How I Became A Nationalist

Once Upon A Time, Before The Recent Election, I was a 'Progressive'

There's a move underway deep in the recesses of our collective subconscious that has turned the ideologies of the past on their heads and inside out. Whether you're an American or belong to some other nation, there is no longer the usual “left/right” or “conservative/liberal” dynamic at play, though corporate 'mainstream' media is still trying to hide this fact from the remaining pockets of the naive still trusting them to tell the truth. If ONLY they could go back to the Tweedledee versus Tweedledum days, it would make it easier, but that cat has long since left that bag. For most of the Interested Few, that is, though there are still quite a few members of the intelligentsia that have been too insulated and in too deep to their paymasters to even allow themselves to question how separated their views have become from the rhetoric they politically have espoused for years.

It's not so much that my values have changed, it's that the Establishment, through its control of the institutions that run our lives, has changed the language and approach. It is still a question of the powerful maintaining control over the opinions of the masses of the powerless. Since it's come to light in recent times that such powerful people as the Rockefellers have used their 'philanthropy' not necessarily to improve the quality of life for the masses, but to ensure the progressive dumbing-down of them, it's led even traditional, die-hard Republicans to reconsider whether the ultra-rich are worthy of emulation or castigation. Think I'm crazy? Then check out the contents of John D. Rockefeller's “Occasional Letter #1”, often accredited to his employee Rev. Francis Gates (who ran his General Education Board) in 1913 who had this to say about educating Americans:

“In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand.  The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.  We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science.  We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters.  We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians.  Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."

Yes, some will argue, that may have been said but it was intended for RURAL, as opposed to urban or suburban schools. The context was the “Country School of Tomorrow”, in which the squalid conditions of primarily southern rural schools was decried in favor of improved conditions for which Rockefeller would even pay a million-dollar bonus if the conditions were met (in the South). In fact he went on to give $180 million to his “General Education Board” that Rev. Gates administered, after the US Congress chartered it in January of 1903, but like other philanthropic endeavors by the ultra-rich, there were more nefarious agendas at work behind this largesse. After all, to take the attitude that normally is reserved only for God, or a divine force, is outstandingly arrogant of such powerful men. To think that they should have the right to mold the public in such a manner! Does excessive wealth really and truly confer such rights on the elites? Perhaps this is the reason why we may no longer feel so 'blessed' as a nation.

Nonetheless, it's clear from what is said that Rockefeller and his cohort felt they had not only the right but a moral duty to dumb-down the masses, even as they raised them up in material circumstances so that while they had a minimum to survive, they wouldn't be 'raised up' to be anything more than farmers and ranchers. This attitude became even more pronounced when that same Rockefeller uttered his famous quote “competition is a sin”. Oh really now! I wonder how many contemporary Republicans know that's how John D. Rockefeller really and truly felt? Why, that's a downright socialist idea, isn't it?! The nerve; saying that the very thing that has given “American exceptionalism” its pudding-proof is a “sin”!

Then there's the tale of “Philip Dru, Administrator”, which was written by Colonel House, Pres. Woodrow Wilson's 'handler' who passed orders to him by those elitists that were referred to in his famous quote, the one in which Wilson says “Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Col. House's book about Philip Dru was supposed to be a utopia, a book about which Google has this to say: “First published (anonymously) in 1912, this novel describes for the overthrow of the U.S. government in favor of a socialist regime.”. Bewildering, isn't it? Wasn't this the power-behind-the-throne that had spent years setting the stage for the Federal Reserve, the subtle seizure of the money-making power of the United States by a handful of foreign banking interests, as detailed in “The Creature From Jekyl Island”, the following year – coincidentally the same year as the Rockefeller quote above? And all these things were said and done a year before WWI began? Ultra-rich bankers aren't usually thought of as being socialist who are against competition, are they? What's wrong with this picture?

It gets even worse, but first let's revisit the traditional ideological split, when 'progressives' were the American version of European 'socialists', and represented the 'left'. Typically these were the intellectuals, the intelligentsia of academia and publishing, student activists and environmentalists, doctors and others involved in the medical field, lawyers representing the indigent and down-trodden, and govt employees. The 'right' was exemplified by entrepreneurs, businessmen, financiers, the military, fundamentalist clergy, and lawyers employed by business interests. Socialism was the ultimate expression of the 'left', and fascism the ultimate expression of the 'right'. Hippies had long hair and stock-brokers wore button-down collars.

During the 2016 presidential election, these concepts were turned on their heads. The electorate was turned on its head, it's world turned upside down. The dividing line placed both fascists and socialists in the same Establishment camp, which continued to brainwash the 99% of the public they needed to vote for them, and those in the 99% who had 'awoken', who recognized what had happened, backed the brash billionaire who openly challenged the Establishment the way a true punk-rocker would challenge the music 'industry'. In fact, punk-rockers have grandchildren now, who no longer live in a world with a real counter-culture any longer. The traditional political terms stopped working. The supposed 'leftist' candidate, after openly and arrogantly stealing the nomination from the real winner who was a socialist in the classic sense, was considered the most corrupt politician in modern political history, with pay-to-play schemes and a blatant trail of murder indicating this was NOT the most compassionate, tolerant and transparent candidate ever. Quite the opposite, in fact. More so, this supposed 'leftist' candidate seemed to have sold access to the highest bidder, sold national resources to potentially hostile powers, enacted policies abroad that made it unsafe anywhere on Earth for an American to go to without being fearful, whose campaign arrogantly lied about anything and everything it was asked about.

This same candidate had spent years and billions of dollars greasing the skids for the campaign, shoring up support from most of the corruptible party apparatchiks, and blackmailed even more individuals who were in important positions where they could inflict potential damage. The media even became an extension of that candidate's campaign outreach, with reporters cravenly supplicating themselves for approval by submitting articles first, in order to curry favor. Tammany Hall seems almost pure in comparison.

The fact is, ever since the murder of JFK was carried out by forces dead-set against his agenda for liberating the economy from the bankers, the parasites of the privately-owned Federal Reserve, this nation has been on a slippery slope of increasing mediocrity, of dullness, loss of prosperity, a slow strangulation of the lion that once rescued the world from totalitarianism. That's no over-statement. The so-called “G.I. Generation” that had fought and won that war had bequeathed to its children a nation that cherished freedom and democracy and a strong military to defend it as well as a safety net that provided for its widows and orphans, its elderly and disabled, and a basic education for all that would avail themselves of it, and a strong economy that provided jobs for everyone who wanted one.

However, in no time at all it seemed the former foes that had been vanquished in war stood up and shrugged off the rubble and destruction and were soon the industrial envy of all, even Americans. Cheap goods were soon competing with Made in USA, and even making better reputations for themselves than the home-grown counterparts. Within a generation or two, the former colonies of both victors and vanquished supplanted them and what was once the Third World became home to industry, where selfish capital had chased cheap labor to, and the prosperity the G.I. Generation had handed down was fast evaporating in promissory notes called Federal Reserve Notes – Legal Tender for All Debts Public and Private. Fiat currency, backed only by a military-industrial complex that operated as a mercenary force for corporate interests. Jobs became scarce and wealth was hoarded in real-estate, in the piggy-bank of the family home, creating the last great bubble before the new American nationalism burst out in frustration at the lies unceasingly crowding the airwaves.

The public knew that the many years of Tweedledee and Tweedledum had yet to result in a reversal of the slide into oblivion many felt themselves experiencing. With practically no industrial base left, where was the American worker to go? Did the Establishment really expect us to believe that if the multi-national corporations could pack up American factories and reassemble them in Indonesia, or China, or Mexico, and re-sell those products much more cheaply back to Americans, that by some miracle new jobs would materialize in the US to offset the loss of those factory jobs? If the hourly labor rate is based on the lowest common denominator, then exactly where did they expect replacement jobs to come from?

Exactly. Lies and more lies, and the expectation that the vast majority of Americans would be too stupid, too worried about the daily bread n' circuses, to seriously consider the REAL answers to the situation.

The effective answer is that there is NO SUCH THING AS 'FREE TRADE'. If Americans need a standard of living equivalent to $15 an hour for a minimum living wage, then a system of tariffs – just like was used in prior generations – has to be enacted once again. This is the major tenet of the new American nationalism. It runs counter to the pseudo-socialistic fascism of the mega-multinational corporations owned by the bankster-gangsters of the Federal Reserve's handful of bloodline families. It's just that simple. Those parasites would like to see a sea of humanity that's been rendered into docile, compliant, gender-neutral, non-nuclear-family-raised labor and consumption units. Whether we use the “New World Odor” terminology or its various splinter offspring – such as Agenda 21 – the goal is the same: discourage the kind of critical thinking that results in inventive and novel enterprise, and replace it with the assembly-line mentality required for corporate projects.

The flip side of the labor and production coin is the consumption aspect; the globalism that nationalists decry sees the masses as labor and consumption units, which can be moved around the planet practically at will once dangerous “nationalism” is eradicated and a sense of national identity is replaced with one based on the idea of a world without borders. This world would have one single police force, and to get there, dangerous civil unrest that results from critical thinking about issues also has to be eradicated. They weren't quite there yet when the rebirth of nationalism stirred.

Still, that globalist New World Odor will use corporate-funded astro-turf groups such as BLM and American Burka-Wearing Feminists for Sharia Law to incite petty racism and Identiy Politics in general to divide and conquer the public, all while using stale slogans that were useful 2 generations ago but now have moved to more subtle battlegrounds (except when employed in this manner, where they can be printed on large signs while wearing penises and vaginas as headdresses, showing how naive large brainwashed segments of the population can still be). Labor is to be reduced to dependency on a welfare state that can deploy it to where the multi-national corporations need it most, but is anathema to entreprenurial enterprise. Social fulfillment under globalism comes not from physical interaction and raising a family in a vibrant and public sphere but a private culture riddled and ridden with empty pornographic carrots-on-a-stick that is forced to hide indoors, away from terrorist acts, away from the awkward physical interaction that used to be a hallmark of civilization....whether in the form of dances, church socials, black-tie social events, etc. Yes, there are still ball-games, and concerts, and even movies are still a place to take a first date to, but even those are becoming more rare and astronomically expensive for the average person – who can view it all on a hand-held device in almost-real time.

This wasn't the world bequeathed to us by the G.I. Generation. This is a world slowly constricting real idealism, constricting our best efforts to make society a better place for all, not just a place where the minimum daily requirements for existence are doled out by a fascistic super-state. It is this super-state, run by what's now called the 'deep state', that continues to encourage factories to outsource jobs and prosperity to the poorest countries (to help dissipate the dangerous pride of American 'exceptionalism', the very engine that saved the world 70+ years ago), continues to encourage young people to yearn to become hedge-fund managers and stock-brokers instead of inventors and builders.

The globalism behind this is NOT a natural outgrowth of the will of the People, but a natural outgrowth of the plans of the obscenely-wealthy many years ago that put agendas in place to mold humanity to their liking and the beliefs of that prior age. While it's considered anathema tp even mention them, due primarily to countless years of drenching the subject in heaps and shrieks of 'racism' and worse, the Protocols of the Elders from over a century ago spell out exactly what has been happening under the inexorable 'progress' of globalism in recent years. One doesn't have to attribute it to any race or religion, but the results are evident. Our social development has occurred just as it was spelled out in those pages, whether one rejects them or not.

For example; beginning in the mid-1970s, the white male has been portrayed in popular culture increasingly as doltish, moronic, even powerless....the butt of the joke. The acclaimed reasoning is that it's been done to “undo centuries of white male privilege”. The stark fact is that it does not require building such a stereotype in order to lift up and demonstrate that all races and genders can be equally virtuous and equally sinful, equally laughable and contemptible, or lovable and worthy of emulation. I also have a particular problem as well with attempts to incite “white liberal guilt”, because in my particular religious belief, the slaves of former ages have become the powerful of privileged races of today, and the slave-owners of those former ages have become the under-privileged and impoverished people of color of today. That's how a belief in reincarnation sees a former plantation-owner as a thug in the ghetto, or vice-versa, and you can't treat people today based on racial stereotypes of former generations. To do so is but one more form of selfish “identity politics”, which has polarized the country and put us at each others' throats while doing nothing to encourage a spirit of unity, that we're all Americans and in this thing together – at least to the degree we need to in order to survive. (We're all at different periods in our soul development as well, which is an awareness that should be cultivated by the family as well as the state in order to preclude resentments based on a misplaced sense of entitlement.)

The new American nationalism has gained favor among increasing numbers of the millenial generation, who watched in disbelief as Hillary stole the glass slipper from Bernie and the media acted as if nothing happened. When Bernie didn't even fight back, and the leaked emails pointed to some form of “leverage” she had over him, it further damaged his reputation among voters who had put so much faith into his campaign. I personally was disgusted at how he pointedly avoided answering the pertinent questions about why he didn't even fight back, and when the leaked emails referred to this “leverage”, I wondered then and to this day what form of blackmail she used against him. No matter; however he was compromised, if he's unable to answer why, then he doesn't deserve the allegiance of a single voter as a potential standard-bearer. I mention this because it's a major factor in why I completed the circuit from progressive to nationalist. At least I know that when the standard-bearer of nationalism says something, he not only means it, he won't be doing the usual shoulder-shruggin', hand-wringin' two-step to avoid accountability. I even imagine Truman's old paperweight getting dusted off and returned to the desk in the Oval Office for the next 4 years: “The Buck Stops Here”.

It comes down to this: I'm proud to be an American; I'm not just proud because I think I'm better than another, because if anything, the more we have and the more we know, the more we obligate ourselves to do better for others. However, it's not upon the State to guilt-trip the individual or even the public to open themselves up to be victimized. The US does not grant an entitlement to refugees who want to come to this country to better themselves, particularly if they do so illegally. I see common cause with those who feel the same way, who may be of a different color or race or gender. If they see themselves as Americans first, who understand that wealth by itself does not confer righteousness, or extra-judicial rights, then they are my American brothers and sisters. If they understand that color, or race, or religion, or gender, also does not confer righteousness or extra-judicial rights, no matter the history, then they too are my fellow American brothers and sisters. If they understand that membership in a secret society is anathema, and that it too does not confer righteousness or extra-judicial rights, then they too are my fellow Americans. If they believe that wealth and prosperity earned in this country (I'm speaking here mostly about capital and capital formation) should remain in this country, then they too are American nationalists. If they believe in lawful immigration, not illegal immigration, then they too are American nationalists. And if you believe that excessive wealth, especially that produced in this country and outsourced from it, or membership in secret societies, or polarizing religious, ethnic, and gender identities have had an adverse affect on American society, then the probability is high that you, too, are an American nationalist.

The conflict isn't between 'progressives' and 'conservatives', it's between nationalists and globalists. Globalism began in earnest when the robber-barons that conquered their competition before the turn of the last century turned their backs on the system that had given them their wealth, and instead poured their (often ill-gotten) gains into foundations, trusts, and endowments whose purpose was to remake the world into a place that preserved their hegemony over their fellow man. Not only was this wealth used to reinforce their position economically and socially, it was then used to remake and mold the world around them into one that reflected their beliefs. Those beliefs seem rooted in the applied sciences that has little room for spiritual matters, aside from using religious institutions as control mechanisms for the larger population. While the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights for a nation in which everyone has potential, and mankind is innately good but becomes corrupted by the greed of his fellow man and the oppression of financial institutions, the Usurpers acted to deny those that came after them the same benefits, and have slowly worked to co-opt the entrepreneurial spirit. Or, at minimum, they've acted to prevent the masses from enjoying too much liberation.

It's the subject of a book, as it always is, but the long and the short of it is that the Progressive movement, the original progressives of the early 20^th century, were against monopollies and corruption. That was the original impetus behind the movement. What we witnessed in the recent election cycle was a mockery of a supposedly 'progressive' candidate facing off against a nationalist who believes in 'putting America first'. It's not as if nationalism is a bad thing, it's the fact that in using the terminology, the true agenda of globalism is revealed by the reaction of the anti-nationalist Establishment. In fact, the 'nationalist' is more of a 'progressive' than the 'globalist' these days, and what's left of the so-called 'left' has merged with the 'right'.