I think we should stop calling the enemy the ‘left’.

It legitimizes them because there is an important leftist tradition. The left played a major role in rise of reason, secular culture, civil liberties, workers’ interests, rule of law, equality under the law, and etc. Radical Left was a disaster, but the left has done many great things. It even defined much of the right that developed in reaction to leftist pressure.

What we call the Right absorbed much of the Left. Mussolini understood this dialectic and conceived of Fascism as a fusion of leftist and rightist ideas.

There was the dark side of leftism. Communism, anarchism, libertarianism(though also associated with the right), and various terrorist movements. Sometimes, radical leftism degenerated into nihilism. It went from terror for justice to terror for terror. It’s like how the movie BAADER MEINHOF ends. The new members kill for the thrill of killing. They love terror for terror. I think ISIS is like that in the Muslim world. And the Japanese Red Army became a nutjob movement.

Still, much of what we have as humane and just was pioneered by the Left. And indeed, Western Progress cannot be understood without the idea of progress, left, revolution, and etc.

So, if we call our enemies the ‘left’, we are giving them too much credit. Today’s proglodytes are not leftist, not in any meaningful way. Sure, there is still the facile leftist themes of ‘equality’, ‘universality’, and ‘social justice’, but these progs are little more than Teacher’s Pets who drone on and on like zombies.

There is also the ethnic problem. Jews came to define, if not always dominate, the modern left. This was understandable since there was once a time when many Jews were poor, of the working class(esp in Eastern Europe under Russian imperialism), faced gentile discrimination, or were intellectually oriented. And there were many brilliant Jewish thinkers who contributed to the world of ideas.

Ironically, the best subversive Jewish thinkers were products of the bourgeois age. Even in their derision of bourgeois culture, they had been cultivated under its emphasis on discipline, clarity, sobriety, and manners. Pauline Kael is a good example. Some of her views were anarchic, and she was always irreverent(and pushed the envelope), but she was trained to make her case rationally and carefully. So, even when in rebel mode, she was thoughtful and civil in exposition. Had she grown up as a millennial indulging in the moment, she might have never attained the erudition and concentration necessary for her work. Same with Sontag. As millennials, both might have just become trashy whores like Amanda Marcotte, Lena Dunham, or Emma Sulk who were free to be total spoiled brat slobs.

The past was less PC but more restrictive in manners, whereas the Current Year is more PC but more permissive in manners. I think the past formula was better. There were certain taboo subjects in the past to be sure, especially pertaining to sex, but one could express a broader range of sentiments and views AS LONG AS one did it maturely and intelligently. In contrast, today’s journalism is filled with sex talk, wanton vulgarity, and gratuitous obscenities, but the actual substance of discussion is within a narrow spectrum of PC.

Anyway, Jews were once on the Real Left due to their experiences, conditions, and circumstances. But as Jews became the most successful, most powerful, and richest people in America(that rules the world), their ‘leftism’ morphed in sync with their new status and interests. Gradually, Jewish leftism became more immersed with subjects and themes that had little relevance to most people.

Also, Jewish attainment of their own nation, Israel, created a contradiction in their worldview. When Jews had no nation and never dreamed of having one, there were three main options. (1) Jews would keep their traditions and identity. As such, they would survive as a culture but always as outsiders in relation to the goy community. (2) Jews would adopt capitalism and individualism. Jews would join with goy world and just become individuals. (3) Jews would join with goyim but under socialism in spirit of collectivist justice.

Option 1 was conservative, and its advantage was preservation of culture. But it also meant that goyim would always see Jews as an alien people.

Option 2 meant Jewish assimilation into goy society and lots of new freedoms and opportunities. But it could mean loss of identity and dissipation of culture. Also, given Jewish penchant for money and ambition, Jewish success might only increase antisemitic resentment. After all, to anti-Semites, even Jewish individuals who abandoned Jewish identity were still seen as Jewish.

Option 3 could mean peace with goyim on basis of equality and justice.

Many Jews leaned toward Option 3 since they got sick of the Ghetto, felt capitalism would favor just a handful of Jews(whose ‘greed’ would give Jews a bad name and make the poor ones suffer pogroms for the wickedness of rich Jews), and believed only socialism would allow Jews and goyim to join together as single humanity on equal basis.

But the success of Zionism threw a monkey wrench into this equation. Zionism fused Jewish leftist-socialism with Jewish nationalism. It made even leftist Jews more conscious of their Jewishness. Zionism made socialist Jews wanna be both leftist and nationalist. This led to a contradiction.

One could argue that Jewish universalism was always animated by “Is it good for the Jews?” but Zionism brought it out in the open, especially due to the contradiction of Jewish Leftists supporting Zionism. For a while, they could get away with this due to the Holocaust narrative, i.e. Leftist Jews didn’t necessarily want a Jewish homeland BUT were forced to have one due to the horrors of WWII. But the Holocaust-Israel connection grows weaker by the year, especially because of the plight of Palestinians.

During the Roman Occupation when Jews were on the verge of losing their homeland, Jews increasingly came under pressure to formulate a new meaning of Judaism based on loss of homeland. Renegade Jews did this by cooking up Christianity. This way, it didn’t matter if Jews lost their homeland since all the world was God’s blessed and holy domain. What need for ‘Israel’ when Christian God blessed all the peoples and all the lands?

But core Jewish community didn’t accept the Christian narrative. They chose the narrative of exile and the dream of return. As time passed, the Exile seemed permanent, and only a MIRACLE would restore the Holy Land to Jews. I mean how could Jews defeat the Romans? The Arabs? The Ottomans? The British?

And yet, a miracle did happen in the 20th century, ironically by way of the greatest Jewish horror ever, the Holocaust. But then, Jews had laid the grounds for triumph by having assiduously gained influence in US, UK, and USSR where they could manipulate events to make possible the reclamation of the Holy Land by the Jews.

Jews, who had for so long defined their identity as one of exile, had to reformulate Jewishness in terms of the Return. This was seen as triumph for Jews, but it was also problematic since Jews-in-exile had so overwhelmingly defined themselves with universal leftism. Perhaps, even leftist Jews had always secretly wanted to regain the Holy Land. But most Jews didn’t think Israel would ever be a reality. They saw Zionism as a kind of pipe dream. So, they figured their best bet was leftism since gentile nationalism, or rightism, could be exclusive of Jews. Better for Jews to lose Jewish identity and be equal with gentiles than be unequal as Jews under gentile rule. To be sure, capitalism wasn’t necessarily nationalist, but capitalism wasn’t ideologically anti-nationalist either. In contrast, communism was ideologically anti-nationalist and anti-tribalist. But when Zionism happened, Jews found themselves in a quandary. The miracle that seemed impossible really happened.

What was to be done? So many Jews had committed themselves to universal socialism. So, how could they support Zionism? WWII and Holocaust offered the rationale: Outside the noble Soviet Union, Jews needed a homeland of their own since the non-communist world was still nationalist, capitalist, and imperialist. In such a hostile world, Jews needed their own homeland that, btw, would be socialist, even soft communist, as with kibbutzim.

But in the 21st century, the twisted logic that reconciles Jewish leftism and Zionism seems less tenable, especially since Israel has turned so RIGHT WING.

Anyway, because modern leftism came to be so closely associated with Jews, the transformation of Jews from social disadvantage to social super-privilege AND the change of Jewish worldview from Permanent Exile to Miraculous Return had a huge impact on the meanings and leanings of leftism. Every ideology takes shape in relation to the dominant power. It’s like communism changed from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin to Khrushchev to Brezhnev to Gorbachev. Chinese communism was one thing under Mao, another Deng.

Because Jews had such hegemony over modern leftism with its thinkers, control of media, and moral capital(victims of Holocaust), the change in the Jewish weather could mean spring, summer, autumn, or winter for the ideology.

Jews also came to own much of modern leftism because the leftism of communist nations became so dogmatic, dull, and boring. In contrast, Jewish radicals in the West had the freedom to be creative with ideas, even if many of the ideas turned out to be kooky in the long run.

Anyway, a leftism defined by the richest and most privileged people in the world is going to end up reflecting their social status. As Marx said, “It is not consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

If Jews are of the upper class, their ‘leftism’ will reflect upper class interests. And the rise of homomania is an indication of this. Rich urban Jews who attend art galleries and operas are going to feel closer to creative homos than the working class of deplorable pitchforkers.

And this is why what goes by the name ‘leftist’ no longer is.

If our side is clever enough, it is time to appropriate the ‘Left’.

The other side is about globalist neo-imperialism. The elites are part of the GLOB. The loser ‘leftist’ goons are progs. The antifa types have no clue what they are about. They are just opposed to ‘nazis’ who don’t even exist. As for upper middle class hipsters who claim to be ‘left’, they are just bobo starbucks sippers. They are SWPL yuppies who utter PC newspeak to justify their privilege and affluence. And their success owes to globalism. Also, Diversity is about imperialism. Diversity is not about equality. In the West, Diversity is about Jewish agenda of divide-and-rule over goyim, about corporations trying to weaken labor power, about the moral supremacism of virtue-signalists who want to be ‘better whites’, or about non-whites abandoning their own identity & culture to become an ‘American’.

Indeed, it’s ironic that non-whites claim to be just as ‘American’ as whites. On the one hand, PC says that America is a white supremacist conception to justify conquest, genocide, and slavery. In other words, the noble principles of ‘Americanism’ are just a euphemism. But if ‘American’ as an identity was created by eradication of other cultures, why would non-whites want to come to the US and become ‘American’? Aren’t they taking up an identity associated with ‘genocide’ of Indians, slavery of blacks, exploitation of white ethnics, and destruction of nature? Also, ‘Americanism’ is amnesiac even to whites as the ‘culturally genocidal’ concept of the Melting Pot required white ethnics to give up their identities and become ersatz Anglo-Americans. It’s funny… non-whites bitch that Americanism eradicated Indian and African identities… yet they want to give up their identities, languages, and cultures and become ‘just as American as white Americans’. So, ‘American’ is a product of cultural genocide, and yet, non-whites take umbrage if someone were to say, “You are not really American.” By becoming ‘American’ by rejecting their own identity and culture, aren’t they doing to themselves what was done to Indians? PC non-whites condemn Americanism’s destruction of the native culture(of Indians) but they want to immigrate to the US and be erased of their own identity and culture.

True leftism has to be associated with nationalism. Globalism allows the elites to neglect the national workers by shipping factories overseas or electing a new people. The national masses become superfluous under globalism. As Jewish elites, bobo’s, and progs are all for globalism and mass migration, they are anti-left. Meaningful leftism is impossible without nationalism. For one thing, a government works best when it concentrates on national problems and serves the people who elected it. When a national government pays more attention to the world than about the nation, it ends up like Germany with Merkel who wastes time with refugees instead of focusing on the problems of Germans. When a government cares more about future immigrants than people already in the nation, it is not serving the people.

So, it is time for our side to appropriate the ‘left’ and stop using it as a epithet for the other side. I wouldn’t even call the other side ‘progressives’. They are too grotesque and vile for any proper term. They are proglodytes or progoyles or pro-gross-ives.

Also, NOTHING will drive the ‘left’ as crazy as our side adopting the term ‘leftist’.

I don’t know why we have to be only ‘leftist’ or ‘rightist’. Does a boxer only use left hook or right across? No, he uses both.

Progs have grown nihilistic, hedonistic, and narcissistic with their fixation on 50 genders, homo decadence, and dumb youth culture. They have no real ideology.

In contrast, OUR side, by fusing nationalism & reverence of heritage(rightist themes) and concern for workers & masses(leftist themes), can own both the right and the left.

Calling the other side ‘the left’ just gives them too much credit.