Friday, January 15, 2010

Are Nations Artificial or Natural Constructs? What Is the True Nature of Globalism?

It’s often been said by the Left and even by the Right that nations or political/cultural/ethnic boundaries are artificial or created by man. In other words, nothing ordains Germany, France, Vietnam, Mexico, or Canada as natural entities. They were all created by man or tribes of men, and thus they are said to be ‘artificial’ or ‘imagined’ communities.
After all, a deer doesn’t understand the meaning of border between Canada and the United States. A bird doesn’t know it’s flying from Mexico to the US nor vice versa. A bear in Russia doesn’t know it may be crossing into some Central Asian republic. An elephant in South Africa doesn’t know it’s crossing into Zimbabwe. Nature doesn’t recognize any of the borders and boundaries established by man.
And yet, even if nations don’t exist in nature, don’t they exist because of our (inner)nature? There are two aspects to nature, after all. There is external nature and internal nature. External nature comprises rocks, rivers, trees, hills, mountains, oceans, and flesh and bone. Internal nature consists of how living organisms perceive, respond to, and mold natural reality. All higher life forms function in external nature through their internal nature. Nature isn’t just WHAT IT IS but HOW IT APPEARS to a particular organism.
Thus, even though the internal natures of various organisms are different–i.e. they mentally and emotionally perceive and order reality in different ways–, the fact remains that a genuinely natural force shapes their perception and behavior. In this sense, even if nations are indeed artificial creations, one may argue that national-ism is a natural emotion–a complex variation of the territorial instinct. If true, nations are, at the very least, creations of internal nature–projection of human nature on external nature. Even if nations rise and fall or national boundaries shift over time, there is something within the natural heart and mind of man that favors ‘tribal’ boundaries. Indeed, nothing is fixed in external nature. Mountains rise sky high but eventually crumble away, glaciers form and melt, rivers dry up, continents break apart and form new land masses. But, the natural forces that create mountains and rivers remain constant. Just as there are certain natural constants–laws or forces of nature such as gravity, electro-magnetism, etc–that exert their power on and transform external nature(or physical reality), there are certain instinctive or psychological constants(or laws of internal nature) within organisms which drive their external selves–physical bodies and behavior–to work on and re-order the natural reality around them. Mountains may rise sky high and erode over time, but gravity is always in play. Nations may rise and fall, but the territorial mentality is a psychological constant of internal nature.
Though Leftists will say borders and boundaries are the artificial creations of foolish man, few things are as natural as territoriality or territorialism. Indeed, we see it in the wild world itself. To a layman or New Age romantic, it may seem as though animals run or roam free. As children, we grew up watching movies like BORN FREE or FREE WILLY. But, do animals run or roam free? Or, do they follow or obey their particular internal natures. In truth, a bear or a pack of wolves do not run or roam freely. They are constantly MARKING TERRITORY. Thus, the ‘nationalist’ instinct already exists in the primal animal level. Man elaborated it into a political creed. Though a bear marks his territory differently than how wolves or cougars do it, each animal is keen to mark his territory as distinct, especially to warn off rival members of its own species. Thus, though a bear and wolves may occupy the roughly the same territory, a bear will defend his territory from other bears, and wolves will defend their territory from other wolves. Of course, these markings are not eternal or permanent. One bear may lose his territory to another bear. A pack of wolves may take over the territory of another. But, if there is a natural constant in all of this, it’s the INTERNAL NATURE of organisms. Who is to say internal nature is any less natural than external nature? That would be like saying gravity is less natural than mountains.
The territorial imperative may seem aggressive, nasty, mean-spirited, and vicious in both animals and man, but it is necessary in order for organisms to compete for scarce resources and ensure their survival. Territorialism is also necessary to reduce violence between males of the species who compete for the attentions of females. Take wolves for instance. Wolves may have to hunt all day to bring down a deer or moose. Thus, they mark a territory as their own so as to concentrate on the hunt than on fighting other wolf packs that might intrude on their turf. Without well-marked territories, rival wolf packs will stumble into one another’s path far more often. This is also true of bears, cougars, or any other animal one may mention. Even herbivores mark territory as the males–or even the females–among horses, elks, moose, buffalos, and elephants fight one another out of fear, suspicion, or panic. The rule of internal nature is not "this land is my land, this land is your land" but "THIS land is MY land, THAT land is YOUR land." The territorial imperative is the basis for much violence, but there would be even more violence without it. Territorial imperative at least ensures that the violence will take place along marked borders. Thus, if two nations were to fight, they would fight along the border areas than in all areas. If one side were to conquer the other, new borders would be drawn; it would be the expansion than a nullification of territorialism. (To be sure, air power has given us the TOTAL WAR where all areas of the nation are instantly vulnerable to attack.)
Without the territorial imperative, there would be violence EVERYWHERE at ALL TIMES since no place would be safe from the constant flux of peoples from all over the world with different values, cultures, and ideas. If animals didn’t mark nor delineate territories in nature, they would likely cross into each other’s path far more often. This is why we see cats and dogs peeing on trees wherever they go. They are marking territory or checking to see if the territory ‘belongs’ to some other dog or cat. This is why tigers pee in various spots in the forest. The pee is meant as a warning to other tigers: ‘this here is my land.’ If animals cannot find sufficient food or mates on their own marked territory, they’ll try to take over the territory of others of their species. Thus, if a wolf pack has lean pickings on its own territory, it may wage war on the territory of another wolf pack. In the process, territories may be redrawn but the territorial imperative or instinct remains the one natural constant.
So, even if nations are not natural geographical realities, they are natural psychological realities. Organisms, whether they be wolves or humans, don’t just live physically in the natural world but re-order the natural world to suit their psycho-survivalist interests. This re-ordering of nature is profoundly influenced if not entirely determined by the psychologies of organisms. This is as true under the sea as above on ground.
To be sure, certain organisms are oriented more towards nomadism than others. This is especially true of birds and whales. As such, they may bump into and cause more problems because they end up violating the spaces of other organisms. On the other hand, the survival of other species rely on the arrival of the ‘nomadic’ species as there is a mutually beneficial ecology or symbiotic relationships among many species.
Nomadic animals are not to be confused with nomadism commonly associated with Jews. No animal I can think of is nomadic on principle; it moves about in search for food during lean times or in search of mates. As for birds and whales, they are more migratory than nomadic. Their human equivalents would be Mexican migrant workers who seasonably move up north to work as farm laborers and then go back to their homes in south of the border. There is an established pattern in migration whereas nomadic peoples–like the Jews–tend to be more creative, adventurous, and ambitious in their wandering about the world. Nor should nomadic types be confused with discoverer types. Discoverers are seduced by the great unknown, the dark mystery, of going where no man has gone before. Though there are plenty of modern Jewish individuals who are like that, Jews have historically been nomads than discoverers. Even if nomads tend to be more creative and adaptive in their wandering than migratory people are, they generally seek out the KNOWN world than seek NEW worlds. Jewish nomads sought out cities where they could ply their trade and work themselves up by manipulating the system of the gentiles. In the movie EUREKA by Nicholas Roeg, Gene Hackman is the discoverer type whereas Joe Pesci, in the role of the cunning Jew, is the nomadic type. In the end, the discoverer is bound to lose to the nomad. The discoverer is romantic and loses the torch of inspiration when there’s nothing more to discover. There’s something childlike in his need for excitement. The nomad, on the other hand, is an inheritor of a long tradition. He isn’t tempted by excitement and thrill but by a patient and ruthless craving for more money and power.
For obvious reasons, humans make special territorial claims on land. We are land creatures and nothing is as valuable to us. Water is valuable too–fresh water for drinking and washing, rivers for travel and shipping, and oceans for food and sea routes. But, it’s not as easy to claim ownership of the seas, thus most of the ocean is an open space accessible to all nations. Land is solid, something we can stand on, defend readily, and drive stakes through or build walls around. Power over the land is more permanent than power over the seas. Russia is still a huge nation whereas the British Empire came to mean little in the long run since its main possession was the seas.
Jews could not lay claim to most lands ruled by gentiles. They did carve out a piece of territory for themselves by committing genocide against Canaanites and Philistines but lost even that–until it was reclaimed in 1948 with the support of US and USSR. Since Jews could not lay claim to land, they laid claim to the heavens. Their concept of ownership became abstract, spiritual, intellectual, and/or idealized. Jews believed that even if they owned no land or were kicked out of various lands dominated by hostile goyim, the heavens belonged to them because the One and Only God ruled all the heavens.
Similarly, Jews played a crucial role in the development of an abstract form of wealth based on paper contracts and money. Through such means, Jews could come to own the world even if they didn’t occupy much land. Their wealth was all there on paper handled by lawyers, ensured by politicians, and enforced by lawmen who must follow the letter of the law formulated by lawyers and legislated by politicians(bought by the super-rich).
Another way Jews laid claim to all the world was through the idea of universal spiritual/moral righteousness or social justice. Jesus(and especially Paul)got this ball rolling by profoundly universalizing the Jewish God. To the Jews, Yahweh was the One and Only God of All the World but NOT all the people. According to Paul, Yahweh or Jehovah didn’t favor anyone but wanted ALL people to worship Him and earn His blessing. Paul turned God against the Jews. He said Jews are stingy & petty, and want to keep the One and Only God all to themselves. Paul argued that Jesus was the bridge between what had formerly been the Jewish God and all of humanity.
This was a new kind of (abstract)territorialism, one that sought to conquer and occupy the hearts of all men around the world, and it’s not surprising that this idea arose from the Jewish tradition. Jesus was a Jew, and Paul was a Hellenized Jew. People like Alexander the Great had sought to conquer the world in the literal or territorial manner. He didn’t expect nor necessarily desire for conquered peoples to adopt Greek ways. In some occasions, he even adopted the ways of the ‘barbarians’–if only to satiate his half-gay sensibilities. Greeks had a land of their own and sought to expand their territorial empire.
Since Jews were never strong in the area of territorial power, they developed a kind of meta-territorialism. They sought to control the world by controlling the hearts and minds of people around the world. To be sure, the original Jews were not interested in this. Though they developed monotheism, they were content with the idea that God was mainly for the Jews. But the arrival of Jesus and Paul changed all that. A new kind of universalist Jewish thought arose. In the beginning, almost all the Christians were Jews. They were seen as heretics by tribal Jews and distrusted as subversives by pagan peoples. But, their ideas eventually caught fire among the gentiles, and in time, Christianity became a gentile religion. Because of the notion that Jews-Killed-Jesus(plus the fact that far fewer Jews embraced the New Faith than did pagan peoples), it also became an anti-Jewish religion. Since gentiles owned large areas of land, Christianity eventually became a territorial religion. Christian universalism fused with territorial interests. As such, Christianity came to be associated particularly with Western power, just as Islam, though also universalist, came to be associated with the Near Eastern power.
Because of Jewish rejection of Christianity, this abstract creation of heretic Jews came to hurt the Jews. But, many Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries clung to another form of meta-territorialism, one devised by Karl Marx. Marxist communism condemned national boundaries and called for an eventual one-world order through the ideology of ‘social justice’. Though Marx didn’t see himself as a Jew, he thought in a typically Jewish fashion. He emphasized the Idea over Territory. His ideology sought to break down all barriers among nations and unite humanity through an idea. By laying claim to the hearts-and-minds of all peoples around the world, Jewish communists sought to control the entire world: Control the organism and you also control the territory on which it lives. Consider the distressing fact that though most of United States is inhabited by gentiles, it is like an extension of Israel or Jewtopia since the Jewish media networks control our hearts and minds.
Anyway, even communism failed to live up to the expectations of Jewish radicals. As most people in communist nations were gentiles whose consciousness had long been shaped by territorialism, communism too turned into form of nationalist ideology. Russian communism became Russian, Chinese communism became Chinese, Yugoslavian communism became Yugoslavian, Cuban communism became Cuban, and Vietnamese communism became Vietnamese. A branch of Jewish socialism morphed into Zionism.
In time, Jewish communists came to be seen and distrusted primarily as Jews in communist Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and etc. Eventually, Jews figured that no OPENLY COERCIVE ideology can work in their interest in the long term. Though the radical Jews had tried to create the New Man, the New Man always seemed to revert to his territorial instincts, even as he spouted the New Values. Russians and Chinese, for instance, went on forever about the brotherhood-of-man but were really looking out for their national interests. And though the coercive system of communism had initially given radical Jews in Eastern Europe a political and social advantage over the gentiles, once the gentiles adopted communism and joined the system, they far outnumbered the Jews and used the COERCIVE system of communism against the Jews.
So, rather than the COERCIVE means of control–which could badly boomerang on the Jews–, the Jews came to favor a MANIPULATIVE means of control which they developed to cunning and devious perfection in the US. Since American Jews embrace ‘liberty and freedom’, even the most radical and hate-filled–anti-white, anti-Christian, or anti-American–Jews would be protected by the law. Thus, we are told over and over that Joe McCarthy was an evil man who violated constitutional rights through his ‘witch hunt’ against communists, many of whom were Jewish. (It doesn’t seem to bother Jews much that far more innocent Japanese-Americans were shipped to prison camps at the behest of their hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt.) By embracing ‘freedom of speech’ in America, Jews were protected from legal or political prosecution for their hideous radicalism and hostility.
But, since Jews also came to control much of the media, they got to decide who were good or bad, which groups were noble or tainted, which ideas or values were worthy or worthless. Though INDIVIDUAL liberty existed for ALL people thanks to the Constitution, INSTITUTIONAL liberty was concentrated in the power of the Jews. ‘Antisemitic’ individuals had the right of free speech but were not allowed any institutional power. How and why? Because Jews controlled so much of the economy and media, no politician or businessman wanted to be associated with ‘antisemitic’ ideas or positions. The Jewish media would shame and drag them through the mud if they were. Who got tarred-and-feathered in the public sphere was determined by the Jewish media. Jews not only had individual freedom but institutional power, and they used it brazenly and ruthlessly to shoot down anyone they didn’t like. Thus, even as the Jewish-dominated A.C.L.U. defended individual rights, its main purpose and effect was to protect the rights of radical Jews. ACLU might, on occasion, defend a ‘far right’ individual, but that was just tokenism, just for show. As long as Jews controlled all the INSTITUTIONAL power, individual liberty didn’t do much good for those opposed to Jewish power. How far could one get with his counter-Jewish message if he could express his views only to himself or his near friends and families–who were generally no less brainwashed by the liberal Jewish media and academia.
Of course, with the rise of the internet and a near-total Jewish control of laws, academia, new economy, and government, many Jews and their lobotomized/castrated gentile puppets are trying to curtail free speech altogether for those on the Right. Though Jews developed much of the internet and have made the most money from it, they feel threatened by the fact that the web is a medium where individual liberty and institutional power can be one and the same. Theoretically and even practically, anyone can access David Duke’s site just as easily as David Brooks’ site. Though the main hubs like Google, Yahoo, and Bing are controlled by liberals and Jews, we now have full and unfettered access to all kinds of ideas. Indeed, there is a lot of information about Jewish power that had never existed before in the MSM. Prior to the internet, anti- or counter-Jewish views were limited to few local journals or organizations without the means to expand their readership or membership since they weren’t allowed to gain institutional power or support. Through the internet, it doesn’t cost anything to gain access to email, social networking sites, forums, or blogs. An isolated right-wing geek in Montana can conceivably have as big an audience as Maureen Dowd or Arianna Huffington. It is for this reason that Google–a totally leftist Jewish enterprise–is fully behind Obama’s effort to let government control the internet. One may wonder why a private company would want government to gain such powers. It’s because liberal and neocon Jews also run the government. Obama may be an ideological socialist but he’s a puppet of the rich Jews who promoted him. Thus, Goldman Sachs was only happy to help ‘socialist’ Obama take power and get in return $100s of billions in ‘bail-out money.’ Finance capitalist Wall Street Jews are not afraid of the Obama administration since Obama’s economic handlers are all part of the Wall Street gang. They’ll go after Main Street, but they’ll make sure that their Jewish pals in Wall Street get theirs–before the rest of us get to nibble on left-over crumbs. Sure, Obama and Tim Geithner put on the seething-angry act over the CEO bonuses, but it’s just masquerade. Even with caps on their ‘salaries’, there are many ways these Wall Street sharks can tweak the system to rake in gazillions more.
So, even as we on the White Right have cause to be alarmed by the government takeover of internet, Google doesn’t mind since the kind of people who run the government are the liberal/leftist brethren of the Google Jews. Google Jews will say it’s for The People, but it’s really for themselves. I mean since when has the government been for the people except to drug them with ‘bread and circuses’, thus making them more stupid and dependent? Government takeover of the internet means liberal Jewish control of the internet. Google Jews know that ‘hate speech laws’ will only be applied against the White Right but never against the leftist/liberal Jews nor against most of their allies who are being funded/supported/manipulated by Jews against the white population.
Of course, Jews will insist that there would be no violation of Freedom of Speech since ‘hate speech is not free speech’. Jews know that gentiles are dumb and docile enough to swallow such nonsense. Besides, if their rational argument fails, liberal Jews will spiritually and emotionally trot out the usual stream of Holocaust imagery, black slavery, and so on. People will be so emotionally and morally bullied that even those who oppose ‘hate speech laws’ won’t step forward to stand on principles. They wouldn’t want to be smeared as "the vile creature that embraces hate and approves of skinheads and neo-nazis." Hate Crime Laws have come to a point where it’s against the law to say things which ‘might incite others to commit acts of violence’ against certain groups. But, this is purely selective. Marxists, black rappers, and Zionists often express views which encourage violence against property holders, businessmen, white people, and Palestinians, but they will never be dragged before a hate crime tribunal. No, the only people who will be targeted are those who speak out against Jewish power, the gay agenda, black lunacy, and illegal ‘immigration’.
Finally, let’s consider the issue of globalism and the NWO–New World Order. Is globalism really antithetical to territorialism or the territorial imperative? It may seem that way if we go by the statements from the Left and the Right. Many leftists promote the creation of a New World Order in the name of dissolving ‘tribal’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘atavistic’, ‘reactionary’, and ‘racist’ national boundaries. Many leftists were distressed by the fall of the USSR and the resurgence of nationalism in the former Soviet republics and in Yugoslavia. They want EU to succeed and then keep expanding into larger entities and invite the entire world; it is anathema in Europe to conflate nation with race and culture. Liberals often speak of a World Culture. Leftists promote a weird and funky ‘cosmopolitan’ blend of universalism and the cult of diversity–two ideas which are actually contradictory as mixing the entire world into one goulash will reduce the richness of diversity; after all diversity exists only because people developed separately from other peoples and cultures; it’s one thing to be open-minded and curious about other peoples and culture, but it’s quite another to invite the entire world to your country and promote a kind of mongrelization which does to human genetics what the Big Mac has done to world cuisine. If leftists promote internationalism in the name of the collective unity and brotherhood of man, libertarians promote it in the name of the free individual who isn’t bound to any nation, culture, or tribe.
The Right attacks globalism as an affront to national sovereignty and territorial integrity–and to the internal human nature of the territorial imperative. As barriers between nations dissolve and third world migration swamps the West, what will happen to national territorial claims? Of course, the Right in non-white nations also complain that globalism gives multi-national corporations–mostly Western–free access and reign over developing or ‘Third World’ countries. Globalism is not to be confused with international trade, which is a good thing. Trade is natural and can be mutually beneficial. In contrast, globalism is an ideology committed to creating the ‘global village’ whether the consequences are good or bad. It is a secular dogma, a religion. Closely connected to globalism is Free Trade, which too can be good in practice but dangerous as an ideology. Free trade is good for a nation if it has more or as much to sell as to buy. It is detrimental if it perpetually buys more than sells. After WWII, free trade was good for the US, and US had every right to promote it for national interest. But, as other nations caught up and devised national economic strategies, free trade turned into Free Trade, an ideology which said US must commit to free trade even if it were bad for the US. Ideologies tend toward dogmatism and radicalism.
So, one could make a case that globalism is a ruthless and naive form of utopianism that goes against territorialism, which is part of human nature. But, there is another way of seeing globalism, and this views is shared by people on the alternative right and the radical left–albeit for different reasons. The radical left sees globalism as essentially a form of neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism. It is not an equitable or egalitarian way of uniting the world but a means by which Western Imperialists reclaim the territories they’d lost after WWII. This view is popular in the less successful parts of the developing world–Latin America(except successful Chile), Africa, and the Middle East especially. East Asians and increasingly Asian-Indians are less likely to share this view since they’ve been able to intelligently use globalism for their own national benefit; consider the rise of China and India in the past two decades. But, in nations like Bolivia, Mexico, Venezuela, Yemen, Egypt, and Nigeria–where the elites are utterly corrupt and the masses are hopelessly inept–, globalism is perceived as a means by which the West seeks to re-exploit their old colonies which had been ‘liberated’ in the 1950s and 60s. And, there are many Western leftists who agree with this Neo-Marxist view that globalism is really neo-imperialism in disguise. (Also keep in mind that many Middle Easterners see Zionism as a means why which the West re-conquered the Holy Land through a modern crusade fronted by the Jews.)
Some–though not all–on the ALTERNATIVE Right also agree that territorialism is alive and well in globalism, but they see the main form as neo-aristocratic than neo-imperialist. The Alternative Right doesn’t see the conflict within globalism as between West vs the Rest but between the elites and the masses. What the Alternative Right fears is a re-emergence of the aristocratic world order akin to the pre-French Revolution world.
Of course, this NWO is said to be liberal, progressive, and based on Enlightenment principles–flowing from the French Revolution–, but look more closely, and one is reminded of the saying, "the more things change, the more they remain the same." Prior to the great but violent French Revolution, the kings and noblemen generally looked down on the masses. Though kings and noblemen fought amongst one another on occasion, they considered each other as members of the same royal tribe. Kings and noblemen felt little sympathy or connection with their own people. A Prussian King was likely to feel closer to the Austrian Emperor or French King than to his own people. Though kings and princes carefully guarded their domains, they identified with others of their blood and class than with the ‘rabble’.
This changed with the great French Revolution which gave The People a chance to rise up and fight for their freedom and rights. Though it turned ugly and led to one bloodbath after another, the French Revolution did much good for people power. The leaders of the Revolution represented their own people and didn’t identify with the kings and noblemen of other countries. Though Napoleon made himself emperor, he was the People’s Emperor. The French masses loved and honored him like no people ever had loved their leader. People who lived under kings had to bow down before the royal pompous ass who held his nose up at his own subjects. But, Napoleon inhaled the spirit of the masses, body odor and all. He turned out to be a looney-bin megalomaniac, but he was truly a revolutionary figure who forged an iron bond with his people. The French people weren’t his subjects but his supporters.
Though Napoleon ultimately failed and revolutionary France eventually lost the war, they did shake up Europe enough for two decades to politically and socially re-order the whole of the European continent. Though the aristocratic forces regained power in 1815, there was no way they could put the genie back in the bottle. All the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Nationalism was the new reality, and even kings and aristocrats could no longer simply lord over their people but had to represent and respect them. Though kings and aristocrats in the 19th century up to the first World War maintained warm and close relations with one another, they had to appeal to the masses in their own countries. Everything had to be wrapped in nationalism, and as such, the people came to matter more in the political equation. But, what eventually gave nationalism a bad name? The ensuing bloodbath of World War I and all the diabolical forces it unleashed across the whole spectrum of the right to the left. Some of these forces were ultra-nationalist–Nazism–while others were ultra-anti-nationalist–communism. If Nazism turned nationalism into a demented ideology, communism turned universalism into a bloody hammer. Of course, one could argue that Hitler was a pan-racist than a true nationalist and that communism turned out to be no less nationalist in the end. But, the horrors of WWII came to be interpreted as the evil products of nationalism–and imperialism–, and the educated elites of the West have been reluctant or nervous to embrace nationalism in any form.
So, even though nationalism continued to be a powerful force after WWII–indeed, it fueled most of the anti-colonialist movements around the world–, the two superpowers talked less of national power than of ‘freedom’(in the West) and ‘justice’(in the East). US prided itself in promoting not nationalism but ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’. USSR prided itself in promoting ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’. But of course, there were undercurrents of nationalism(s) on both sides. Russians equated Soviet power with Russian might. Those in the Eastern Bloc, on the other hand, saw communism as Russian imperialism. Americans came to see democracy not merely as a political system but the core essence of Americanism; thus, it became convenient to justify American ‘expansionism’ or influence in terms of spreading democracy and ‘human rights’, something the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and even many Europeans have been very skeptical about. Israel, as a kind of mini-me of the United States, has justified its nationalist existence on the fact that it too is democratic–though this doesn’t seem to apply to Palestinians who elected Hamas government through democracy.
There was a resurgence of French nationalism under De Gaulle. And, leftists were defacto pro-nationalist as long as non-whites were fighting for national ‘liberation’ from Western imperialism or American ‘neo-imperialism’. And, black nationalists like Malcolm X were greatly admired on the Left. Israel was supported by many Jewish leftists . As long as nationalism was identified with anti-imperialism or underdog-ism, it could be politically and morally acceptable to ‘progressives’.
However, nationalism in the West–especially if identified with the white population–was deemed as unacceptable. For this reason, white Americans tried to expand their power or interests by dancing around the issue of nationalism. Thus, they tried to expand American hegemony in the form or name of anti-communism, anti-terrorism, pro-Zionism, pro-democracy-ism, and such. But, this strategy was usurped by the liberal and neocon Jews. What had once been used to expand white American power under another label was made to promote Jewish power at the expense of white American power. (Same thing happened with Christianity. It had been used by whites to expand white power. White justified their conquest of the world in the name of spreading of light of God and love of Jesus. But, Christianity later morphed into communism and into ‘progressive’ and Liberation Theology which accused white nations of having cynically employed Christianity to keep the masses down or to conquer non-white lands.)
But, whether internationalism or globalism is employed by white gentiles or Jews(or any other people), there is an element of territorialism at its core. It’s not the end but a reconfiguration of territorialism. And, things like this had happened before. Prior to the rise of empires, small kingdoms had been the core territorial units. When an empire swallowed up various kingdoms, was it the end of territorialism? No, it was the creation of a larger territorial entity. Romans, for instance, were not ridding the world of territorialism by breaking down the tribal borders of other peoples; they were merely laying claim to a larger piece of territory as their own.
Prior to the rise of nations, the primary territorial unit could be tribal or clannish. It could be a city-state or a principality. When a nation swallowed up all those units and developed a national identity, it wasn’t violating territorialism but merely expanding it to another level.
In this light, the globalist elites are not so much trying to rid the world of the ‘atavistic’ territorial mindset but laying claim to ALL OF THE GLOBE. It is territorialism in its highest and most radical form. For the global elites, their own nations are too small for their ambitions and power-lust. Their own people–the rabble or the masses–are too boring, dull, stupid, and insipid. A global elitist in NY feels closer to a fellow elitist in Paris, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, or even Cape Town. Just as the kings and aristocrats preferred the company of one another–and married with one another–across national boundaries than cared much for their own peoples, the globocrats of today prefer one another to the humdrum masses of their own kind. In the old days, a English monarch would marry a German or Austrian princess. Or, a Prussian prince or princess may be married into the Russian elite. The masses existed mainly to toil in the fields and work like cattle for the snobby aristocrats. Not much is different today. The globocrats, especially the white gentile kind, don’t care about their own people who aren’t as well-educated, ‘sophisticated’, and well-traveled. This is what much of the anti-Sarah-Palin contempt is all about. She is ‘one of us’–the people–but not ‘one of them’–the elites.
And, though the liberal Western elites frown on racism and carry out witch-hunts against those who speak truthfully on race(and racial differences), they practice the most brazen kind of biologism. They seek to marry the ‘best and the brightest’–and the best looking–, and often do so since affluent smart kids attend the same schools and later earn lots of money and have the jobs that attract the most appealing and desirable sexual partners. Why have Jews been getting better looking over the yrs? They made a lot of money and married a lot of good looking goyim–who also happened to be above-average in intelligence since the smarter gentiles attend schools like Harvard and Yale, which are teeming with genius Jews. And, even if a rich Jew marries a dumb shikse, his kids will get half his brains and half her looks. Not a bad deal. The kid may only be half as smart as the father but will be at least be half as attractive as the mother.
For all their egalitarian talk, do rich feminist bitches marry humble janitors with low IQs and low pay? No, they seek out lawyers, academics, politicians, and other big shots. Is the ‘take your daughter to work’ a great idea for most women who work at hum-drum jobs? Does it make any sense for a housewife? No, it’s only cool for rich Jewesses who rake in $100,000s or millions a year. "More things change, the more they stay the same." No matter how you slice or dice it, the system produces a new elite, and that elite seeks to consolidate its power militarily, morally, spiritually, politically, socially, and/or intellectually.
Of course, the globalist elites will never come out and say they are laying territorial claim to all the world. They’ll yammer about ‘sharing the world’, ‘uniting the world’, ‘free flow of goods and ideas’, ‘promoting human rights’, etc. But, who gets to really enjoy the world via travel, money-making, fine dining, luxury goods, influence, and power? The average Joe or the superrich & their privileged underlings? The Joe the Plumbers of the world or the Rahm Emmanuels of the world?
What matters most to an Average Joe is his home, job, and country. He has enough to survive on and feels pride in belonging to a nation and cultural community. He has little to gain from globalism except cheap goods made overseas. But, the global elitists get to rake in billions, travel all over, have power sex and shower sex, manipulate government to make their businesses even richer, and feel ‘at home’ at any part of the world. Why should they remain loyal to one nation when they can own the entire world? The radical left may see this as ‘Western neo-imperialism’, but we on the White Right disagree because globalism is NOT good for most Westerners. The imperialism of old, good or evil, was indeed about the glory of all the people within the imperialist nation. Thus, all Britons shared in the power and greatness of the British Empire. It wasn’t just the British elite but the British people who laid claim to the British Empire. This is NOT the case with globalism. MOST white people in the US and EU get nothing out of globalism but cheap foreign goods. And, they will never have enough money to travel around the world and own homes on all five continents, enjoy yachts, enjoy first-class air boarding or own private jets. Only the global elites will enjoy such goodies. The dumb masses will think they are enjoying a good life because the media hooks them to celebrity news and encourages them to identify with millionaire celebrities. Thus, even poor slobs think they are glamorous because they go gaga over Lady Gaga. Or, the dummies will watch American Idol–a show that sneers at MOST people as lame no-talents–and believe that they are sharing in a fairytale-come-true. This is how the global elites–especially the heinous liberal super billionaire Jews who run the media–manipulate the masses.
Worse, globalism opens up the West to waves and waves of immigration–legal and illegal–from the Third World. Especially damaging to Europe are marauding immigrants from Africa and Muslim countries who come to commit crime, live off welfare, and impregnate white women with mulatto babies. In the US, waves of Mexican Illegals may well turn the SW territories into Greater Mexico. The global elites in the US and EU aren’t bothered by such developments since they OWN ALL THE WORLD and can choose to live in safest and richest neighborhoods. Since they’ve politically, economically, and intellectually laid claim to all the world, what does it matter if they lose their own country? They still have the WORLD which they can enjoy via private jets, yachts, finance capitalism, high-tech expansion, ‘free trade’, and etc.
But, what about the average Joes who cannot enjoy the world that way. To them, losing their nation means losing EVERYTHING!! It’s about time the VAST WHITE MIDDLE bring forth another cataclysm in the spirit of the French Revolution. The French Revolution dethroned the international aristocracy and put in power leaders who felt a great bond with the French masses. Napoleon was the Man of the People. Of course, power corrupts and revolutions can get out of hand, and the French Revolution turned out badly because of excesses and dogmatism. But, it played a heroic role in smashing the OLD ORDER where kings and noblemen were aloof about their own people and more intimate with the kings and noblemen of other states. The global elites look upon us the same way.
Even if it’s understandable that educated, privileged, and intelligent people look down the masses–I do too as the masses are indeed stupid and dumb as a doorknob–, the extent of the treachery and betrayal by the elitists is vile and inexcusable. After all, in good faith, we listened to them and followed their plans all these yrs. We supported free trade, amnesty in the 1980s, outflow of American jobs, and inflow of cheap goods. We cheered on the millionaires, billionaires, and gazillionaires as the heroes of capitalism, as what America is all about. Yet, at the end of the day, what did we get in return from these weasels and sharks? We got more illegal immigration for cheap labor(and for Jews to pit against the native populations). We got more out-of-control legal immigration to take jobs away from American workers. We got shit like the GAY AGENDA shoved up the tender asses of our children, which is why so many kids think ‘gay marriage’ is a human right. We got pink slips as good manufacturing jobs disappeared. We got Obama as the supreme leader. We got liberal and some Neocon Jews laughing at us behind our backs. Indeed, what did we get from the Jewish community for our loyal service to all things Jewish? They shat on us and forced Obama on the nation. Whether it’s Milton-Friedman-ims or Noam-Chomsky-ism, it all comes down to the same thing. Rise of the intellectual/economic global elite and the loss of power and meaning of life for the Vast White Middle.
This is why we must reject not only leftism but also libertarianism. If leftism is inter- or trans-nationalist for collective reasons–brotherhood of man, equality of man, global village, etc–, libertarianism is inter- or trans-nationalist for individualist reasons. A libertarian argues that a free person shouldn’t be fettered to a culture, a polity, a place, or system. He should be free to travel anywhere, live anywhere, work anywhere, invest anywhere, f**k anywhere, and so on. This wouldn’t be such a bad idea if EVERYONE could enjoy the Ayn-Randian libertarian life, but let’s get serious. How many people get to travel, love, and live like Bill Gates, Sergei Brin, Matt Damon, or Bono? I’m for freedom and individual liberty, but let’s not delude ourselves with Hollywood fantasies. Freedom and liberty in a functional and meaningful sense can only exist and operate within a context or a system. They are meaningless without laws, and laws have no meaning without borders and the cultural values that inform the people within them. Sure, there can and should be some degree of international laws and mutual cooperation. If a Japanese guy visits the US and kills someone, we expect Japanese law enforcement to aid American law enforcement in capturing the killer. If we travel to France or Mexico, we do want certain legal guarantees even if we are not citizens in those countries. On the other hand, there are American laws, French laws, and Mexican laws that exist primarily for their citizens. And those laws must reflect the values of the people of those nations than be imposed by the NWO globalist elites.
Also, libertarianism is linked with globalism because, despite all the leftist ideology spouted by the rich and powerful globalist elites, they are really Ayn Randians deep down inside. Guys like Sergei Brin and Rahm Emmanuel love money and power. They are utterly ruthless. Bill Gates made his billions not by being a decent humanitarian but by being a ruthless monopolist shark in the software business. They talk a leftist plan but play the libertarian game. They are wolves-in-sheep’s clothing. They are ruthless total capitalists. Money, power, and control-of-truth are what motivate them. With tremendous money, their ilk has essentially bought up all the media outlets, all the think tanks, all the universities, and the government. They collude with the left for mutual benefit. The left gets generous funding for their radical and ‘progressive’ ideas, and the superrich get to manipulate ‘social reform’ via big government to their advantage. The superrich capitalists employ socialism to grab more power in government and also to pacify the ‘bitter’ masses with more bread-n-circuses. Give the people more American Idol to worship and fatten their arses with more freebies so they’ll be too lazy to organize and fight the NWO elites.
Ayn Rand was NEVER for the individual. She was for THE Individual. She admired and blessed the super-smart, the super-ambitious, the super rich, the super creative, and super brilliant. There is nothing wrong in admiring excellence. Indeed, if ‘elitism’ is defined as acceptance of hierarchy as natural or as a preference of excellence over mediocrity, I think all of us can agree it’s a good thing. Surely, we admire a work by Da Vinci or Picasso over that of hack artists. We admire the music of Beethoven or the Beatles over Britney Spears.
The problem with Ayn Randism is that it was marketed to the masses even though it holds the masses in utter contempt. Rand had every right to sneer at the masse and see them as stupid and mediocre–as most people indeed are. But, she did something else. She marketed and sold her pathologically Nietzschean elitism as something that was accessible to the masses–like L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.
I’m sure you’ve met mediocre people who won’t ever amount to much in life but who think they are something special because they read FOUNTAINHEAD or ATLAS SHRUGGED. They think they’re intellectual because they read a thick novel. They think they are free because they identify with an uncompromised hero of the novel. They think they too can succeed and become a giant in life. Or, they think they’ve failed because they are TOO GOOD for society ruled by helots that can’t appreciate true genius when they see it. Or, they think they are fair-minded and wise because they feel admiration than envy for the super rich and the super successful. (One of the hidden subliminal messages of Rand’s novels is, "dumb goyim should worship than oppose/challenge the smarter Jew who is bound to gain more wealth, power, and influence." This message is HIDDEN because the brilliant and heroic characters in her novels are tall and handsome gentile WASP types; therefore, many dimwit gentiles read the book thinking it’s about their own empowerment when Rand’s ruthless libertarianism favors Jewish power over gentile power.) There is no great difference between dimwit goyim who jerk off to Ayn Rand’s fantasies or to Lady Gaga’s lunacies. They are both about becoming blind to one’s true reality & limitations and losing oneself in the escapist identification with fairytales.
Ayn Rand novels may apply to the Bill Gates, Sergei Brins, and George Soroses of the world, but they mean NOTHING to the 99.99% of us. Besides, her extreme libertarianism is no less anti-nationalist, anti-culture, anti-race, and anti-communal values as international leftism is.
The NWO is being created by closet-Randians who’ve adopted the language of Marx. People like Obama is useful to them–especially to the globalist Jews–since his presidency fools the world–especially the non-white world–that the global order is controlled by a black guy who cares about The People, the oppressed, the underdogs, and the little guy. And, Obama does follow cues on occasion and makes noise about those ‘greedy’ bankers. And, it may well be that Obama is a stealth black nationalist and socialist, but look at the forces that really control him and control our minds through the media and academia. Obama’s "Hope and Change" is a doggy biscuit thrown to the masses to slobber over. Obama’s ‘progressive’ messiah aura gives the NWO elitists cover for their ambitious and greedy plan to lay claim to the entire world.
Now, it may well be true that most white global elitists really believe that they are good, idealistic, noble, conscientious, and progressive people. After all, there is no limit to how much people can fool themselves out of vanity, ego, or self-righteousness. There are plenty of cutthroat greedy sharks who consider themselves as ‘good Christians’ because they attend church regularly or made generous donations to ‘good causes’. And, on the Right, Pat Buchanan sincerely believes himself to be a good Catholic though his main loyalties are not universalist but tribalist/nationalist.
But, let’s look beyond all this BS or self-BS. Deep down inside, Buchanan is a blood-and-soil racial tribalist, not a good Catholic–except in matters of form and ritual.
Deep down inside, the globalist elites are ultra-territorialists who are simply laying claim to all of the world as their front yard, backyard, private pond, jacuzzi, and playground. They want it all. They want to spread international law not so much because they care about the poor around the world but because they wanna feel at home–as masters–in every corner of the world. The world is their oyster, and all that we masses get from this are crumbs. Worse, while the global elites gain the world, we lose our nations. Most of us don’t have the means to enjoy the world as our oyster–except through the fantasy of TV shows. Most of us don’t have the means to globetrot around the world–except through the fantasies of cyberspace. The only way we can share in the fun and glory of global elitism is through the virtual fantasy reality of entertainment and social network gadgets. Are they enough to sustain meaning in our lives? No, the meaning of our lives really comes from family, community, nation, and culture. Of course, change is natural in the world, but do we want change that gives power and meaning to all of us or change that gives all the power and pleasure to the elites while we dummies lose ourselves in virtual fantasy via movies(Avatar), Ipods,, or Google Earth?
They are enticing and fun but are they real?

No comments:

Post a Comment