How Leftism Can Go from Nationalism to Globalism — The Psychological Underpinning of Leftism that Explains the Mindset of Progressives

There is much talk about how leftists are anti-nationalist and pro-globalist, but this overlooks the fact that leftism was as much a father of nationalism as rightism was. Indeed, at certain moments in history, it was leftism that was pro-nationalist while rightism was anti-nationalist. Of course, the meanings of ‘leftism’ and ‘rightism’ have changed in relation to the dynamics of the ruling power, international conflicts, levels of economic/industrial development, reigning credos, and dominant idols/icons. Also, we must be mindful of the difference between core principles of leftism/rightism and the pragmatic, opportunistic, or unscrupulous manipulation/exploitation of them(as essentially political fronts) to push through certain agendas that, upon closer scrutiny, have less to do with ideological principles than tribal interests or elite policies.

For those who believe that leftism must be anti-nationalist, consider its origins. The leftist French Revolution was nothing if not nationalist. What did it demand? It was for the National Interest of all Frenchmen. It posited that the leaders must represent and serve the national folks. In other words, the people didn’t exist to be subjects of kings and noblemen, but rather, the ruling elites existed to voice, defend, and represent the needs and will of the people. The French Revolution also argued that the ruling elites must primarily identify with the national masses. Against this, the French monarchy and aristocracy tended to regard the people as subjects. The people existed to serve the ruling elites. Also, as royalty and noblemen, the French elites were more likely to identify with kings and noblemen of other domains. Indeed, the royal houses all across Europe were united by blood. Despite the periodic battles fought among various kingdoms and principalities, the ruling elites across domains regarded each other as kinsmen and brethren bound by royal or noble lineage. It’s like elite athletes battle each other on the playing field but identify more with one another than with the masses of faceless fans. It’s the same way with the gods of mythology. Gods may lock horns with other gods, but they are all still part of the fellowship of immortals who look down on the mortals.

Then, it is no wonder Jews did something very clever with their God. By making Him the one and only God, He could not form alliances with gods of other tribes against the Jews, the people who worshiped Him. Furthermore, the Covenant meant that His main purpose on Earth was to make things better for Jews. In that sense, Jews were proto-nationalists on the cosmic level. They made sure that their spiritual ruler served them as much as they served Him. And yet, Jewish cosmo-nationalism was problematic as it was inherently proto-imperialist. After all, if God is the ruler of everything, everyone, and all-that-is, His power isn’t limited only to Jews but over all mankind and all the world. And yet, if He has a special Covenant with Jews, it means He mustn’t be an impartial emperor over all mankind but a ‘racist’ ruler who favors the supremacism of Jews over all other groups. This contradiction within the Jewish conception of God as both the ruler of all and a rigger in favor of Jews led to the rise of Christianity and then Islam that altered the terms of the Covenant. If God is the ruler of all, He must be a fair and impartial emperor to all peoples and tribes. Anyone or any group that would worship, serve, and honor Him should be just as precious in His eyes. If anything, Jews would be less favored in His eyes because, according to the new covenant, they insisted on being stingy with the original Covenant that said God is theirs alone. From the Jewish perspective, Christianity and Islam are not only horrible heresies but the greatest thefts in history. It was a case of goyim stealing God from the Jews with the aid of Jewish traitors such as Jesus, Peter, and Paul. This is why Jews will do anything to destroy Christianity. While Jews do have a legitimate grievance in feeling that the goyim stole their God, their spiritual conception made the rise of universalized forms of Judaism almost inevitable. After all, if God is the only God and the ruler over all, why should/would He favor the Jews over others? Also, given that Jews themselves admitted over and over in their sacred texts that they’d often been disloyal, treacherous, and verminous in the eyes of God, why would/should He stick by the so-called Chosen who too often chose to act like a bunch of cretins and psychos?

Anyway, those at the top love their power and privilege. And they naturally look down on the less powerful, less rich, less privileged, and less connected. The ‘best’ prefer the company and the acknowledgment of others with the ‘best’ status. They look down on the hoi polloi as mere employees, servants, consumers, and/or subjects. The problem with individualism as a political ideology is it results in hyper-elitism than equal dignity of individuals. After all, while Jeff Bezos and his many employees are all individuals with the same set of basic rights, Bezos-as-individual is worth the power and wealth of countless individuals. He is a giant-individual whereas most individuals are mere ants. Political individualism doesn’t mean that each individual counts as much as all the others. It means a relatively few individuals come to accumulate so much wealth & power and tower over other individuals who mean absolutely nothing. It’s not a forest of more or less equally tall trees but of giant redwoods that reach ever higher while most people are mere shrubs at ground-level. Elite psychology is the same whether the system is aristocratic or democratic. Those at the top come to feel a certain contempt or at least condescension toward the masses, just like star athletes look upon all those faceless fans as a bunch of ‘losers’. In some ways, aristocracy is more honest in its brazen elitism, whereas democracy is one of the most dishonest systems ever created, one where the ruling class pretend to represent and serve the people when it’s really a cabal of oligarchs, elite managers, and commissars. And elitism is made far worse if the ruling class tends to be dominated by a group whose identity differs from that of the great majority. While the US was always an oligarchy, white Christian elites once felt some degree of sympathy and camaraderie with the toiling white masses, not least because rags-to-riches white elites remembered their own years of poverty and hardship. But with Jews(and their proxies, the homos) as the current ruling elites, forget about any genuine elite feeling for the masses. While rich and powerful Jews feel something for fellow Jews in Israel and around the world, they feel only hatred, fear, and contempt for the masses of goyim.

In the age of kings and aristocrats, nationalism didn’t matter so much. Indeed, most peoples of Europe were ruled by the Family than by their own national leaders. Due to intermarriage across domains, many of the kings, princes, and dukes were related by blood, and many of the elites preferred to speak French than the language of the subject peoples. Also, monarchical systems tended to be imperial, and this meant boundaries often shifted to incorporate various ethnic groups who felt little affinity to the ruling class. The most extreme example was perhaps the Austro-Hungarian Empire that was dominated by ruling elites of Germanic Austrians who constituted only 20 to 25% of the entire population. Nationalism was problematic for the ruling elites in imperial mode because it meant they must favor their own people, i.e. if the imperial ruling elites favored their own national folk over all the other imperial subjects, it could lead to much resentment. Indeed, the problem of Jewish rule over West Bank is it is both nationalist and imperialist. As good nationalists, Israeli Zionist leaders favor fellow Jews, but this means resentment among the Palestinians who are treated as subjects than citizens. A system where all peoples are treated as either citizens or subjects is bound to be more stable than one where one people are treated as citizens while others are treated as subjects. If both Jews and Palestinians were treated as subjects, at the very least both groups would be in the same boat. But when Jews are treated as citizens while Palestinians are treated as subjects, it is grounds for grievance and resentment among the latter. For this reason, nationalism and imperialism are like oil and water. Nationalism works best within national borders; it becomes problematic in imperialist mode across national borders. If the ruling elites want to rule over a stable empire, they must treat ALL peoples under their power as either subjects or citizens. Either even foreign peoples must be granted the same rights as citizens or even the national folks must lose their rights and be treated as subjects. In the current neo-imperialist globo-homo New World Order, the New American Way is to treat even non-Americans as ‘fellow Americans’ & ersatz citizens while, at the same time, eroding the rights of Americans as citizens with ever less protections of free speech, gun rights, border security, and freedom of assembly & association; in other words, make American Citizens more like subjects.

Neo-Imperialist Globalists learned the lessons of the past. They figured that the main reason why the European Empires failed was they were national-empires and, as such, bred much anger and resentment among non-white subject peoples. If the European imperialist rulers had treated all peoples, even their own, as subject peoples, then there would at least have been the equality of tyranny. Whether one was a white Briton or brown Hindu, he would be no better or worse than any other subject in the empire. But British Imperialism was also nationalist whereby the British elites felt racially, legally, and politically bound to white Britons who were granted rights and privileges in the UK and across the empire that were denied to non-whites. It was this nationalist or 'racist' element in British Imperialism that especially bred so much animus among non-whites, not least among local non-white elites. Non-white elites, despite their riches and privileges(and collaboration with the foreign overlords), realized that, in some crucial way, they counted for less than even the lowest white Briton. All said and done, even the lowest White Briton was treated as a citizen of the mother country whereas even the highest non-white was regarded as a subject of the empire. Then, it was only natural that many non-white elites decided to struggle against the empire and create their own national orders. In a way, they were aping the Europeans because most non-white cultures hardly had any tradition of people power. The masses had long been treated as mere subjects by local elites, and in a way, nationalism served not only to drive out foreigners but to undermine the traditional order. Even as white imperialists were pushed out, the white national ideal of 'leaders serving the people than vice versa' came to define non-white societies.

At any rate, today’s globalists are in neo-imperialist footing, and they don’t want to sacrifice their global hegemony with the ‘old mistake’ of nationalism. In order for them to rule the world indefinitely, the current ruling elites of the US and EU must send a message to all mankind that they have the same regard for non-whites and non-nationals as for whites and nationals. Indeed, the current PC goes out of its way to demonstrate that any white person with nationalist sympathies/passions will be attacked, defamed, blacklisted, fined, and even imprisoned. Even after Brexit, nothing has been done about the dangerously high levels of non-white immigration-invasion into UK. The only group that is allowed to practice national-imperialism is the Jews, but then, Jews are not only the richest, most privileged, and most powerful group in the world but were clever to shroud their power with the holy-holocaust shield. Also, even as Jews elevated themselves to sacro-saint-victim status, they have no qualms about acting like cutthroat gangsters with elaborate and complex intelligence networks to gather dirt on just about anyone. Also, by control of media and moral hysteria surrounding notions of ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘Russia-Russia-Russia’(or ‘Russysteria’), even those who are clean as a whistle in professional life can be smeared one way or another. Consider how any idealistic antiwar activist has been smeared as an ‘Anti-Semite’ or ‘Russian agent’. Another reason why Jews and only Jews are allowed national-imperialism is to ensure that goy-elites will serve as comprador-collaborationist-elites of the Jews. In other words, while goy elites can only be rich and successful individuals who function as managerial elites of the New World Order, they cannot stand together with their own ethnic folks lest such unity serve as a bulwark against Jewish Supremacist Power. After all, goy national unity means the goy elites of a particular nation must primarily be committed to representing and defending their own peoples than serve an alien power, the Jewish Supremacists.

Generally, empires fear other empires as they clash for imperial spoils. But empires also have problems with nationalism because nationalism wants to be left alone and doesn’t want to be recruited into the imperial power game. It’s like various Greek kingdoms didn’t want to be drawn into the quasi-imperialist adventurism of Agamemnon against the Trojans. Imperialism sees nationalism as an obstacle to its ambitions. Franco’s Spanish nationalism that wanted no part of Adolf Hitler’s imperialist ambitions angered the Fuhrer to no end. Polish nationalism that insisted on neutrality between National Socialist Germany and Soviet Union was seen as a stumbling block for Hitler. If empires seek to conquer and colonize certain lands, it seeks to use other lands as military bases and launching pads for further expansion. The Jew-run US has no ambition to colonize the Middle East with Americans, but it seeks to use nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to encircle Iran. And the US has used Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to encircle and contain China. This is why even mere neutrality of humble nationalism is often regarded as a threat to the imperial world order. Imperialism fears that if it tolerates one neutral nationalism, other nations may demand the same and insist on being left alone. Then, empires lose their bases of operation to expand their hegemony.

At any rate, nationalism, though currently regarded as a ‘rightist’ or even ‘far-right’ ideology(except when Jews and Israel practice it), has had a leftist as well as rightist pedigree. The rise of nationalism in the French Revolution was certainly leftist. Also, even the founding of the United States was, ideologically speaking, more leftist than rightist, as it was about the creation of an independent national republic where the leaders would be mindful of the interests of the national folks. After all, the Declaration of Independence argued that the American colonies were no longer bound to British Tyranny that regarded the colonials as subjects than as free people deserving to be heard and represented by the ruling elites. (Much of the accusations against Britain was malarkey, but the elaborate justification for independence had to do with leftist-nationalist aspirations, and it’s hardly surprising that the American rulers were supportive of the French Revolution despite the fact that the French King had done so much to fund and support the American Independence Struggle.)
Furthermore, most of the post-WWII national independence struggles against European Imperialism and American Neo-Imperialism were associated with leftism. In many cases, communists led the struggles for national independence, as in Cuba and Vietnam. In many cases, it was socialists like Nehru of India. Also, even though the Catholic Church has been regarded as a ‘right-wing’ and ‘reactionary’ force in world affairs, the role of the Church in Poland wasn't merely against communism but unfettered capitalism & globalism. In economic theory, Catholicism has been closer to socialism than capitalism. Indeed, only in the US and UK has it been the norm to associate ultra-capitalism, ultra-individualism, and anti-statism as ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’. In most European nations, such positions are considered ‘liberal’, and it is often the right-wing parties that call for more state power and more socialism(though nothing like communism). What Otto von Bismarck and Adolf Hitler both understood was that the most winning formula was the combination of nationalism/patriotism with some measure of socialism. For the most part, Bismarck succeeded because he focused on the German nation. But in World War I, Germany under the impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm went into imperialist mode(along with other European nations) in Continental affairs and brought itself to ruination. Hitler also succeeded on the national level with his formula of nationalism and socialist-capitalism, but then brought Germany to total ruin with another round of imperialist ventures that alienated too many sides.

The point is nationalism has never been entirely ‘rightist’ or ‘leftist’. It’s been a combination of rightist and leftist tendencies. In its focus on People Power, nationalism is indeed leftist and partly egalitarian. Under nationalism, people aren’t mere subjects of the ruling hierarchy. They don’t exist mainly to kneel before noblemen and bow before kings. They are citizens of the state with certain rights. Under the Old Order, only the aristocrats had rights that had to be respected by monarchs. But under nationalism, the concept of rights was universalized to everyone within the national realm. And yet, nationalism is also rightist in that it limits the guarantee and administration of human rights within the national realm. So, even as a nation like Poland or Hungary subscribes to the notion of universal human rights, its role is to ensure and protect such rights for the national folks within the realm. It isn’t their duty to spread such values or practices to OTHER nations. While it is hoped that all nations and all peoples will, of their own accord, come to see the light and practice the Western form of human rights(prior to the rise of degeneracy as the new normal), it is not up to any single nation as ‘liberal hegemon’ to play crusader and force all nations to conform to the one true vision of universal justice.
Furthermore, as communism demonstrated all too powerfully(and brutally), a system and a set of principles are NOT the final chapter in human progress and justice simply because they dogmatically believe themselves to be. As it turned out, communism was the god that failed. So, even though the notion of Human Rights is a noble idea, it is not infallible and, furthermore, there are many more ways than one to conceptualize what constitutes ‘human rights’. Also, ‘universal’ can be a generous idea but also a threatening and aggressive one. It can mean the willingness to share one’s good ideas and values with all the world, but it can also mean the use of ruthless force to spread one’s idea of Truth on the entire world. The wars between Christendom and Islam were battles of universalisms that led to countless deaths. The wars between Catholics and Protestants were also about universalism vs universalism, and they turned the rivers red with blood.

Apart from the dogmatism of something like the Crusades and the Inquisition(and later communism), there is the cynical exploitation of universalist rhetoric — globo-babble about ‘spreading democracy’ and championing ‘human rights’ — to push what are essentially tribalist, capitalist, or imperialist agendas. Notice how Jewish Supremacists veil their essentially tribalist agendas with think-tank yammering about ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, ‘free enterprise’, ‘liberal world order’, and etc. If they’re sincere about this, one wonders why they're silent about the Zionist tyranny over West Bank. Indeed, the notion of ‘universalism’ has been so corrupted by Jewish supremacists in the West that countless minions now believe that there is no greater or more urgent ‘human right’ than an infamnia such as ‘gay marriage’ or lunacy such as ‘trans-gender’ rights. In the Current West, decadence and degeneracy are now part and parcel of ‘human rights’. The ‘gay rainbow’ is now a more sacred symbol than the US flag or the Christian Crucifix. And, the so-called ‘conservatives’, who take their money from scum-weasels like Sheldon Adelson the casino crook, do NOTHING to push back against this foul tide. If anything, current ‘conservatism’ seem perfectly content with creatures like ‘Lady Maga’ being the face of New Conservatism.

Leftism, like a chameleon, changes colors in relation to what is considered most urgent, noble, sacred, and redemptive. Also, leftism seeks its heroes and saints within the perimeters of the domain. Under British Imperialism, what was deemed most urgent, courageous, and worthy of sacrifice was national independence among the Irish. Thus, the Irish Left were full-blown nationalists. Back then, Irish Leftism was Irish Nationalism. Leftists love the idea of being underdogs putting up a good fight against the Power. Prior to national independence, the Good Fight was all about resisting the British Empire, the most powerful force in the world, and struggling for liberation and sovereignty for Ireland as an autonomous nation. It is then no wonder that such romanticism attracted many Irish with leftist leanings. By joining the national struggle, they could see themselves as warriors for justice & freedom against tyranny.
Also, leftists must play with the cards they are dealt with. If their domain happens to be mostly homogeneous and limited to national borders, leftism will tend to favor the working folks and thereby de facto end up supporting nationalism. Indeed, consider Swedish Leftism prior to the rise of globalism. It was limited to Swedes in Sweden. Swedish leftists observed that the Swedish working folks are the underdogs in the system and need representation. As the working class traditionally made up the bulk of the national population, a pro-prole politics could only be nationalist in effect even if not by design. National leftism, by urging the working class to demand better wages and more benefits, had a galvanizing impact on mass politics. Also, such mass demand from below led by leftist activists compelled the ruling elites and the rich class to be more mindful of the economic needs of all the people in the nation than of profits-uber-alles. Thus, in a homogeneous national order, leftism can actually serve to reinforce national unity and national consciousness. It can lead to the fusion of capitalism and socialism that works for the good of all. It can remind the ruling class that the people and workers matter as the bulk of national folk. Indeed, consider the effects of the New Deal on American Nationalism. The impact of the New Deal cast a long shadow well into the early 1970s. Despite its excesses and problems, it did create national consensus from top to bottom that Americans must be one people where even the lowliest worker must possess the basic dignities of life. Leftism could strengthen nationalism. If the American Right was focused obsessively on individualism & ‘muh profits’ and therefore had a splintering and alienating effect among the classes, the American Left pushed for pro-worker policies that made the Common Man feel that he had a stake in the system and in the national order.
Still, leftism was so useful to nationalism precisely because relatively homogeneous nations operate on the race-ist basis. The Swedish Working Class made gains because the Swedish Left championed them against the Swedish Rich. And the White American Working Class made great strides because race-ist America was one where white elites were compelled to represent and offer better opportunities and conditions for the white working folks. During the Great Depression especially, there were tons of poor white folks like the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH. Back then, leftists didn’t need to champion non-whites to feel self-righteous and holier-than-thou as even plenty of whites were homeless or just barely eking out a living.

It’s interesting how leftism can so easily go from nationalism to anti-nationalism. Within a homogeneous political-and-cultural context, leftism often aids and abets nationalism by standing up for the working masses. It forces the ruling elites to connect with and be responsive to the totality of the national folks. In a homogeneous setting, leftism is invariably about the people. It may not be particularly ethnocentric or race-ist, but its overall effect is to bolster People Politics. As most people within a homogeneous political order share the same ethnicity, leftism unites the working masses to be heard as a national folk. Ideally, to prevent the spread of radical leftism, it is best to have a right-wing or centrist government that comes under pressure by the left. Because of its virulent nature, leftism-in-power tends to be restless in trying out NEW policies, most of which turn out to be useless or, worse, harmful. However, when leftism is a critical/supportive force than a dominant one, it has a way of pressuring the ruling elites to be more responsive to the masses. It sends a signal to the elites that unless they are mindful of the needs of the national folks, the people might opt for more radical measures, which would not be good. Indeed, it was leftist pressure in late 19th century Germany that urged upon the right-wing ruling elites to enact certain socialist policies to provide safety nets and basic protections for workers. Wittingly or not, German leftism, by cooperating and compromising with the Ruling Class, lent credence to the German Right. Indeed, German Nationalism was the intersection of rightism and leftism.

And yet, leftism can just as easily turn anti-nationalist. How could something that could be so useful to nationalism be so against it? Because the CORE principles of leftism are not about tribalism, nationalism, or particularism but radical messianism, universalism, egalitarianism, and/or underdog-ism. Furthermore, the core leftist psychology is about holier-than-thou-ism and moral/spiritual puritanism. This is where leftism is different from libertarianism. Decadence and degeneracy as libertarian rights are all about freedom and liberty, not about moral sanctimony. Libertarianism doesn’t morally defend self-indulgence and depravity; it merely defends the right of individuals to take part in them. In contrast, when leftism merges with decadence/degeneracy, it feels a 'spiritual' urge to sanctify and ‘sacralize’ them as the ‘new normal’ or even the ‘new holy’.
Though leftism has largely been approached and analyzed ideologically, it can also be understood as a psychological tendency. In some ways, the psychological factor may be more important. After all, if leftism is all about ideology, it should have died with the fall of communism. Also, what is more hierarchical than globalism that has created a world of the Master Class of super-oligarchs and the rest of us? If ideological leftism were still active, it should primarily be anti-globalist and anti-hyper-capitalist. And yet, so much of today’s ‘leftism’ sides with the Deep State, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Wall Street, and super-capitalism. Ideologically, it makes little sense, but psychologically it makes plenty of sense. Even if leftist ideology is pretty much dead, leftist psychology is alive and well, and it cannot be extinguished because it’s a psycho-emotional tendency that some people are more prone to for genetic reasons. Some people are born with psycho-leftist tendencies, just as some are born with psycho-rightist tendencies. While sanctity matters a lot to both psycho-rightists and psycho-leftists, the former are more into preservation of familiar symbols & entrenched values, whereas the latter are more into moral outrage of the moment. Thus, psycho-rightist emotions are rarely as heated as psycho-leftist ones. Obviously, defending the realm requires less hysterics than changing the world. Granted, psycho-rightism is not without passion. Many psycho-rightists have a deep and powerful sense of connection to their land, folks, customs, & history. Psycho-rightism is about the sacred mansion, psycho-leftism is about the holy mission. Also, because psycho-rightism is rooted to the soil, it is more resilient in the long run IF it can weather the storm of change. It’s like trees with roots deep in the ground recover and regrow after harsh storms, cold winters, and even forest fires. In contrast, because leftism not only lacks roots but is anti-roots, when a particular leftism is discredited, rejected, and passes from history, it really vanishes without much of a trace. However, there is a way in which psycho-leftist fervor and fury can overwhelm psycho-rightist passion. Because psycho-rightism is more an emotion — the feelings one has for family, home/homeland, heritage, and etc. — , it tends not to be articulated or intellectualized. In contrast, because psycho-leftism is about finding faults in the system and changing it radically or altogether(and even trying to change the entire world), it has to be more than a passion or hysteria. It has to be intellectualized into an ideology or dogma. As such, leftism tends to be more articulated and ‘rhetoricized’ than rightism is. It’s like someone who believes in ‘home sweet home’ feels a certain sentimentality, and that feeling is enough for him to feel justified in maintaining his home-sweet-home. In contrast, someone who says the home should be torn down to make way for something new, different, and better has to explain why his plan should be realized. Precisely because leftism goes against the ‘natural’ and normally-accepted way of doing things, it has to justify itself morally and intellectually. Thus, leftism gains greater mastery over the Politics of Words. As words have the power to convert minds and as converted minds go about joining the crusade, words can change the world.

Between the psycho-rightist mentality and the psycho-leftist mentality is the psycho-libertarian mentality that neither feels a strong attachment to folks, culture, land, & heritage nor feels a particular tendency toward moral outrage & redemption through transformation. Psycho-libertarians find psycho-rightism to be stuffy and repressive and find psycho-leftism to be rabid and virulent. If psycho-rightists want to keep homos in the closet, psycho-leftists want to elevate homos in the church. Psycho-rightists want to restrain perversion, deviance, and difference to maintain the Traditional Way or the Current Norm, whereas psycho-leftists want to restrain tradition, natural norms, and ‘reactionary’ views to push through the New Agenda. As both are founded on sacred emotions — psycho-rightism is about the holy, psycho-leftism is about being holier-than-thou — , there is a limit to which either can accept freedom and liberty. If freedom threatens what is sacred to psycho-rightism, it must be curtailed to preserve what is believed to be noble, essential, and true. If freedom threatens what is holy to psycho-leftism, it must be curtailed to ensure the continuance of the march forward. Because psycho-libertarians hold nothing sacred, they have a difficult time understanding the rightist emotional attachment to tradition/heritage and leftist emotional attachment to ‘social justice’.
Granted, there is one thing that is quasi-sacred to certain psycho-libertarians. As near-worshipers of the Individual, psycho-libertarians tend to idolize the super-individuals who achieved the most, especially in business. So, as often as not, psycho-libertarians will slavishly agree with whatever the richest bunch of oligarchs have to say. So, if superduper rich corporations use monopolies to limit free speech and push globo-homo, such matters have the full stamp of approval from psycho-libertarians who are star-struck with the image of the superduper individual who is so awesome because he’s worth billions and billions of dollars. Indeed, this is why so many psycho-libertarians are fully on-board with Israel and Zionism. Not because they have a sentimental attachment to Israel or harbor worshipful feelings about Jews as the Chosen but because they are so impressed by Jewish wealth and Jewish achievements as individuals.

Because the globalist elites know that ‘leftism’ now exists essentially as a psychological than ideological quality, they’ve used their control of academia, information media, entertainment, and the deep state to manipulate and exploit psycho-leftism. Globalist elites know that psycho-leftists are concerned less with ideological consistency and intellectual honesty than with emotional fulfillment of being self-righteously outraged and/or smugly & snidely feeling superior in being ‘more evolved’ or ‘on the right side of history’. Leftism used to be wedded to a particular set of ideals and ideological worldview. Now, it’s mostly about ‘muh feeling’. Just like a person who is fixated mainly on the orgasm doesn’t care about love & commitment as just about any sex partner will do, a psycho-leftist doesn’t really care what he or she is up-in-arms about AS LONG AS it provides him or her with the emotional satisfaction of being holier-than-thou and self-righteous. So, as long as the globalist elites find clever ways to tickle their ‘outragenous’ zones, the psycho-leftist rabble are happy. It’s like dogs need to hunt for or chase after something. It can be ANYTHING as long as they get to run after it. It could be a rabbit, squirrel, raccoon, ball, or a stick. As long as as a dog is given something to chase after, it is happy. Likewise, as long as the psycho-leftist is given something to throw hysterics about, he or she feels fulfilled with the moral-orgasm or 'morgasm'.
Indeed, the Jewish globalists prefer this because ideological leftism insists on an underlying consistency of ideas and principles. Thus, ideological leftists are harder to manipulate hither thither. This was indeed why Jews eventually lost out under communism. Communism, being an ideological form of leftism, stood steadfast with a certain set of principles. It was anti-wealth, anti-individual, and anti-enterprise. It favored mediocrity and conformism above all. In a system governed by such principles, Jewish communist elites were targeted and brought down a peg in the name of greater equality. So, even though Jews started out strong in the Soviet Communist Order, they kept losing power as the years went by. In contrast, Jews went from strength to strength in the US because it allowed individualism and meritocracy, two areas in which Jews were advantaged for their pushy personalities and higher IQ.
Still, Jewish leftism was useful as a moral cover precisely because Jews were gaining so much in terms of power, privilege, and wealth. If Jews were only associated with money and position, people would look upon them with suspicion and resentment, even hatred. But if many Jews were associated with the Left, it would create the impression that Jewish Role in America is more about justice and equality(and concern for the little guy) than about Jews getting ever richer and more powerful. While capitalist Jews and leftist Jews didn’t see eye to eye on lots of things through much of the 20th century, the depressing fate of Jews under communism, the amazing success of Jews in the US, the galvanizing cult of the Shoah, and the rise of Zionism all led to a mutual understanding between two camps. Jewish capitalists would keep getting richer and richer and gain greater control of society while Jewish ‘leftists’ would make a lot of noises about ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ to lend the impression that Jews are more about 'social justice' prophecy than material wealth & profits. In other words, Jews pretty much gave up on ideological leftism and formulated ways to manipulate psychological leftism by using media, academia, and deep state to concoct new idols, the latest issues of the day, and fashions/trends to rouse up moral hysteria. Ideology and ideas matter far less than idols and icons, especially those of Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, Homos as ‘gay rainbow’ angel-fairies, and Negroes as Mandela/Mandingo stud-skank-saint-victims. So, never mind what Zionists are doing to Palestinians. Just weep over and over about the ‘muh 6 million’ and go hunting for ‘New Nazis’. And never mind that Homos deeply embedded in the Deep State and working with CIA and other goons to spread US neo-imperialism(aka Wars for Israel) that have devastated entire nations and peoples. Homos are holy-schmoly, and it feels so gratifyingly self-righteous to wave the ‘gay’ flag and holler at ‘homophobia’. And never mind that blacks kill blacks(and other races). Just chant the mantra of ‘Black Lives Matter’ as if blacks are the ones who need to be protected from the ‘white racist police’. And forget about what Jews, Liberals, and ideological leftists once said about McCarthyism and ‘paranoid red-baiting’. You better hysterically believe it’s Russia-Russia-Russia that is interfering with our elections — of course, Russia is EVIL because it said NO to Globo-Homo, one of the most fashionable current moral outrages among psycho-leftists. And never mind Obama turned out to be just another neo-imperialist stooge who did the bidding of Zionists and spread more Wars for Israel. Why, he is the first black president, and that means he’s holy and a symbol against the evil of ‘racism’. With psycho-leftists, it’s really a game of ‘fill-in-the-blank-slate’. As ideological leftism is dead, today’s wanna-be leftists have no long-term vision or no deep set of principles to live by. Psycho-leftism is like a gun that wants to fire off endless rounds. It doesn't matter what ammos are loaded into its blank cartridge as long as it gets to fire them.
One thing for sure, today’s ‘leftism’ isn’t about equality or anti-imperialism as so many on the so-called ‘left’ cheer on US neo-globo-imperialism, defend the deep state, and praise Wall Street & Silicon Valley. Now, why would ‘leftists’ be for the super-rich and globalist imperialism? Because having no real ideology to ground them in a certain worldview, today’s ‘leftists’ are really just psycho-leftists who mainly want to feel moral outrage and holier-than-thou about something. As most of them are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to come up with their own issues and topics to get all worked up with, they rely on the powers-that-be to supply the idols, icons, and issues about which to get most rapturous or hysterical about. It’s like a dog cannot throw the ball or stick to chase. It has to be thrown by the master. Likewise, psycho-leftists are like dogs that rely on their Jewish globo-homo masters to toss balls and sticks for them to chase. This is why today’s ‘leftists’ are so malleable and seem so arbitrary in their moral outrages. Their moral outrage is not the cart behind the ideological horse. Rather, their moral outrage is the horse, and it will carry just about anything loaded onto the cart. Consider that most ‘leftists’ had no concern about ‘refugees’ who were detained under Obama’s administration. They had no concern about US deep state’s use of Neo-Nazis to pull off a coup in Ukraine. They had no concern about Obama administration’s support of military coup d’etat in Egypt that toppled a democratically elected government. They had no concern for the Kurds in Syria. And they sure as hell cared little about Muslims. But when Trump became president, these ‘leftists’ would suddenly throw fits about whatever ball or stick was thrown by Jews for them to run after. For awhile, one got the impression that ‘leftist’ believed there is nothing as American-as-Apple-Pie as the Muslims. And yet, these are the same ‘leftists’ who support globo-homo that represents everything that Islam detests. To get a sense of psycho-leftism, consider the ridiculous case of Justin Trudeau who is all about smug moral upmanship about things that contradict one another. So, he will dress up as a Muslim and embrace Muslims as his brothers, but then go off and wave the ‘gay’ flag at a ‘pride’ parade. What do Islam and ‘gay pride’ have in common for psycho-leftists like Trudeau? Never mind the ideological inconsistency. What matters is both offer him insta-doses of ‘virtue highs’. Mingling with Muslims he is one with much-consecrated Diversity and against ‘Islamophobia’, and dilly-dallying with homos he is one with the holy ‘rainbow’ and against the dark sin of ‘homophobia’. The fact that ‘transphobia’ also became a hot topic and object of a new crusade almost overnight goes to show that psycho-leftism is almost entirely about senses and emotions than about ideas. As Joe Biden and others have pointed out, the rise of globo-homo owed less to ideological or intellectual debate than the power of idolatry and iconography via TV shows, movies, advertising, pageantry, and propaganda. In a world where image and sounds count for more than ideas and where chants-mantras-slogans-platitudes have precedence over words as tools of logic and facts, people have forgotten how to think. Indeed, so many people now want to be rid of Free Speech because certain words, even if true and factual, offend their sense of the sacred, mostly about Jews, blacks, and homos. Why, it might be 'hate speech'.

In a homogenous order, leftism will tend to side with the working masses against the rich elites — we may call it national leftism. But in a diverse order or in an order(even if homogeneous) where diversity has been sacralized, leftism will side with diversity of minorities, immigrants, and foreigners against the national folks — we may call it ‘global leftism’. While national leftism and global leftism don’t see eye to eye, they do have something in common at the psychological core. Both are predicated on the need to feel moral outrage and self-righteousness. National leftists feel holier-than-thou in supporting the poor and toiling workers against the rich and privileged. They feel like little jesuses standing with the have-nots against the super-haves. Global leftists also feel holier-than-thou but in their coddling defense of marginalized minorities, distrusted foreign elements, and struggling immigrants. For global leftists, the peoples of the Third World are even needier than the white working class in the West. Because leftism is about feeling self-righteous by sticking up for the little guy against the big guy, its politics is always relative to who happens to be the littler guy. In a homogenous setting of nationalism, leftists see the national proles and poor as the little guys(like in populist Frank Capra movies). In a diverse setting of globalism, leftists see the global poor as the little guys who need to be championed and coddled. But such mindset can take over EVEN BEFORE diversity takes over a nation. Before homogeneous Sweden embarked on its agenda of Diversity and national suicide, its media and academia instilled countless Swedes with the idea that Diversity is not only good but downright sacred. And that meant that National Sweden was an imperfect and even vile place lacking in vibrant Diversity. Apparently, it didn’t have sufficient diversity that bestowed proper blessing upon the nation. Once Swedish psychology was inculcated with the notion that Diversity is next to godliness, Swedish leftists kept pushing for more immigration. And once non-white immigrants got a foothold in Sweden, Swedish leftists went about embracing, championing, and coddling them as the new ‘little guys’, the sacrosanct victims deserving of the most love and sympathy. Swedish elites, who only care about money and privilege, figured they could be spared the leftist ire if they signed onto the Diversity program. What did they care since they got the money and means to keep themselves safe and sound in their affluent enclaves even if Sweden were to fill up with foreign hordes? Indeed, the rich class and the Swedish leftists could scapegoat the Swedish nationalists(mostly lower-middle class and working class) as the ‘racist’ villains who aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic about holy Diversity.

This is why the world needs National Humanism or Neo-Fascism as the only workable formula for fusing the right with the left in the name of national preservation and against imperialisms of all kinds.

Commentary on Trevor Lynch's Review of THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY & PURPLE NOON — Why the RIPLEY Tale may be more Relevant to Our Times than BRAVE NEW WORLD & 1984

https://www.unz.com/tlynch/the-talented-mr-ripley-purple-noon/




Trevor Lynch(aka Greg Johnson):

It is (Anthony) Minghella’s best-directed film: an unapologetically Eurocentric, absolutely voluptuous vision of Italy at its most beautiful and America at its civilizational peak.

Not sure what that means within the context of the movie's setting. LA DOLCE VITA lifestyle on display seems more exotic and eccentric than Euro-centric. What is Dickie(Jude Law)’s main passion? Jazz. Most of his worldly gods are black, and he has no sense of responsibility, no sense of obligation except to oneself. The only thing that is sincere about him, apart from his genuine love of fun, is his feelings for his fiancee.
Otherwise, he's all about unfettered individualism and self-indulgence, even as he mooches off his respectable workaholic father. In the novel, his passion is painting, but in the movie it was changed to Jazz, which I suppose is more cinematic and exciting for the soundtrack. Tom Ripley is another moocher, or a moocher of a moocher. Dickie and Ripley are perfect avatars of the soulless new Western Man. The post-war boom was certainly not the civilizational peak for it elevated materialism and ‘self-actualization’ as the highest goals of life. By the way, it is a terrific movie, one of the most intelligent to come out of Hollywood.

An odd thing. Even though THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is superior(or at least equal) to PURPLE NOON in just about every department — in acting, script, plotting, RIPLEY is superior, and in cinematography, it holds its own — , PURPLE NOON is the greater film, the one with classic status. Why would this be? Because cinema is more about magic than data. In its parts, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is hard to beat as suspense, thriller, mystery, and even dark romance. The acting is only adequate in PURPLE NOON and the plotting is perfunctory. There isn’t much to Ripley's psychology as Alain Delon plays him. Still, PURPLE NOON has a mesmerizing quality lacking in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. The ‘remake’ is more like a maze, the Rene Clement film is like a dream. You have to follow every twist and turn to make sense of THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY and enjoy it — and it is immensely enjoyable –, whereas you can forget about everything and drift away with the romantic daze of PURPLE NOON.

Still, two remarkable works based on the same novel. Rare in cinema for a novel to produce one good movie. But two is a charmer.

Another fine adaptation and with Warren Beatty as a budding star with real charisma(before he got a bit sappy) is ALL FALL DOWN, an early work by John Frankenheimer.



Bardon Kaldian:

In arts & sciences, there is no rational way of listing achievements. And in film- even less so.

That’s why it’s not a rational argument. I said, based on ‘objective’ criteria, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is the better work. It is a polished well-oiled machine that runs smoothly from start to finish. It's like a perfect mechanical shark. Also, it offers much food for thought. If we go down the checklist of technical wonders, it’s hard to beat THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY.

And yet, there is a quality to PURPLE NOON that works like a daydream, especially with its bronze glinted images, Delon’s quiet intensity, and the tone of fatalism in the otherwise sentimental melody.

Clearly, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY was made as a middlebrow art film — one of the best of its kind — , whereas PURPLE NOON was made as a star vehicle. The latter’s priority was to make Delon look devastating, and boy, did it ever succeed.

Another thing. THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is pretty high on verisimilitude. As outlandish as the plot is, we can believe we’re watching real people in real places in a real time in history.
In contrast, there is an added layer of fantasy to PURPLE NOON because Frenchmen are playing Americans. The effect is almost surreal, like a mirage.

Trevor Lynch:

Critical reputations change over time. Purple Noon has a 39-year head start.

THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY got pretty good marks when it came out, and it is still probably a much-respected movie. (In contrast, no one seems to care much about THE ENGLISH PATIENT anymore.) However, it may be problematic for two reasons in the Current Year. Ripley is a homosexual psycho, an arguably 'homophobic' detail that may offend certain well-placed people in the arts and entertainment. While Ripley is presented with empathy(at times bordering on audience identification as his daring feats play to the closeted-striver in all of us) and is far from being a flaming stereotype, in our day and age when globo-homo is like a substitute religion the notion of a narcissistic pathological homo psycho may not go over well.

The other reason is PURPLE NOON was released at a legendary time in film history. Oddly enough, Rene Clement, the director of the masterpiece FORBIDDEN GAMES, had long been viciously attacked by New Wave critics. He was pigeonholed as an old-fashioned stuffy ‘films of quality’ director. And yet, he made one of the most fabulous films to start the decade and, if only for a brief moment, he made the young turks eat their words. I wonder if PURPLE NOON had any influence on KNIFE IN THE WATER(dir. Roman Polanski) that came out two years later. At any rate, PURPLE NOON belongs to a class of films that came out when Cinema Mattered. In 1960, Cinema was appealing and exciting as the art form as yet least touched by modernism(thus spared its worst excesses) and yet also one that was most fertile for modernist exploration. It was both the virgin and the fresh whore of the art world, perhaps best exemplified by Luis Bunuel's VIRIDIANA. It was there to be undressed and violated. Other more traditional art forms such as literature, music, painting, and sculpture were already old whores as far as modernism was concerned. They'd been used and abused.

roo_ster:

Frankly, it sounds entirely too gay for me. I get enough queer this and queer that that I can not avoid, wading through the sewage that is contemporary culture.

It has a homo character but the movie isn’t ‘gay’ in the tutti-fruity sense. It’s not BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN or some such 'Propart', or propaganda masquerading as art. Also, it shows the problems of homosexuality as a personality and emotional quality. Even if Patricia Highsmith didn’t mean Ripley to be homo — maybe she secretly did but didn’t want to publicly and all-too-stereotypically associate a homo with psychopathy, being a homo herself — , THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is one of the most astute and penetrating movies about the homosexual personality. It hints as to why there are so many homos in Wall Street, Washington DC, Hollywood, Las Vegas, and etc. Homos tend to be naturally vain & narcissistic and are obsessed with surface allure and impressions. It’s no wonder that homos became darlings of the rich elites. Homos crave the good life and cater to the affluent class and sophisticates. Instead of demanding higher wages and more benefits as a group like the grubby working class does, homos find ways to inch their way into the privileged world as talented individuals, fawning over and deferring to the ‘better’ kind of people. If Ripley had grown up in the 2000’s, he would have made it to the stars. Homos will go to hell and back in service to the rich and powerful. 10% of DC is homo! All those self-centered politicians know that homos will work 24/7 to be part of the in-crowd. In that regard, Ripley is an interesting case study of homo personality like the Will Patton character in NO WAY OUT.

Personally, I can’t stand ‘gayish’ movies either. But THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is not ‘gayish’. It is a steely study of how a certain kind of personality will go to any length to live the dream. It’s sort of comparable to SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, which is pretty good but falters at the end with a bit of sappiness.

I still haven’t seen BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and PHILADELPHIA as I have no stomach for 'Propart' in service of 'sacralizing' deviancy or degeneracy. But when a movie is honest and truthful, it can be about anything or anyone, from the finest saints to the worst sinners. MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE and C.R.A.Z.Y are two genuine works of art about homos.

Skeptikal:


TTMR is a wonderful movie. But Matt Damon is just not that attractive. IMO he is not a romantic lead.

Here’s the thing. Matt Damon is pretty attractive in an All-American way. Indeed, if the movie didn’t star Jude Law, Damon would come across as far more handsome. But there is the beautiful Law, who is to Damon what gold is to bronze. Next to Law, Damon looks downright plain and homely, almost like Elizabeth Warren done up as a 'man'. But that was the desired effect, the sense that there is always something better, brighter, shinier. Ripley can never be truly content because he’s never satisfied with good-enough. 'Enough' is not a part of his vocabulary. He is faithful to one thing only: The Superior, for which he will dump and betray whatever he has at the moment. He always has his eye on what is better, and there is better than better and better than better than better ad infinitum. No matter what he has, he will always strive for more. He’s greedy for aesthetics or suffers from 'aestheticitis'.

Bardon Kaldian:

Aren’t we all reading into it too much? I mean, this is a crime fiction. A good crime fiction, but still a genre fiction. And crime fiction characters are always schematic, they’re paper-thin.

As T. Lynch said, a lot was packed into the movie. It wasn’t merely an adaptation but an expansion of Highsmith’s characters and universe. Highsmith was somewhere between genre and serious literature. Her writings could be enjoyed on both levels. There’s obviously a lot of intelligence in her conception and execution. She could be cold and surgical but also playful and amusing.
Most crime fiction characters are schematic, but this is true of most of anything. Even most characters and plots in serious literature fall into broad categories. After awhile, they seem pretty familiar and repetitious despite the sincerity and personal investment of the authors. Consider all those serious personal literature about some city person who returns to his/her small town and blah blah. Such works may be true to life, but they've been done to death.

A hack cannot rise above formula. A professional can take formula to the next level as superior entertainment. An artist use formula as material for his own ideas and visions. When Orson Welles got his hands on the pulpy material of LADY FROM SHANGHAI and TOUCH OF EVIL and when Roman Polanski added his touch to CHINATOWN, they made art out of what otherwise might have been junk. Same with Akira Kurosawa with HIGH AND LOW. It’s based on a second-rate crime novel(KING'S RANSOM by Ed McBain) but works at the uppermost reaches of middlebrow art, the next best thing to high art.

Also, most people are predictable. Most lives are schematic and routine. Most psychologies are bland and boring, fixated on nonsense — how else do we explain the popularity of soap operas, Oprah, Howard Stern, and etc? Most people are little more than rational animals. While works of art may be profound about the human condition, there is nothing profound about most of human psychology.

Bardon Kaldian:

We are not talking here about Balzac, Stendhal, Eliot, Tolstoy, Verga, Lawrence or Hamsun.

Works like VERTIGO and THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY are interesting in that they operate within the realm of(or between) myth and reality. Traditionally speaking, serious literature tended to be about real people rooted or trapped in the real world. There may be a lot of truth in such works, but most people don’t care for(and can't handle) too much truth. Too dense, depressing, or heavy. And therein lies the popularity of genres and myths. And yet, losing ourselves in fantasy would be too unreal, childlike, or irresponsible. We don’t want to replace reality and truth with idiotic TV shows, ludicrous movies, and pop music titillation.

But then, there are movies like STRANGERS ON A TRAIN(dir. Alfred Hitchcock) and TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A.(dir. William Friedkin) that are outlandish enough to be larger-than-life and sensationalist and yet also brutally conscious of reality's limits and karma. It’s that tension between escapism to fantasy and bondage to reality that makes movies like VERTIGO such tantalizing topics of discussion. They open up the psychological space between the dreamy and the dreary. Also, it is revealing about the very nature of psychology. Even as we live in reality, we don’t always think in terms of the real but of the ideal, even the fantastic. Too much of the unreal leads to neurosis or, worse, schizophrenia. But too little of the mythic would make life drab, dull, and depressing. Given the emotional nature of man, he is most sane and healthy when he navigates between fact and fiction. In other words, man has to be slightly 'insane' to maintain his sanity, just like the immune system needs some degree of germs to remain vital. It is why dreaming is so important to one's mental health. Bare facts of existence are pretty dull for most people, and even for the rich and privileged(and otherwise blessed), there is the looming fact of death(with no chance of return) and the sheer meaninglessness of the universe. Therefore, our minds need to be distracted or carried away by some measure of ideals, dreams, or fantasy to lubricate and radiate our inner lives. Of course, too much fantasy turns cancerous, which is the problem of the 21st century, one where culture in Japan revolves around cartoons and ideology in the West revolves around '50 genders' and 'empowerment' by tattoos and green hair.

Life must be based on reality but strive toward 'ideality'. A puritanical rejection of all things fantastic leads to the kind of severity shown in BABETTE’S FEAST. But excessive indulgence in fantasy to the point of losing one’s bearing on reality leads to decadence.

Serious literature speaks to us less and less, especially due to the rise of electronic media. Prior to electricity, lives were centered around other people, conversation, and community. It was about person-to-person contact. It was about people being confronted with (local)reality all around. If you were in a cold dark room, the reality of the cold dark room could not be denied. And townsfolk's cultural life revolved around church meetings, daily conversations, and various forms of social gatherings. There was no radio or TV one could sit next to all day and all night as distraction from the dreariness or loneliness of life. One had to form social bonds, get involved, or busy oneself with lots of work to stave off the boredom.
This world of 'too much reality' came to be reflected in serious literature. Still, the element of fiction made it more eventful or adventurous, or at least different(even if not much happened in the story), from the life one knew and was stuck with. Furthermore, in a world prior to electronic titillation, it didn't take much to engage the minds and senses. Even a slow-moving novel, folk tune or piece of classical music, or painting exhibition could be welcome relief from the sheer 'nothingness' of existence. A mere picture book could be wondrous to behold for children in the pre-electronic era.

But with the rise of radio, movies, TV, video-games, and internet, people can easily tune off reality and be captivated by an over-abundance of ever-shifting and always disposable images and sounds. Now with smart phones, they can carry this fantasy around them everywhere. So, modern psychology is closer to the mode of insta-myth than ever before(and it will become even more so with the rise of virtual reality technology). This is a dangerous development for mankind, but it is the defining cultural trend. Indeed, one wonders if globo-homo could have gained so much ground if not for the fact that so many people’s main sense of ‘reality’ comes from electronic TV shows, movies, and music videos than from actual reality. When celebrities, the objects of idol-worship, say ‘trannies are next to godliness’, it has tremendous appeal to the masses who are more immersed in pop culture than in real culture.

And so, the power of myth counts for more than ever before. Most people today simply can’t sit still and absorb 'too much reality', the kind that is all around them in the form of people, places, and things(that don't turn on to emit sounds and images designed to make people forget the who, when, and where of their existence). This is why, even when people go on nature trips, they carry their TV’s and smart phones. They need diversions of fantasy and escapism from the burden of reality that stubbornly remains as it is, oblivious to the whims of visitors.

In that sense, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is a very timely movie. It’s like a proto-vision of the globo-homo future that came to be. The world Ripley lives in is less fantastical than ours. There are movies and record players to be sure, but it’s still a world where maturity, sobriety, fidelity, and responsibility are prized. TV culture has yet to completely take over the global mind in the movie's setting.

And yet, Ripley is psychologically ahead of his time. Being homo, he has a penchant for fantasy and artifice, the preference for the ideal over the real. He loves art and wants the world to conform to his aesthetic vision and tastes. He wants Dickey’s view of their ‘friendship’ to conform to his own. Also, Ripley is passive/aggressive like so many homos and Jews. On the one hand, he’s so ingratiating and eager-to-please, almost like a dog or servant. And yet, beneath the smile is the guile, the ruthless determination to have everything go his way… or else... like with the Jew Suss of Veit Harlan's movie.
In that sense, we are living in Ripley’s World. Jews and Homos used passive/aggressive means to gain access to power and then to totally take over the power, and they are now using mass media, deep state, and entertainment to hoodwink all of us that black is white, male is female, illegals are dreamers, censorship is ‘free speech’, and Russia is behind Donald Trump(and Bernie Sanders as well). Reality be damned. Reality and all of us in it better conform to their preferred ‘ideals’.


Jews and Homos love the power of molding reality to whatever they please at any given moment. While reality is objective, we all experience it subjectively, and that means the control of mass subjectivity will shape our view of 'objectivity' as well. Jews and homos are less interested in what is true and false than in the power to mold what is 'true' and 'false'. They insist on wielding the mallet over our minds made malleable. Our sense of outrage mustn't be rooted to any particular principle or perception but shift according to the dictates of the ruling elites. If Jews want us to hate A and love B, we must bark at A and roll over before B, but if Jews change their minds and decide we must love B and hate A, we must bark at B and rollover over before A. We mustn't possess any autonomy when it comes to worldview and morality. Like dogs, we must be (1) childishly emotional and (2) subservient to Jews/homos. Thus, whatever Jews and homos demand at the moment, no matter how contradictory it may be to an earlier demand, must be the latest topic of outrage and hysterics. There is to be no truth or principle of independent of the Jewish Will and Agenda.
So, when Jews and homos assert that a man who wants to be a woman is truly a 'woman', that 'new normal' piece of factoid is of secondary importance to the real prize, which is the power to mold our minds anyway they choose. After all, if Jews and homos can make us believe in fantasy as truth, what couldn't they fool us with? What matters most to Jews and homos is not that we believe in any particular thing as immutably true but that we believe as 'true' whatever they tell us is 'true' at the moment. The only 'essentialism' we must honor and obey is the infallibility of the globo-homo-shlomo media and academia in determining the fashionable outrage of the Current Year. It's like Consumer-Morality. In other words, if Jews and homos say 'trannies as godly', we are to nod in agreement... but then, if Jews and homos change their minds and assert that 'trannies are sick and wrong', we are to change our minds instantly. Jews decree, Goyim agree. Jews say, Goyim obey. It is easier to feel moral passion than think with moral logic. As most people cannot think morally, they outsource the thinking to the powers-that-be of the Jew-and-homo-run media and academia that supply the Outrage-of-the-Week over which the masses go into hysterics.

Like Ripley, Jews and homos will come at you with a smile and plead with you to agree with their ‘modest’ and ‘humble’ views, but if you refuse their offer, they turn into spiteful judge and jury who will stop at nothing to bring you down. So, Christian bakers who refuse to bake ‘gay wedding’ cakes must be sued and destroyed. And, all those craven and cowardly ‘conservatives’ do NOTHING because in our Riplean world, Jews and their proxies the homos hold all the cards and can bring anyone down. Not only do a lot of 'conservative' politicians have skeletons in their closets but even clean ones can be relentlessly smeared as 'racists', 'sexists', 'anti-semites', or 'homophobes', which is enough to ruin anyone's career these days. If the Jew-run media and Deep State could nearly bring down a president with false claims of 'Russia Collusion', imagine what they can do to the little fish.

In that sense, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY is more telling of where we are than George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD. Ripley didn’t merely best those around him. Ripleys of the world took over the culture by sucking up to Jews, the most cunning and ruthless group in the world. Minghella's movie offers a glimpse into the proto-globo-homo psychology that insinuated itself into every corridor of power and privilege. The homo mindset, with its combination of vanity, narcissism, obsequiousness, bitchiness, soft/effete qualities, sharp/predatory tendencies, sophistication, cynicism, curiosity, and cunning, slithered in snakelike into the crevices gnawed by ratlike Jews. With Jews as their masters, homos were made the master-servants over the rest. Indeed, the current hierarchy is Jews at the top, the homos at the next level, and then the rest. Of course, blacks are allowed tremendous symbolic value, but when it comes to the actual operation of the Power Realm, it's the Jews and homos. Dickie eventually tired of Ripley the pest, and wanted nothing to do with him. But unlike Dickie who lacked for imagination and ambition, Jews realized the full potential of how homos could be utilized to serve and spread the neo-gospel of globo-homo-shlomo all over the world. With the proper incentives, the Ripleys of the world will do anything for their masters for their piece of the pie. So, next time you wonder about the kind of people who run the Deep State and what makes them tick, you could do worse than to watch THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY(and NO WAY OUT) for clues.

Of course, it's true that many more people with managerial positions in the Deep State are straight white males and females than Jews and homos. So, why do Jews and homos matter more? Why do they hold the aces and jokers? It's because whereas whites in the Deep State are merely well-credentialed and well-positioned professionals, Jews and Homos have been 'sacralized' and thus glow with false holiness. Also, whereas whites are merely eager to work hard and prove their worth as individuals, Jews believe in the sacredness of their tribe and have powerful personalities with which to push through their tribal-supremacist agenda; and homos have an incessant and manic urge to be the center of attention as the favorite servile bitch to the master class and as the nasty over-bearing son-of-a-bitch to those below them. Homo political psychology is to take it up the ass from the master and stick it in the ass of the inferior. It's no wonder that THE FIGHT CLUB the movie was based on a novel by a homo. Homos have a lot of psychological fight in them as they're always on the lookout for who-fuc*s-me-in-the-ass and who-do-I-fuc*-in-the-ass. Normal Male Sexuality is far simpler in thinking and attitude. Straight male psychology thinks, "I fuc* the woman" and is thus more one-dimensional in its sense of sexual hierarchy. Man is the master, the woman is the bitch. In contrast, a homo man sees himself as both someone who uses another man as a 'bitch' and as someone who is a 'bitch' to another man. This passive/aggressive quality has made homos more adept at climbing the ladder as social elevation requires not only alpha qualities but lots of beta ass-kissing, something that many straight men are unwilling to do out of sense of pride. But homos know, "You must kiss ass to kick ass."

Intensely hierarchical, homos have a naturally aristocratic mindset that is pathologically servile to the superior and equally pathologically haughty toward the inferior. Of course, ever mindful to climb higher, even as homos go out on a limb to demonstrate their loyalty, they secretly gather potentially damning data to be used to blackmail their current masters into becoming their de facto servants, or masters-in-name-only-and-in-fact-owned-by-homos. Along with THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, another film that tells us much about the Psychology of Striving is THE SERVANT by Joseph Losey. BRAVE NEW WORLD and 1984 are presentations of future worlds as all-powerful and permanent. Their systems and ideologies govern every aspect of life, and one gets a pretty good sense of how they operate. We can discern the blueprints and the inner-logic of their power.

But if the 21st century teaches us anything, it is the sheer instability of power, values, and 'truth'. Nothing seems to be set in stone, and everything seems to be shifting in a state of flux in terms of technology, borders, demographics, morality, icons and idols, and etc. Then, what matters is not so much the idea or even the system but WHAT KIND OF PERSONALITY WITH WHAT KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDILECTION is most likely to make its way into the corridors of power. The psychology of the rat, snake, and weasel. The Jews, homos, and cuck-cynics like Peter Strzok. That factor, more than any set of ideology or principles, may be the key to explaining why the world is the way it is.

Luke Ford says Alt Right failed because of the Low Quality of Its Members — In truth, Alt Right's Demise was more Homicide from Above than Suicide from Within

Luke Ford in the above video — at around 2:06:00 — agrees with George Hawley that the Alt Right crashed and burned because of the low quality of its recruits who happened to be anti-social, criminal, sociopathic, and/or so on. Now, I'm not in disagreement that the Alt Right has had many problems with its mostly young male cohorts who tended toward radical thinking and reckless behavior. Also, Alt Right, especially under the helm of Richard Spencer, lost its sense of irony(that made it funny and endearing to many) in favor of the iron boot. At the crossroads facing the future, Spencer had three choices: (1) Soften his rhetoric and try to get in an inch with the more 'respectable' right. (2) Remain somewhat aloof of both Conservatism Inc. & Neo-Nazi-style far-right and fashion his own brand as Teflon Don of the Alt Right or (3) go hard-right and go 14/88. By the time Charlottesville happened, he was moving toward (3), a terrible option. But being delusional, he appeared to regard himself as the Man of Destiny, the one to seize the moment. From a moral and ideological perspective, one could condemn the direction taken by the Alt Right. However, Luke Ford is totally wrong about why and how the Alt Right imploded. It had more to do with weight from above than weakness from within.

Ford talks of the anti-social attitudes so prevalent among Alt Right types, but the same could be said of Bolsheviks, Jewish anarchists, the many Zionist factions, Jewish organized crime, Jewish radicals, Jewish feminists, and the list goes on. Many Jews who later succeeded in gambling, sex industry, and the like were some of the biggest crooks and a**holes one can imagine. Jewish feminists were among the most nasty, vile, and neurotic. Jewish Hollywood has been filled with lechers, pedophiles, and men with the moral character of pimps. The Bolsheviks, who were heavily Jewish, were filled with all sorts of fanatics, criminals, and psychos. Josef Stalin was as much a bandit and bank robber as a revolutionary. And the National Socialists of Germany had in their ranks a good number of criminals, crooks, madmen, perverts, and extremists. And yet, why did National Socialists go from strength to strength despite the less than sterling quality of many in their rank and file? One reason was desperate times, but the other reason was that the German Courts at the time were favorable to the Right and lenient of bad behavior by National Socialists, just like the Ruling Power in America mostly slaps Antifa on the wrist. 'Lawfare' in Weimar Germany was often favorable to the Right. Furthermore, many German industrialists were willing to back the National Socialists as bulwark against communism. In other words, it didn't matter that National Socialists had an excess of clowns, idiots, and lunatics. The fact is they had just enough talent in men like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, and more importantly, they had the backing of big money and the courts that, time and time again, let Hitler and his men off the hook.

Indeed in politics, talent matters far less than connections and support. If Luke Ford thinks quality leads to success, how does he square that with the fact that US Congress is filled with worthless mealymouthed scum? Colorless Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House. Does Ford consider him a man of 'quality'? Or consider Nancy Pelosi. Does she represent some special talent? And how did men like Dennis Hastert rise so high? Yeah, the pedophile. And look at some of the most successful people in Hollywood and music industry. When it comes to moral content and personal integrity, they are among the worst people imaginable. And yet, they are successful. If quality of character = success, why did so many worthless creeps become so obscenely successful? How did Jeffrey Epstein rise so high so fast even though his moral character was that of an ape? And before his recent fall from grace, Harvey Weinstein was even regarded as 'god' by none other than Meryl Streep. He's been a dirty and disgusting pervert all along, but he got away with so much bad behavior. And who knows what's in the closets of all those politicians and media figures? Indeed, how many prominent people are vulnerable to blackmail precisely because they, like Senator Geary in THE GODFATHER PART 2, were hypocritical cretins? Joe Biden's been a lying sack of shit forever. He became vice president. George W. Bush's only accomplishment was having been born into the Bush Dynasty. He became president. So much for quality = success. As for Bill Ayers, he was a terrorist who blew up stuff. He and his wife, Bernadine Dorhne, were horrible people, but they are now successful and much lauded academics. And we can go on and on with such examples.

The reason why Alt Right imploded was because the Power decided to crush it from every direction. If Ford has any integrity, he will admit that the entire fault of the Charlottesville fiasco belongs to the Jewish mayor, black police chief, and their globalist backers. The Alt Right crowd had every right to be there, but their constitutional right was violated. Meanwhile, the Power encouraged Antifa scum and black thugs to attack the Alt Right. The Power didn't stand between the two sides to maintain order but aided one side against the other. Then, the Jew-run media ran with the narrative that Alt Right people started the melee and killed 'three people' when, in fact, two were killed in a helicopter accident and one was killed because an angry mob attacked James Fields' car and drove him into panic mode. And then, the 'lawfare' got under way, mostly by Jews. Even though Alt Right guys' constitutional rights were violated and even though they were the biggest victims of the violence, the hideous Jews and their allies colluded with powerful law firms to sue the people who organized the event. Meanwhile, law firms declined to represent Alt Right guys who had every right and reason to sue Charlottesville for engineering the melee in concert with the powers-that-be. But, the injustice didn't end there. Alt Right was deplatformed, denied financial services, fired from jobs, and hounded 24/7. In other words, there was a vast orchestrated purge of the Alt Right by big government and big business.

Now, imagine what would have happened IF the Charlottesville rally had been allowed to proceed. The speakers would have had their say and gotten their message across. Next, imagine if Alt Right was not deplatformed and defunded. Suppose Alt Right continued to have equal access to Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook. And suppose Richard Spencer and others could easily raise funds like Zionists, homos, and progs do. Where would the Alt Right be? It would be much bigger as a message and movement. The reason why Alt Right failed was more homicide than suicide. It was crushed and killed from above. As proof, consider figures such as Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, Paul Gottfried, and many others. These men are not part of the Alt Right and didn't give Sieg Heil salutes or march with iron boots. And yet, they were effectively shut down just the same and denied access to 'mainstream' venues of public opinion. The science pages of the New York Times are evidence enough that quality of honesty and integrity is not the priority of the Power when it promotes and demotes people left and right. It was before Alt Right ever appeared on the scene that Pat Buchanan was made persona non grata in American Conservatism and American Media. We now live in a nation where academics are hounded, fired, and blacklisted for saying a man is not a woman because a tranny says so. We have bakeries destroyed by Jewish law firms because they won't bake 'gay wedding cakes'. We have a nation where the president was almost removed from office based on utterly baseless charges of 'Russian Collusion'. Are George Hawley and Luke Ford going to blame the destruction of a Christian bakery on its lack of quality? If Jews and homos decide to use 'lawfare' to shut down any bakery that won't bake 'gay wedding cakes' and drive it to financial ruin, should the blame fall on the bakery?

Remember what Tucker Carlson said of Max Boot and other Neocons who were wrong on just about everything but still remain players inside the corridors of power? People like Max Boot and Julia Ioffe are hardly better quality as humans than people on the Alt Right. Indeed, Washington DC and US media are filled with whores, rascals, cheats, snakes, pathological liars, con-men, fakers, drug abusers, weasels, and sado-masochists. And what passes for American Conservatism is a freaking joke. I'd wager even the worst lowlife in the Alt Right has more integrity than moron like Charlie Kirk and scoundrel like Jared Holt. Lady Maga anyone?

If inferior quality of character dooms an individual or movement to failure, why has it been the case that so many individuals and movements succeeded despite the problem of quality? How did feminism succeed when so many feminists were stupid crazy bitches? Why did Jews gain so much power when so many Jews were cheats, liars, hustlers, con-men, perverts, and neurotics? What's Roman Polanski doing these days? Oh yeah, he's still a celebrated artist making movies. Where is Jonathan Pollard these days? Is he rotting in a jail cell because his espionage ended up killing double-agents in the USSR? No, the rotting in jail for 400+ years is James Fields. Pollard is a free man with a plush job offered to him by Jewish bankers.

Obviously in much of politics and ideological conflict, quality means very little. A movement doesn't need too many thinkers or leaders. It just needs a handful of good ones. The rest can be dummies who just follow and do as told. They don't have to be great in quality. While Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch, and the rest of them were not exactly top-tier thinkers or leaders, they were no worse in quality than most people in politics or punditry. The difference is they didn't have rich and powerful backers. If you have the connection and backing, you can go far. Anyone who knows anything about Lyndon B. Johnson knows he was a scummy politician all his life. And yet, he got to be vice president and then president because he did the bidding of very powerful people. How does one explain Barack Obama's meteoric rise? Did it have anything to do with quality? No, it was all hype by the Power that protected and promoted him. Quality doesn't matter. No matter how good & talented a person or movement may be, he or it will be crushed if the power decides to, one way or another. The Power failed to stop the presidency of Trump, so it made things so difficult that all he could do is just go along with the Deep State on nearly every issue.

When we look at the kind of people in academia, media, punditry, and politics, we don't see much quality of character. Indeed, quality of true vision, integrity, and courage is an hindrance in one's rise up the ranks. To rise up, you must be a pathological ass-kisser, sociopathic liar(like the shameless media goons who lied about Charlottesville and Russia Collusion), and a hate-filled lunatic who, as journalist or politician, does little but shill for Israel and Jewish Power. Does Luke Ford see real quality in Republican politicians? It's more suck-ass than success.

Now, we can argue that because of all the obstacles and barriers erected against the Alt Right and Dissident Right, people like Richard Spencer should have been smarter, saner, and more sensible than the Power and the forces arrayed against him. True enough. It's like white and Asian students must study even harder because Affirmative Action works against them in college admission. Such may be unfair, but it's the way of the world, and anyone who plays the game must know the terms. Though Spencer, Enoch, and others in the Alt Right are not dumb in IQ, they were stupid in strategy, acting as if real life could be played like a video game. So, it's true that the Alt Right needed men who were maturer, wiser, and savvier. And yet, given that Jared Taylor and Paul Gottfried made very little headway despite their gentility and respectability, the Alt Right wasn't entirely wrong throwing caution to the winds at times. In order for the movement to gain momentum, it had to generate youthful energy. It had to play with fire but without getting burned. It turned out Spencer and Enoch weren't very skilled with playing with fire. They learned the hard way that, when it came to real firepower, it's the Power that holds the flame thrower and the napalms.

Still, Ford should honestly admit the main reason why Alt Right failed was due to Power from above. Seriously, if the Power hadn't violated Alt Right's constitutional rights at Charlottesville and let the rally proceed and then didn't deplatform the Alt Right and deny it basic financial services, I guarantee the movement would be much bigger. The ONLY thing Alt Right needed to grow was fair treatment. Would it have grown big as Hawley once predicted? No, but it'd be a real thing. Also, as a growing movement, better leaders would likely have come forth to sideline the more problematic members. Alas, expecting Jewish Power to play by the rules was a fool's dream. Why would a people who treat Palestinians like subhuman animals treat other goyim any better? One thing for sure, Jews don't have a tradition of fair play or honor. The Jewish Way is by-any-means-necessary-by-hook-and-crook to get what they want. Consider Sacha Baron Cohen who made a career of mocking goyim with all the virulence he could muster but demands that social platforms shut down those who mock Jews in return. Foul. And yet, such lowlife paranoid neurotic Jews gained supreme power in the US. How was this possible when Ford says a movement is doomed to failure without quality leadership and members? If so, how could Jews, possibly the most derangedly neurotic and paranoid people, go from power to power? Jewish lack of integrity and character never mattered. If anything, such lack of scruples and virulence of character did wonders for Jewish Power, which couldn't have risen to such heights without the nastiness, contempt, and downright hatred for goyim. Jews had three things going for them. Higher IQ, lower principles, and the development of a moral shield by sacralizing their identity via the cult of 'Muh Holocaust'. The last allowed Jews to get away with murder without being called on it because any criticism of Jews is 'antisemitism' linked with the 'murder of six million Jews'. Only a vilely immoral people could concoct such a dastardly moral strategy.

In the end, it's about The Power. Why couldn't Tulsi Gabbard get anywhere with her campaign? Why was Max Blumenthal pushed to the margins of the political discourse? Why was Nick Fuentes kicked off Youtube whereas the rat-like Ben Shapiro the Jewish supremacist Zionist is funded to the tune of millions and allowed on all platforms? It has nothing to do with quality.
Of course, all things being equal(without special treatment for any side), quality will beat lack of quality, but we don't live in an equal and fair system but a rigged one where some people are treated like 'made men' in GOODFELLAS while others are marked to get 'whacked'. Jared Taylor did everything right, but he got booted off Twitter and can't even use Paypal. Is Ford going to blame Taylor's lack of quality for his non-person status? John Derbyshire was booted by National Review no less. Was it because Derbyshire is of lower quality than the average writer for that magazine? Of course, Ford can't possibly believe that. If Alt Right's lack of quality accounts for its failure, what is the reason for Taylor's inability to gain traction? Or do Spencer and Taylor have something in common regardless of their qualities as individuals? And that something is Jews hate them both. In other words, even if Spencer had played it more like Taylor and steered clear of an alliance with Daily Stormer crowd, he would likely have ended up just the same because Jews got the power, and Jews intend to shut down anyone they don't like.

Sure, Alt Right did a lot of foolish things, but every movement has its growing pains. The 60s radicals had to stumble before they got their act together. The difference is the Power allowed the 60s radicals to get their second, third, fourth, and more chances to get back on their feet. They were forgiven, indulged, and supported. Tons of nasty and vicious Jewish radicals in the 60s became successful people in elite institutions and industries in the 80s and 90s. Indeed, it was far more dangerous to call out on radicals on the left as one could be smeared of 'McCarthyism'. Also, the new cult of the Holocaust meant that any critical view of Jewish power could be construed as 'antisemitic'. And that meant that even lowlife Jews without even a smidgen of moral character had moral, indeed spiritual, protection with the Shoah Shield. One reason why the globo-homo movement went so far so fast was because the Jewish Media coined the term 'homophobia' as an iron cudgel to beat down anyone who dared to oppose the agenda. Now, the homo community has long been known to be a magnet for all kinds of perverts, sickos, degenerates, liars, and cheats. Homos are known for drug use and debauchery. And yet, how did homos, despite all their personal issues and problems, gain so much power so fast? Indeed, compared to the homo community, the Alt Right was downright sober. Degenerate homos gained status because they were favored by the Power, essentially Jewish, just like perverts and degenerates were favored during the Weimar Years when German Jews gained unprecedented control of society. Jews used 'antisemitic' and 'homophobic' as slurs to defame and suppress anyone who dared to call out on Jewish abuses and homo excesses. In a sane world, one would think the ethnic group most closely associated with gambling, pornography, Wall Street thievery, & tribal-gangsterism in foreign policy AND a sexual group most closely associated with orgies, fecal-penetration, fisting, promiscuity, excessive vanity/narcissism, & hedonism would come under the most scrutiny. But no. In our Jew-run world, Jews get to decide who are the 'made men' and who are to be whacked. Jews can do just about anything and get off scot-free. How long did it take to bring down Bernie Madoff? Madoff stole billions for fellow Jews before he was finally caught.
Luke Ford should know better because he co-hosted a show with Kevin Michael Grace for over a year. KMG loathes Spencer and the Alt Right and is a defender of Israel against Palestinians, BUT he has been as de-personed as Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch because he wrote some articles that upset the 'made men' of politics and media. And of course, Rick Sanchez and Chris Hedges found gigs at RT because Jew-run Zionist-supremacist US media will not touch them with a ten-foot pole. Content of character has almost nothing to do with power, politics, and fields such as media that are mostly about propagandizing for the Deep State that takes orders from cuck-politicians vetted by Jewish Globalists. It's all about who has the power and how this Power pushes the button on who gets to live and who must die.

That said, I agree that Spencer was unfit to be the leader of an important movement. Also, it's not just the Alt Right but the entire generation that grew up on on video games and trashy culture. Neuroticism of all kinds is pretty high among Millennials, and I'd wager the average 'woke' person has more psychological issues than those on the Alt Right. That said, precisely because the Power had its crosshairs on the Alt Right, those involved in the movement should have been more sensible and smart about things. They had blinders on and were led into a trap like cattle. The lesson is, when the deck is stacked against you, you must be even smarter than all the rest. Spencer and his ilk were not up to the job. But even if they were, the Power would have found means and taken measures to suppress their voices just the same, as it has already done with Jared Taylor, Nick Fuentes, and Michelle Malkin. Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro who called for the total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is still riding high. He can appear on any platform and raise millions of dollars. And Max Boot writes for Washington Post despite his biography as a vile lunatic and hate-filled Zionist pig. As Tucker Carlson said, so much of who rises and who falls has less to do with quality than one's utility to the powers that be.