lie over the truth IF the lie favors their agenda. They will favor facts and truth when such are apolitical, neutral, or advantages their side, BUT when given the choice between the lie that favors the agenda and the fact that validates the Enemy, they will choose the lie every time because their mentality is totally in war-footing mode. To Jewish Power, Trump(even in his lame cucked-out state) represents the awakening of white consciousness for autonomy from Jewish hegemony; and to NPCs or SJWs(brainwashed by Jewish-controlled media and academia), Trump represents 'racist' and 'white supremacist'. The mentality of your average goy NPC in media or academia came to light in, of all places, a vape shop. Look at this virtue-vaper who won't sell products to a Trump-supporter.



But the American Right shares something in common with NPC or SJW-types. Because there's been so much emphasis on God and guns in US conservatism -- and mindless flag-waving for the military -- , too many American Conservatives have been as easy to dupe and manipulate as the NPC-types. If NPC's can be made to see 'nazis', 'racists', and 'white supremacists' everywhere, the guns-and-God American Conservatives could be counted onto support any new hate-fest or even war against whatever is deemed the New Evil Empire. Looking back, too many on the American Right were duped into over-zealous anti-communism and support of insane wars and sanctions-policies since the end of the Cold War that only served Zionist-globalist and military-industrial interests. It's good to see that Tucker Carlson and even Ann Coulter have come to see the stupidity of such mindset. (As for certain elements of the 'far right', their wartime mentality against Jews is so strong that they can't see anything admirable about Jews and can't see evil in something obviously insane like Nazi Imperialism. Warped by War Path.)

Ideally, people should favor the facts over falsehoods(and truth over lies), and I think all people, regardless of political ideology, agree to this. But, most people, again regardless of ideology, believe that there are extreme situations or conditions when winning matters more than anything because losing means the failure to survive or the triumph of evil.

Survival is less a moral issue than a life-force issue. All organisms want to live, 'good' or 'bad'. Even in movies about criminals and outlaws as 'heroes', we find ourselves rooting for those trying to survive and make it out alive(as in escape-from-prison movies). There is an instinctive animal-part of us that makes us identify with anyone or anything that wants to live for another day. Even Jews watching DAS BOOT(German film about a submarine crew in WWII) can understand the all-too-human-animal desperation of men struggling to survive.

When it comes to the elemental matter of survival, truth-or-false is secondary to live-or-die. It's like Winston Smith is willing to betray even the woman he loves to be spared from the ravenous rats in George Orwell's 1984. There is a part of Jewishness that forever feels like cornered rats trying to survive, ranging from desperate Jews hiding from Nazis during WWII to globalist overlords trying to maintain their tribal-imperial domination over all goyim. In the past, Jews tried to survive as Jews; today, Jews try to 'survive' as Jewish Supremacists as they've become addicted to Total Power.

The OTHER reason that makes people favor Falsehood over Facts has to do with Sacro-Mentality. We see this in both religion and PC(which is a form of quasi-religious secular cult that views esp. Jews, Negros, and Homos as the Holy Three). When something is held to be sacred, its infinite worth cannot be contested with facts and/or reason.
It's like faith is beyond facts. You can lay out all the logical argument and hard evidence against the existence of God or miracles, but those with Faith will continue to believe even against all factual evidence. To true-believers, God or Jesus(or Muhammad) is so sacred and holy, so above everything, that they cannot be bothered with 'petty' facts or details that go against Faith. Facts wilt in the face of Faith. PC is a neo-faith with Jews, Negroes, and homos as sacred cows. So, facts don't matter to the idolaters of PC. It's like no amount of scientific facts can persuade religious people to lose or compromise their Faith. This is even true of relatively higher IQ people. Nick Fuentes is a smart educated guy but, like Patrick Buchanan(another smart person)who has always rejected evolution(as an affront to Christian theology), is willing to play dumb about scientific facts -- such as Earth revolving around the Sun than vice versa -- to prop up some archaic Christian Orthodoxy about the cosmos. As for PC pod-people, too many have undergone 'communion' with Diversity to harbor any skepticism about it. 'Diversity is our strength' or DIOS is one of their core catechisms. So, even when increasing Diversity is destroying the fabric of their societies, they stick with the Faith than face up to Facts.
In summary, animal instinct for survival(of basic self or dominant position) and spiritual inspiration for sanctity both militate against facts that come together into the truth. Jewish mania for survival(as hegemonic supremacists) and NPC/SJW fanaticism for self-righteous sanctimony are the core animating factors at the nuclei of PC.

When Jews purport to support 'refugees', they are really pushing for De-population of Arabs in the Middle East. Jews want more war in Syria... so that Jews could grab territory in there ... or to drive Palestinians in West Bank into Syria.

Jews want to empty parts of the Middle East so that Zionists can create Greater Israel. And Jews want to fill up the West with more non-whites in order to play divide-and-rule among goyim. When Jews say 'Diversity is OUR strength', they don't mean All of Us will benefit. 'Our' just means Jewish.

If Jews really cared about refugees, they should first acknowledge that the main problem(or crime) is people being forced to become refugees in the first place. So, real humanitarians should try to prevent wars that turn people into refugees. But notice how Jews NEVER address that issue. If anything, Jews have been pushing for endless Neocon warmongering policies that turned the Middle East and North Africa upside down. Jews also worked with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to foment a refugee crisis there as well.
So, Jews see nothing wrong with using their power to spread wars and/or economic destruction(via sanctions especially) that turn millions into refugees. Turning goyim into refugees is okay, indeed wonderful. Jewish Moralism on the Refugee Question is never about preventing people from becoming refugees but about how the West(but never Israel) must welcome the refugees. And we must never ever mention the fact that those refugees are fleeing from war zones created by Zio-globalist policies carried out by the US-Israel-Saudi Axis. (Saudis are turncoat Arabs who will harm other Muslims to maintain their artificially vaunted place in the Middle East.) Libya and Syria would be stable nations if not for the fact that US-Saudis-and-Israel(and Turkey in a spectacular act of miscalculation) conspired to aid and arm Jihadi lunatics. Of course, this entailed violation of border security in Libya and Syria. So much for the wonders of Open Borders. In Syria, it led to 10,000s of terrorists flowing freely from all sides. I guess the West must take in millions of refugees while Syria must take in tons of Jihadis. The wonders of Open Borders(or Broken Borders).

Jews say the West must accept refugees because them poor folks are just like Jewish 'refugees' in the 20th century. But if we go by the earlier history, the sober lesson should be 'taking in refugees is a bad idea'. Palestine took in Jewish refugees, and guess what happened? Jews took over the territory and now treat Palestinians like subhuman cattle in West Bank.
US took in Jewish refugees, but Jews took over America and are now gloating about how they're gonna replace the white population. Boy, aren't Jews so grateful to whites for having been welcomed into America.
Even Jewish 'refugees' from the Soviet Union in the 1980s turned out to be vile scum like Max Boot and Julia Ioffe who hates people saying 'Merry Christmas' to her. (Btw, if Jews hate Christmas so much, how about a law that forbids Jews from profiting from Christmas? Jews rake in so much cash from the Christmas season but bitch about how much they hate Christians and the Christian holiday.)

Jews always mention evil Hitler and how the world didn't do enough to save Jews from Nazis. But when millions were dying in genocides in Ukraine, China, Cambodia, or Rwanda, how many Jews volunteered to save innocent lives from mass slaughter or famine? (Has anyone met a Jew who thinks the Jewish race should nobly sacrifice their own to save members of another kind? Jews would laugh at such a notion. When millions of Ukrainians were dying in the Great Famine, how many Jews
urged fellow Jews to sacrifice their own lives to save those poor Ukrainian goyim? NONE. Also, whenever Jews invoke altruism, it is never at their own expense but at the expense of others. Jews tribalize the sanctimony but universalize the costs. Jews make a big show of caring about refugees, but the burden is pushed onto goyim. Jews use Western Power to invade & destroy the Middle East and then encourage more immigration/migration of non-white 'refugees' to use against white goy 'racist-nazi-xenophobes' in the West.)

Also, even though the Nazis were clearly evil, maybe the fact that there was yet another outbreak of anti-Jewish violence had SOMETHING to do with Jewish perfidy? Given Jewish behavior in the US and Russia since the end of the Cold War -- Jews surely knew how to rape the entire economy of Russia in the 90s -- , is it a stretch to assume that Jews in the past acted like they do in our time? While there's no doubt that the Nazis over-reacted, they meted out violence not to a saintly innocent people but a vile, hateful, murderous, and contemptuous people.

Implications of White Flight from Black Fight — Nature of Globalist Elitism and its War on the National Covenant — Upper-Class Consciousness among the Globo-Homo Elite Class — National Unity vs Global Diversity

White Flight After the Greater Migration: http://www.unz.com/isteve/white-flight-in-other-countries/

"The Great Migration of 6 or 7 million African-Americans from the South to Northern cities in the 1940s-1970s contributed heavily to white flight to the suburbs. With sub-Saharan Africa forecast to quadruple in population to 4 billion over the rest of the century, first world countries need to be thinking seriously about what would be the impact of a Greater Migration of blacks out of Africa of one or two orders of magnitude greater than the Great Migration that caused so much havoc in 20th Century urban America."

White Flight isn't all bad for whites. It means the basic tendency and even defacto 'right'(of well-being and self-preservation) of whites to move to safety as group strategy. This happened in the 60s with many whites, Republicans and Democrats, moving to the suburbs or safer/ritzier parts of the city. And there was resistance against Busing from both Democrats and Republicans, from both working class and middle class. And the main reason wasn't Race & IQ but Race & Muscle, i.e. the reality of weaker whites being bullied and humiliated by tougher & more aggressive blacks, or BAMMAMA(or blacks are more muscular and more aggressive).
So, white flight was about white solidarity. It was about even white(and Jewish) Liberals eventually coming to see the reality of black crime & grime and moving to white areas. Back then, whiteness was under moral pressure but not vilified. The message was whiteness could be better, not that it was inherently evil.

Since then, whiteness has been so vilified over the yrs that the notion of any white collective interest or behavior is taboo. So, if white flight of the past was about whites of all ethnic groups, regions, and classes acting with common and shared understanding of black violence and crime, the new trends are about class than race. It's not about White Flight -- based on sentiments shared by vast majority of whites -- but about Privilege Village. Privilege Village doesn't play out in terms of whites running from blacks but in terms of those with status & privilege coalescing in hip urban centers(as socio-economic magnets) and circling the wagons with means ranging from obvious to subtle. Its core modus operandi is based on wealth, status, and connection, not race. (Though globalism leads to diversity among both elites and masses, the diverse elites are better able to coordinate policies to expand their privilege than it is for diverse masses to cooperate to build power. For one thing, the elites are far fewer in number than the masses. Also, the elites are closer to one another due to their concentration in elite institutions and circles in a handful of big cities and college towns. Many know each other by face and name. In contrast, the diverse masses are spread out and hardly know one another. Also, the affinity for abstract thinking and affluence-as-reward for serving globo-homo agenda make it easier for diverse elites to put aside their tribal differences for common haute-class interests. Diversity based on carrots works smoother than Diversity based on sticks. When diverse elites conform to globo-homo agenda, it means more carrots. When diverse masses come under globo-homo regimen, it means more sticks to beat them with. Less intelligent, less keen on abstract thinking, and more desperate, the diverse masses fall into the habit of accusing one another along tribal lines and fail to form a Pan-Diverse Mass Solidarity against the elites among whom diversity is less a hindrance to consensus and coordination.)

In contrast, the White Flight of yesteryear brought together whites of all classes. When my family moved to the suburbs, there were almost no blacks in a neighborhood where whites(and some Asians) ranged from upper middle class to working class. They had one thing in common: they did whatever they could to move away from blacks. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., they all wanted safety from urban crime that has always been disproportionately black. So, even though white solidarity wasn't overt and blatant, everyone understood why they moved to the suburbs. It was clearly a white thing.

But now, any notion of white interest or even well-being is anathema to all-pervasive Political Correctness. This doesn't mean that whites can't have it good. Indeed, many whites today have it better than ever. But they must pursue their interests in terms of class and status, not race(unless one happens to be Jewish or black). So, the essence of their worldview isn't about whites and blacks but winners and losers. The affluent whites in urban centers take pride as 'winners' and look down on whites with less as 'losers'. Even Kevin Williamson of National Review espouses such sentiment. But then, this is now a worldwide phenomenon.

Look at Japanese elites' decision to open the gates to massive immigration. (Granted, much of the blame must go to the Japanese masses that stopped breeding. Though most Japanese are not part of the elite, a kind of universal elitism has infected too many Japanese who now refuse to breed unless they can be assured of their kids going to good schools and having good jobs. Another problem is crass hedonism and soulless materialism that made so many Japanese live for momentary pleasure than long-term obligation and meaning.)
Now, some argue that it's stupid for the rich class to let in all the poor folks(especially from Third World nations) because the poor folks will vote for policies that tax and rob the rich. But has this happened in Latin America? It seems oligarchic power was always greater there than in homogeneous nations like Japan, historic Canada and historic Sweden(as opposed to globalist Sweden that is dying fast due to mass-immigration-invasion). Granted, Latin American situation can lead to Communist Cuba or Bolivarian Venezuela, but more often than not, diversity in Latin America has led to consolidation of elite/oligarchic power. For one thing, since the white or whiter elites see the brown or browner masses as different(despite bogus rhetoric about all 'Latinos' being harmoniously mixed) from themselves, there is little sense of connection or ethnoblesse olige. Also, because there are so many racial gradations in the diversity of Latin American masses, they've been unable to form a united alliance against the ruling class.
In contrast, in a nation like Japan or historic Sweden, functional socialist policies went further because the elites regarded the rest of the population as part of the national family. Also, the people of Japan and Sweden have believed in equal claim to the homeland. So, even though Japanese elites have more private property, they have no more claim on Japanese Nation than the native Japanese masses do. A working class Japanese has just as much claim on Japan-as-homeland as the richest Japanese oligarch does. Because all Japanese had such a powerful collective claim on the land, their demands had to be addressed by the ruling class. And same was true in Sweden. Swedish people have been there forever, and Swedish civilization goes back many centuries. Swedish elites have more personal wealth, but they are no more deserving of Sweden-as-homeland than the Swedish masses are. Because Japan-as-homeland belongs equally to elites and masses, the elites must be mindful of the masses as fellow nationals. And because even working class Swedes have roots going back centuries(even millennia if we count the barbarian eras), the Swedish elites must recognize them as co-owners of the nation. So, Japanese masses and Swedish masses aren't merely rent-seekers or nomadic boarders but co-owners of the nation as 'sacred homeland'. That implies a lot of moral power and legitimacy among the people. It suggests a concept of claim-and-ownership that goes beyond private property(of libertarianism). According to the notion of private property, your worth counts only on the individual level of personal possession and contract. If you have a lot, you are a winner. If you have little, you're a loser.
In contrast, if there is a concept of National Property, even the poorest person of the nation has something precious. Even he has a 'covenant' with the nation, a deeper concept than capital or constitution. Value by capital is about who has more money. Value by constitution is about protections under the law. Covenant, in contrast, says your connection to the land is sacred and eternal. Israeli nationalism is based on the covenant. You could be a Jew living in a goy nation, and your ancestors could have been away from the Holy Land for 1000 yrs. But as a Jew, you have an eternal connection & covenant with the land of Israel. It goes beyond capital and is deeper than constitution.

A person is pulled by two forces: tribalism and elitism. On the tribal level, a person instinctively feels closer to his own kind. And yet, he also wants to be with the 'best', whatever the cost in terms of tribal solidarity.
On the one hand, a white person has an instinctive feeling of closeness with fellow whites. However, in his ambition for riches and privilege, he may wish to identify more with Bread than Blood. While the world of success could be overwhelmingly white, it could also be highly diverse with many non-white actors(who are equally obsessed with position and privilege). If a white person had to choose between middle class status among whites and upper class status among globo-homo diversity, he may well choose the latter because people want MORE and BETTER(especially in a world where affluence and narcissism are the biggest idols). Immigration patterns sure bear this out. So many non-whites are eager to depart from their own ancestral lands, national kinfolk, and deep culture to start new lives in richer nations even if it means loss of identity and culture, especially among their children who racially mix with others, take up the globo-homo flag, and come to know only one lingo: American English and Ebonics.

We don't have much in the way of classic Marxist class-consciousness anymore, but class-outlook is bigger than ever in some ways. If Marxism placed proletarian class consciousness at the center of social, moral, and historical discourse, globalism puts elite class consciousness at the center of all things. Indeed, the promotion of homomania is less a blow against class politics than a promotion of elite-class politics. The difference from Marxism is that class discussion has moved from the needs of proles to the preferences of the globogeoisie. Homos are useful to the elites because homos are vain, narcissistic, and obsessed with riches and privilege(as with the 'gay butler' in WOLF OF WALL STREET).

Anyway, in a globo-homo world where the elites of every nation mainly fixate on status, success, privilege, and connections, their main focus is not tribal connection with the native masses but neo-aristo-class affinity with other elites around the world(and especially those in the US and EU), with whom they or their kids marry. (According to Charles Murray's COMING APART, an educated white male graduate of Harvard was likely to marry his white hometown sweetheart in an America prior to the rise of mass non-white immigration and feminism, but today, a white attendee of elite institution has a good chance of marrying a non-white based on status and connection than any other consideration.) With such as the main prerogatives of the globo-homo class, the natural tendency of globo elites is to weaken, subvert, de-legitimize, and eradicate any obstacle to their power. One of those obstacles is a sense of national obligation of the elites to the masses. And this obligation is especially powerful IF the masses are seen as co-owners of the National Property based on a ethno-historical covenant. Under such premise, the elites must regard and treat the masses as fellow nationals and comrades. But this is economically a burden to the elites. It means the masses are deserving of decent wages, protections, and benefits, all of which are expensive, demanding, and burdensome(from the vantage point of elites with limitless ambition for MORE). The native masses can make such demands AS LONG AS they have a moral claim to the nation as co-owners based on shared ethnicity, history, and territoriality. After all, it's like the Jewish Covenant applies to all Jews, from richest to poorest. Likewise, the national covenant says even the poorest native has equal claim to the land as shared-national-property. Under the covenant theory, if we were to see a nation as a house, then everyone in the house has equal right to be there. He is a co-owner of the house. But if the covenant theory is removed, one's place in the house becomes a matter of capital or constitution. So, those with more capital have more claim on the house because he owns more shares. Or, if residency is determined by constitution, one's place in the house is merely that of the law. So, if the house is opened to newcomers who agree to follow house rules, they have equal claim to the house. Canadian-ness is now all about capital and constitution. If rich Hindus and Chinese arrive, they are more valuable as 'Canadians'(due to their infusions of capital) than white working class Canadians with deep roots are. And in the US, an immigrant with citizenship(after mere 5 yrs) is just as much an American as any white person with ancestry going back 100 or more yrs. The meaning of historical covenant is negated for the founding Anglo/American stock.
National concept based on capital favors only the elites. It's no wonder that US white elites feel closer to Jewish elites, Asian elites, and black elites than to white masses. Nation based primarily on the constitution favors immigrant-invaders over the founding native stock. After all, if the essence of the nation is based on the Law, then any newcomer who pledges to live by those laws have equal claim on the land. What would happen to Israel if 5 million Muslims could move there and pledge to respect the liberal-democratic laws of Israel? Democracy may survive, but Israel-as-Jewish-homeland certainly won't. Indeed, if Jewish elites in Israel only cared about their privilege and status, they might as well get rid of the 'covenantial' foundation of Israel and just focus on capital and constitution. They will likely make more money by replacing Jewish workers with cheaper ones and by forging closer ties with non-Jewish globalist elites than with their own tribal brethren of all classes.

Whether it's UK or Japan, the elites are under globo-homo mindset and think mainly in terms of status, haute class, and privilege. And they want more and more in the competition of keeping-up-with-the-globo-homonses. And in order for them to have MORE, they need access to cheaper labor and increased interaction with global capital.
At this point, even if patriotic elites wanted a nationalist economy, it might be impossible. Suppose a globalized nation returns to nationalist mode and tries to offer decent wages and benefits to its national workers. But that would lead to higher production costs, which could mean an inability to compete on the global scale with trans-national companies that snub national interests in favor of globalist domination of market share. Pat Buchanan mentioned this problem in one of his books. Under globalism, even US companies that wanted to keep its factories in the America and hire local workers simply could not compete with companies that shipped their factories to Mexico or China. And US medical companies that stick with American-born professionals may not be able to compete with globalist companies that hire Asian-Indian professionals for 1/4 of the cost.

Nationalism is about UNITY of elites and the masses with a shared sense of covenant of ethnicity, history, and territoriality. This can be the basis of a sound and stable nation. However, it places brakes on elite ambitions because they are forced to be mindful of the working masses not merely as employees but as fellow comrades with shared stake and ownership of the national property. Elites under nationalism feel like Guido in the opening dream sequence in Fellini's 8 1/2. They soar up into the sky but are prevented from flying off.

Nationalism has a kite-like effect on the elites. They rise high but remain bound to the land and folk. Globalism severs the ties to the land so that all the elite-kites could fly off and form their own globo-sky-island like the one in LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY. And once the elites are freed from the leashes of nationalism, they feel freer than ever and become obsessed with nothing but more wealth, more status, and more privilege(and with the dream of immortality and quasi-divinity, as transhumanism is about man-into-godism, or man going from worshiping gods to using science to become gods). And yet, the globalist elites also feel more vulnerable because their own people no longer trust them and turn to populist anger? But then, why should the national masses trust the globalized elites who openly renounce any notion of covenant with race, culture, and nation(which is apparently too 'petty' for their globalist ambition for all-the-world-as-their-oyster) and pontificate as to how the native masses must be replaced with endless waves of immigrant-invaders? To subvert and sabotage national mass revolt, the elites push Diversity, the opposite of Unity so integral to nationalism. Diversity, a tool of globalism and imperialism, turns a nation into a hodge-podge of different groups, and the diversity makes it near-impossible for collective action against the elites.

Also, the elites see great advantage in immigrationism(or migrationism) because it undermines the 'covenantial' claim by the masses to the land. When UK and France were in nationalist mode, the masses had moral advantage over the 'exploitative' elites and could make demands on them on the basis that elites and masses shared common destiny as co-owners of the homeland. After all, nationalism emphasizes the covenant between native masses and the nation(as their sacred homeland). In contrast, globalist immigrationism or migrationism says that newcomers have just as much 'right' to the nation. This negates the notion of racial-historical-territorial covenant among the natives. Also, the newcomers, lacking deep roots and protected only by the constitution, don't feel much of a claim to the land either. At most, they can argue that they have legal(or constitutional) right to live there but not much else. Thus, both native masses and newcomers are rendered into renters or rent-seekers(than co-owners) of the nation, the only real value of which has been reduced to that of capital. (Ownership is meaningless if made 'inclusive'. If you own a car, but then, if it can be 'owned' and used by everyone else as well, your claim on the car becomes effectively meaningless. If White Americans are said to be owners of America but are prevented from stopping endless immigration-invasions by non-whites to also become co-owners, America comes to be owned only by the elites with capital[because private property, unlike national property, continues to remain in 'exclusive' mode, i.e. in the hands of the owner-class, that is unless communism does to private property what globalism does to national property; indeed, if globalism cannot be stopped, the masses should get their revenge by using communism against the globo-homo elites; if globalist elites take away your national property, take away their private property]. True ownership means you or your people get to KEEP the property than letting it fall into the hands of others. It is like marriage, which becomes pointless if you can't keep your spouse as your special partner bound to you and only you. If your spouse must be made 'inclusive' to other peoples, he/she is really just a whore. While globalism makes every individual feel superficially freer as a 'citizen of the world', most people fail to gain anything while losing forever what was tangible and priceless: A special, even sacred, homeland.)

Now, why don't Jewish elites go whole hog and do likewise as the goy elites(who are, to be sure, under the thumb of Jewish elites)? If white elites and Asian elites have more to gain for themselves by ditching the National Covenant(that binds them to needs of the native masses or co-ethnics) in favor of Global Capital, why don't Jewish elites act in the same manner? Why do Jews insist on sticking to the National Covenant?
One reason is there are far fewer Jews in the world and many of them are in the upper-ranks. So, there is less of a burden among Jewish elites to take into consideration the well-being of Jewish masses. But what about Israel, a nation with a large number of non-rich Jews? Isn't it an economic burden on Jewish elites to be ever mindful of less well-off Jews in Israel? Sure, but Jewish power around the world has coerced goy nations to bankroll Israel to the tune of billions of dollars a year and other favors and benefits. So, it's not so much rich Jews taking care of lesser Jews but rich Jews making goyim take care of lesser Jews. That's some clever thinking.