Even in the post-macro-ideological globo-homo 21st century, there remains the discussion of power and politics in terms of Left vs Right. So, it’s not uncommon for 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 follows in the Leftist footsteps.

But has the Left been winning? Or, have the elements branded as ‘leftist’ been winning? While labels are important, they are not the content itself. 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 instead and become a popular item. Because of the labels on the bottles, should we say ‘milk’ is the hottest item even though the content is really beer?
Take today’s China. It’s still ruled by the Communist Party, but is China’s economy communist(or Maoist)? 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 the globo-homo-shlomo Masters of the World? While labels should accurately identify the content, mislabeling is a common phenomenon — ‘almond milk’ is, for example, mostly of non-almond material and, of course, not milk in any proper sense of the term. Then, we should also be wary of political/ideological labels. What is really meant by labels such as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, ‘leftist’ and ‘rightist'(especially as political parties that would have been considered mainstream are now deemed ‘far right’).

Most of today’s so-called ‘liberals’ are often antagonistic to 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.
Sure, these ‘leftist’ elites pretend to care about the Third World masses clamoring to enter the First World, but the only real value of immigrant/migrant hordes to the smugly sanctimonious elites is their utility as helot-scab-workforce, mercenary voters for the Sorosian Agenda, and objects of virtue-vanity.

Besides, much of today’s ‘leftism’ and ‘liberalism’ are ultimately puppet-strings pulled by Jewish Ultra-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 others. Jewish globalists are rightist-imperialists. Whether Sean Penn or Howard Stern, it was only a matter of time before they bared their essentially tribal-supremacist mugs behind the masks of ‘liberalism’ or ‘woke-ism’.)

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), deracinated ideologues(along universalist-leftist lines), or cuckish idolaters of the Other(namely Jews, blacks, and homos), but the same rule doesn’t apply to Jews and their allies.
So, while Jews tell whites to be either lonely individuals, universal ideologues, or cuckish idolaters, they themselves reinforce one another 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 the 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 ultra-nationalism against Russia.

Of course, two-faced weasel-like Jewish Supremacists often play two sets of cards at once. So, while Jews promote Ukrainian and Polish nationalism against Russia, they do everything to weaken Ukrainian and Polish nationalism against the globo-agenda of Homomania(proxy weapon of Jews) and Afro-Islamic Migration-Invasion.

Given all the confusions of current discourse, we need to be more cautious with labels. What is often called ‘leftist’ isn’t really. What is often called ‘rightist’ isn’t either. Cuckservatives are certainly not true conservatives, and indeed, even the label of ‘true conservatives’ has been appropriated by false ones. How can they conserve anything of their race, culture, and heritage when their modus operandi is ‘suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos’? Core Western values according to Conservatism Inc. are to (con)serve the very forces that are rapidly replacing the natives(whites) with nonwhites.
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 tangible things like blood and soil.

Following such logic, it doesn’t matter if Europe becomes all black, yellow, and brown; as long as the New Europeans are persuaded to support low-taxes and ‘free trade’, Conservatism will have triumphed. (The idea of masses of black Africans as New Europeans taking up Edmund Burke and Milton Friedman is too funny. Not only do the so-called conservatives conserve nothing but they’re totally delusional, all the funnier as they claim that, contra utopian ‘liberals’ and ‘leftists’, they have a hard-nosed take on reality, LOL.)

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 Hindus, the result would be, despite the best efforts by the Asians to be the ‘new blacks’, the loss of authentic blackness because the natural inclination of Chinese and Hindus simply isn’t black; no less important, they don’t look it.
It’s why ‘whiggers’ aren’t 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 essential racial personality of blacks isn’t amenable to the preservation of Western Civilization, just like collective personality of whites cannot sustain blackness in a world without blacks. If race doesn’t matter, suppose all the Jews vanish from the world but a bunch of goyim decide to take on the identity of New Jews. Using such logic, Jews need not worry about being holocausted from the world as any bunch of goyim can playact as the New Jews and thus restore the Jewish community.

Another bogus aspect of Conservatism Inc. is its sheer craven hypocrisy when it comes to the Jews. So, Cuckservatives like David French and Rich Lowry will denounce in the harshest terms the slightest hint of white identity or interest but then go out on a limb to lionize Jewish consciousness and pride.
On the basis of their ‘moral’ logic, Hungary and Poland would be wrong to object 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 such types are blind hypocrites or just craven opportunists prone to sucking up to the dominant Power. Paul Ryan rejects the 97% of him that is white but celebrates the 3% of him that is Jewish.

Such attitudes can hardly serve as the basis of true conservatism. By its very nature, Rightism must favor the tangible essentials like home, family, race, land, and nation. In contrast, Leftism is based more on abstract ideals. If there is a tomato, rightism’s main focus would be to preserve the tomato itself as a tomato. Leftism, however, is prone to fixate on the abstract and ‘universal’ qualities of the tomato, especially in relation to other vegetables.

Both rightism and leftism are necessary. We need to be mindful of what is real & tangible and seek to preserve it. And yet, we aren’t merely animals but creative beings with the power of reason and imagination; so, it’s in our nature to come up with ideas that extend the significance 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 is rightism tends to be eternalist whereas leftism tends to be universalist. Rightism believes that certain truths are so profound and/or sacrosanct that they are relevant and applicable to all times: The truth is just as legitimate today as it was 2,000 yrs ago.
Leftism believes that certain truths are so essential and necessary that ALL OF HUMANITY must be made to share it, even if by force. Granted, a creed can be eternalist and universalist, like Christianity and Islam.

Judaism was essentially rightist in not caring to share its views and values with all the world and in reminding every generation 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 for all of time. In other words, Jesus not only revolutionized spirituality but established an eternal truth, one that cannot be altered by whims of fashion. Muhammad too was leftist and rightist, a revolutionary of his time but also the Final Prophet who laid down the definitive truth for all peoples and all of time.

The modern conception of ‘permanent revolution’ rejects eternalism but remains in univeralist mode. 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 indifferent to the rest of humanity. It could carve out a niche as edgy elitism. But radical elitism + radical universalism makes synchronicity difficult, close to impossible. (In our time, globalism or globalization has parallels with universalism, but there’s a key difference. Universalism implies a logical conclusion that a certain idea or set of propositions has passed the smell test and is applicable as a philosophical guide or even an imperative for all the world. In contrast, globalism is more about the marketing or forced imposition of certain products, agendas, interests, and idols around the world. Globalization doesn’t require moral logic, philosophical principles, or spiritual vision, just the power of money and might to exert influence far and wide. It’s less about conversion than conquest. Hollywood conquers the world with the power of idolatry. The ‘gay’ agenda is mostly imposed on other nations through the power of US as a financial, military, and pop-cultural hegemon.)

An eternalist idea can serve as the basis of universalism. It can emerge among a small band of people and spread to the larger humanity. There could 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 long spans of time. So, even if many or most people came to the idea at a later date, they are bound to the same tenets as conceived by the original discoverers 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 vanguard, commissioned or self-appointed, gets to constantly reprogram the ‘truth’, even inverting what had been enforced as the unquestionable ‘truth’ some years ago. The result is a web of contradictions. Even as the ‘truth’ is ‘universalized’(or ‘globalized’) to the larger humanity, it is haphazardly revised and altered, seemingly at the whim of the vanguard whose sanity becomes increasingly suspect. Thus, it’s difficult to maintain meaningful unity between the creators and converts. By the time the masses have embraced the latest ‘truth’, it is upended by a new directive from the same command center.

Then, 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 the ‘woke’ command central and the larger populace. Consider. 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 center is really controlled by Jews who have near-monopoly over media, academia, finance, law firms, the courts, and high-tech, the core motivations are really predicated on the algorithm of “Is it good for the Jews?”

National Humanist Neo-Fascism insists on the correct the use of terminology. For sure, most of what goes by the label of ‘leftist’ isn’t leftist(and even anti-leftist). And even supposedly leftist communist/anarchist groups like Antifa either have been infiltrated by Jewish Zionists or are protected by globo-homo-shlomo capitalist oligarchs as a cudgel against White National 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 commies and other radicals, super-wealthy Jewish oligarchs offer special protection to Antifa gangs; there is nothing that Jews fear more than White Liberation and Emancipation.
When white people call for liberation from Jewish supremacism, Antifa is animated into attack mode. Antifa pretend to ‘protest’ events but often instigate violence. When based whites(or basists) 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, whereas the National Socialists had a chance at power(thus threatening the ruling class), no such possibility exists for Antifa morons and such ilk, who 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.

As far as Jews are concerned, there is zero chance of communist victory in the US, whereas there’s a real possibility of mass white civil and racial disobedience against 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, 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, so naive and stupid, have defended the Jews against the threat 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 may well turn against the Jews-as-the-main-enemy.
Also, if white power comes to be permanently crushed in the US, the only recourse left for white rightists is 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 hog the most wealth and influence. Consider the support for Jeremy Corbyn among not only the POC and the PC crowd but among ‘Anti-Semites’ who, bitter at having lost their nation and culture, now opt for the Samson Option and seek to bring down the Jews along with the whites.

At any rate, despite Antifa’s brandishing of communist labels and symbolis, it’s more about globo-homo consumerist-decadence-and-degeneracy than about spartan economic-based commitment to the 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 could be anyone, even Jordan Peterson. There was something to B.F. Skinner’s experiments with conditioning. Consider how, over time, the Power has mastered the reward-and-punishment technique to direct Antifa ire at certain targets.
Initially, a bunch of Antifa types were attacking globo-capitalists in the 1990s. But, the Antifa types 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 and donations. 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’. How clever of the Jewish Supremacists.

Here is a useful definition of the Left, one that explains why the nobler aspects of Leftism supports the Family and the values intrinsic to it. True Leftism must dwell on the kind of people-who-have-less. People with less wealth, less privilege, less power, less protection, which are usually but not always the majority of the population — even the middle class has far less power than its members assume.
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.

To a certain respect, 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. The masses, after all, only get to vote 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. And even the odd idealist who wins office eventually gets sucked into the system.

In a diverse society, the inequalities can be starker. Take Latin American countries, most of which have white minorities that usually 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 is mostly composed of a single ethnic group.

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 similar to 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 comes 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 in sufficient numbers and/or won’t take on ‘dirty’ jobs considered to be lowly(and will emigrate to find better jobs), those countries are filling up with foreigners who will work for any pay(or just come for welfare). Unless trends change, all the countries mentioned above will end up with the scenario of native minority rulers over majority foreign masses.

Such a future has already come to fruition in California. California came to 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 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 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 birth-rates began to drop as white women turned to feminism, careerism, and contraceptives, while the men became more infantile and refused to grow up. And the rise of PC instilled white natives with ridiculous radical ideas and ‘white guilt’.

California also began to go bad with the decadent culture centered around Hollywood in L.A. and Hippie-Homo excesses of the Bay Area. Whites lost pride of place and meaning while nonwhites 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 the white elites got so stupid and pushed crazy policies 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, though one could argue it’s more like the Jewish minority ruling over the homo minority that rules over the white minority that rules over various non-white minorities.

Historically, there have been many cases of a minority group ruling over the majority but also many cases of the majority having power over minorities. In today’s South Africa, the black majority has power over the white minority(though the Jewish minority has the ultimate power over both blacks and whites).
In Israel, the Jewish majority has power over the Palestinian minority. The Russian majority has power over the Chechen minority(though in Chechnya itself, one could say the Russian minority has power over the Chechen majority). 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 political dominance over the majority but they nevertheless have considerable power due to their wealth and connections. The Chinese minorities in Southeast Asian nations are under majority political power but dominate economically.

How does leftism figure into all of this? In essence, true 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(or National Humanism) owes to their contrasting conceptions 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, aren’t always free agents.
Now, to be fair to libertarianism, it isn’t for anarcho-chaos or barbarism where anything goes. Libertarians do believe in the upkeep of social order that makes the Rule of Law and Property Rights possible. They believe that, within the framework of the basic guarantees of law and justice, people should be free individuals who pursue their personal notions 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 one other. The First Fascism of Benito Mussolini had the bound-bundle as its symbol, one that implied the submission and bondage of the individual to the order of ‘totalitarianism’(though, within the Italian context, it meant something other than what it came to embody later in the Orwellian-Stalinist sense; Mussolini meant the interconnectedness of all the forces in society, not the total ownership and control of everything by the state).

Neo-Fascism counters the radical rejection of individuality in the First Fascism or Fascism I. It respects individuality and individual rights but differs from libertarianism in that it appreciates humans-as-social-organisms who 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 entity 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. (The Welfare State deviated even from original socialism, which wasn’t only about the sharing of wealth but of work as well. According to original socialism, everyone gets a slice of the pie but everyone also must take part in the baking of the pie. But in the Welfare State of the post-WWII period, the idea was that everyone was owed stuff even without contributing anything.)

The Neo-Fascist conception of Dependence means something mutual, a sense of give-and-take. We lean on others who 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 Scandinavian folks were under right-wing autocracy or social-democracy, their societies were more trusting, cohesive, conscientious, and mutual. In contrast, despite Mussolini’s dream of a new dawn for Italy, too many Italians remained as chronic liars, cheaters, complainers, and/or back-stabbers.

That said, 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 mutuality. 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.

It is more difficult to reform and reshape the mindsets and attitudes of a people like the Gypsy. (The problem with Jews is they are like high-IQ Gypsies. The once-great Greeks have become like a bunch of mid-IQ Gypsies.)
As for the Negroes, their racial character is so naturally jivey and oogity-boogity that it is nearly impossible to properly civilize and lead them to higher values and principles. Blacks only understand brute force and funky fun, which is why whites are doomed 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, thus weeding out the savage genes among blacks. However, 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 racial instinct among blacks in a state of freedom is to go oogity-boogity and go ‘burn, baby, burn’.
Therefore, 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. But, when whites try to make amends by being nice to blacks and enforcing equality(and even special set-asides) under the law, 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. Thus, the white rejection of racial-repression-and-brutality against blacks will only result in more brutality, what with wild and rowdy blacks rampaging around with their freedom(of the savage kind).

Indeed, in some ways, black neo-savagery in the West is worse than primitive savagery and the 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 counterbalanced by other primitives. They sting but also get stung, a kind of balance. Savage hunter-warriors go on the kill and are, in turn, hunted and killed. The rival tribes understand it’s just the way of things.
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 hard lessons of life.

In contrast, black neo-savages in the West are protected by the law(and sentimentalized by the narrative and idolized by pop culture). So, when they act savagely, they are no longer summarily captured and lynched but provided with lawyers and the full range of protections. 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 dong. Consider CucKen Burns the documentarian and his Mandela/Mandingo Complex.

So, even as blacks act more savagely and out-of-control(as documented by Colin Flaherty before his death), the Western Way is to protect, coddle, flatter, and make apologies for blacks… and this may become a bigger problem in Europe because so many more millions of black Africans are invading the Northern Continent through endless migratory waves.
While savage blacks come to Europe to plunder and rape, so many whites(from the elites to the masses) are under the spell of idolatry of blacks as holy saints, cool gangstaz, or helpless children. 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 endless BBC news reports 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 confusing 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 the saviors of the world. Especially given that Western Civilization was, to a large measure, founded on Christian precepts, many white folks crave renewed reasons for sanctimony. (Causes like ‘climate change’ are less about seeking realistic solutions than about self-righteous vaping on virtue-vanity.)

In the past, as their own nations were plagued with poverty, disease, and backwardness, white Europeans didn’t need to look to the rest of the world to feel justified with holier-than-thou 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 for the virtue-addicted. It robbed them of a sense of struggle, meaning, and purpose.

As cursed as Sisyphus is in his futile efforts to roll a boulder up a hill, in some ways he is fortunate because he will forever be occupied with some impossible feat. What would he be left with if he were to succeed in his endeavor? Imagine if you could satiate your hunger and thirst once and for all with your last 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? Don’t we look forward to 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 and boredom, a hunger for meaning.

And so, Sweden now sees itself as a moral superpower trying to roll the African boulder up a hill. Even though all evidence points to the futility of this project, it is that very sense of insurmountable-ness 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 can this contradiction resolved? How does 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 interrelated. There are many images of Jesus as a baby and adult Messiah but almost none of Him as an 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 the ‘ice people’.

Then, 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) the exuberant nature of blacks that is too magically spontaneous and inspired to commit to the ‘dull, lame, and boring’ duties of civilization.
Therefore, it is the role of the ‘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 a campfire, one must set up the wood into something like a cone. Thus, the fire becomes concentrated in the center and spreads throughout 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 unit.
Similarly, each line of the Neo-Fascist symbol represents how we lean on each other, and the circle represents the radiance of 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 a 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.

While family-or-fertility-centrism isn’t the same as socialism, both emphasize community over individuality. Not that individuality isn’t important, but when push comes to shove, the whole is more important than the one, as in the military(as General Patton said). Both socialism and family-centrism agree that, even if individual liberty and rights are somewhat compromised or disfavored, it is justified IF essential for the larger good.
Socialism explains this in terms of class, whereas family-or-fertility-centrism argues that the core foundation of any healthy society and its longevity is family-formation. It is within the family that men, women, and children find and form the deepest and strongest bonds and attachments. And regardless of how big or small a society/community is, it is only through the family that new life is created and the past lives are remembered. Various ideologies also create bonds but in the abstract sense: the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the service sector. As for ‘woke’ idolatry, the main bonds are along trivial lines, like dozens of ‘genders’.

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 can only validate 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 off than a homeless dog.

So, true leftism is 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 the children?” Best for children both economically and emotionally, both culturally and morally.
Undoubtedly, it is a sound family life. Babies and children do best with both parents in a stable family environment of caring and commitment. Even before children come to understand the world, they feel an emotional connection with their parents. 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 life and seek answers.

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 prior to the bonding, the child(in an orphanage, foster care, or the home of adoptive parents) wants to know of 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 is best for babies and children, the most vulnerable members of society.
So, if true leftism is about the 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 a sound and stable family life, one in which the greatest number of children will feel safe and loved.

Also, true leftism must focus more on prevention than on treatment of social ills. What is the worth of a doctor who encourages unhealthy behavior among his patients and then treats(at huge cost) the ill consequences of self-destructive behavior? He may be an expert at treating illnesses, but the fact remains that he fostered them by encouraging degenerate habits among his patients.
A good doctor would insist on healthy habits among the members of the community so that most of them will not need medical care. It’s better to prevent disease than treat them. Ideally, medical treatment should be the last resort. If people indulge in bad habits, smoke like chimneys, and gorge on garbage(and fail to exercise), 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 reinforces the kind of manners and values that lead the greatest number of people down the path of morality and responsibility. Even 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 attitudes and outlooks, and furthermore are reminded of the long difficult road that humanity has tread to achieve the good things in life. In other words, take nothing for granted.

Possibly, the most serious problem of our times isn’t the threat of nihilism, amorality, and even immorality but a misconstrued and misdirected moralism. At the very least, the nihilists, the amoral, and the immoral know they are either bad or have no use for the good. They can be easily identified and seen for what they are. Also, in their candid amorality or anti-morality, they have a kind of ‘integrity’ in being honest, i.e. an honest crook is a better man than a crooked preacher.
In contrast, the misconceived moralist confuses the bad for the good, the falsehood for the truth. The disease of ‘wokeness’ is full of moral furor and demands for justice, but it’s an idolatrous corruption of morality(especially with the globo-homo agenda that has, incredibly enough, turned sexual mutilation of children into an ethical imperative), factuality(especially with BLM fooling the gullible that blacks, the most murderous and thuggish race, are the most saintly), and legitimacy(especially with the Jews acting like genocidal gangsters by constantly invoking ‘muh holocaust’, even to the extent of supporting Sub-Nazis in Ukraine and ISIS terrorists in Syria).

And such a society is composed of stable families in which children can thrive and grow into mature adults with a sense of priorities, effectively preventing a host of social problems(that always end up hurting children the most). Even though it too will require some measure of extra-family programs(mostly by the state), 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.

Print