Commentary on "Debate with Nick Fuentes: What Caused the West's Decline?" -- Why Fuentes is Wrong to blame the French Revolution as the Source of the Fall

Nick is wrong to pinpoint the French Revolution as the beginning of the Decline of the West. French Revolution and American Revolution(that shared similar ideals) opened up new possibilities and paved the way for Western greatness and domination. From the time of the French Revolution to World War I, the West saw rising numbers, wealth, might, and influence. There was advancement in every field of science and technology. More people became educated, ate better, and lived longer. The historical trajectory of Western Might was on the up and up for the West until 1914 when World War I destroyed much of Europe. Still, consider the rapid recovery of Germany in the 1930s. Had Europe avoided WWII, things might have been great all around. But Hitler sunk Europe into WWII and tens of millions died.
EVEN SO, the fact is that most Europeans never had it so good as during the post-WWII era. All European economies recovered quickly, living standards rose, and most people were better off than ever. And in the US, the majority entered the middle class. Even communist Eastern European nations saw considerable rise in living standards from end of WWII to the 1960s -- though behind the Capitalist West, they were better than any other part of the world. The West was mostly riding high after WWII. For example, France became a real industrial power only AFTER World War II. Prior to the war, 1/3 of Frenchmen were farmers. It was in the 50s and 60s that France became truly industrial and modern. Living standards improved markedly after the war. Also, the loss of empires didn't hurt the European economy at all. For one thing, nations like Sweden and Norway, which never had overseas empires, did very well. And France and UK saw their economies rise higher just as they were letting their empires go.

So, why did things begin to fall apart for Western Man?

1. Jews took over the US that controls the rest of the West. Jewish Supremacists, filled with virulent resentment against whites, used media power to fill whites with Guilt and Fever. 'White Guilt' paralyzed white pride and confidence. Whites were told that their history was one of oppression of others, and therefore, any notion of collective white identity and interest must be denounced and suppressed. To atone for 'white guilt', whites must serve OTHER peoples, beginning with the Holy Holocaust Jews.
And 'White Fever' made white boys and girls addicted to black music, black sex, and black cool. Today, white boys imitate rappers, and white girls want to have mulatto babies with black guys who are seen as superior studs. If the black race didn't exist in the West, white decline would have been far less dramatic. It was blacks who destroyed white male pride and confidence by kicking white ass and conquering white pussy. Blacks have been especially threatening to whites because blacks win so much in the areas that give whites the biggest collective orgasms: sports, pop music, oratory, and sex culture. Faceless white crowds cheer like mad for black sports heroes. White guys act like cucks before black athletes who hump 100,000s of white women. And white butts and groins pump and grind to black music whose message is "white girl, suck my big black dick". And because blacks have louder deeper voices, whites react to Negro speech like it's the voice of god. Would MLK cult exist if King didn't have a bellowing voice?

2. Good times and youth culture led to decadence and degeneracy. When times are good, people take things for granted. They lose the fighting spirit and survival instinct. Americans got soft and flabby in their post-nationalist affluence. A people who feel secure and well-fed don't care about nationalism. And young people lost respect for tradition and old people. They got addicted to new fashions in youth culture that were all about 'me, me, me', and 'admire the Negro singers'. Young people's idea of culture became loose sex, drugs, and imitating trashy celebrities(marketed by Jews). Look at Miley Cyrus and other shikse cunts pulled by Jewish puppet-strings. Jewish globalists want white girls to be turned into sluts for portnoic Jewish and black men.

3. Rising economy meant more jobs, and that meant more women at work. As more women found work, they grew more independent and spent much of their spare time and money on having fun than raising family. Also, when women take good jobs from men, there are fewer men with good jobs to afford family formation. So, they have a hard time getting married. And women with good jobs have a hard time finding mates because they want to find men with good jobs. But if women take good jobs from men, there are fewer men with good jobs. Also, as women became sexually freer, they had tons of premarital sex, and this made them less appealing to men who want marriage. Most guys don't want to marry some 'ho' who's been at spring breaks and been sprayed upon by lots of frat boys and wild Negroes.

4. Pop Culture in general. Prior to electronic media, people felt lonely unless they were with other people. So, they wanted to get married to be with other people and have a sense of belonging. And they joined local communities to feel human connection and warmth. But with TV in every home, even lonely individuals could just turn on the TV and live with substitute family members and friends(who were prettier and cooler) on TV. This affected old and the young. Check the last scene of Barry Levinson's AVALON where the kid just stares at the TV.

5. Spread of universal-elitism. As more people got college education, they came to value only fancy jobs and higher status. This is a problem in the East as well as in the West. In the past, people had kids just to have kids. Today, people don't want to have kids unless they feel assured that their kids will grow up to go to good college and get fancy jobs. So, both whites in the West and Asians in the East have fewer kids. This socio-demographic trend leads to labor shortage, and that means FOREIGNERS must be brought in to do all the 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning' jobs. Even Japan finally decided to let in hundreds of thousands of foreigners to fill up jobs because Japanese don't have kids. Why don't Japanese want to have kids? Japanese don't want to have 'loser children' who may not attend good schools and get fancy jobs. When a people come to despise labor, they are doomed. This is why we all need a bit of socialist mindset. Socialism respects the working class, the laborers. But in today's globalist world, whites and yellows only respect white-collar professional jobs. They see working class jobs as 'dirty'. So, they figure they should bring in foreigners to do the lowly dirty jobs.

Finally, French Revolution and American Revolution were actually good for the West. The theme of both was nationalism, the idea that the national elites should represent and serve the national masses. Prior to the French Revolution, the French aristocratic elites looked upon their own people as subjects. If anything, fancy elites identified more with aristocrats of OTHER kingdoms than with their own French folk. It was like a network of elites, all of whom regarded their own folks as lowly subjects.
In contrast, the French Revolution said that the people matter too, and that the main role of the national elites is to represent and lead the national folk. The populist-nationalism we see today is very much in the spirit of the French Revolution. The globalist rhetoric is neo-aristocratic and much like the elitist worldview PRIOR to the French Revolution. Globalism says the elites of the world should link up together in their own cloud castle realm and look down all the masses as 'deplorables' to exploit. Yellow Vests represent the French Revolutionary Spirit. Emmanuel Macron represents neo-aristocratism. Aristocrats were fancy-pants and dressed like fruits because they recruited haute-homos to make fancy things for them, like those puffy wigs that the French aristos wore. Is it any wonder that the globalist neo-aristos promote Homo Stuff as the 'new progressivism'? It's really just neo-aristocratism.
What the West needs is to recapture the national-revolutionary spirit of the American and French Revolution. It must break free of the globo-homo neo-aristocratic rule of Jewish Hegemonists. (Notice that Jews, even as they undermine the unity of elites and masses among goyim, insist on the unity of Jewish elites and Jewish masses, esp in Israel. When Jewish masses in Israel demand a wall to keep out Arabs and Africans, Jewish elites listen and deliver. That's why Israel is so sturdy; it is founded on the unity of elites and masses. But when Viktor Orban in Hungary tries to serve his own people the same way, Jews shriek with horror because they see goy nationalism as a barrier to Jewish penetration and total takeover. Jews know nationalism means ethnic solidarity and power. That is why they guard nationalism for themselves but denounce it among other peoples. And they bribe goy-cuck-collaborators to do their bidding.)

According to Nick Fuentes, the heart of the matter is the European Man lost the sense of spiritual authority, and THAT began the process of inexorable decline. But notice that Byzantine, French, and Russian Monarchies all fell to foreign armies, popular revolt, or minority-subversion DESPITE their adherence to tradition. If traditionalist spiritual authority is such an effective bulwark against degeneration and destruction, why didn't the Byzantine Empire go from strength to strength despite its arch-spiritualism? Why was the French Monarchy, despite blessings of the Catholic Church, unable to stem the revolutionary tide? Why was the Russian Czar, despite the backing of conservative Russian Church, fail to stave off the Socialist Revolution?
While there is something to be said for spiritual roots and guidance, history shows us that church authority, like any other kind of authority, tends to grow corrupt, stagnant, and dull over time. But then, this problem goes back to the very moment when Early Christians joined with the Roman Empire. A religion founded on peace, forgiveness, and brotherly love made a pact with the 'devil', the very imperialist power that sacked Jerusalem and used ruthless violence to maintain military hegemony over much of the known world. Once politicized, religion turns into just another arm of Power Politics and Insider-Privilege, and then, especially in times of severe duress(when people are desperate) or happy affluence(when people are decadent), traditional religious authority seems either supportive of 'tyranny' or obstacle to good times(aka party poopers, like when Moses returned from Mt. Sinai and said NO MORE to the festivities with the Golden Calf).

Commentary on "Bolsonaro: a Monster Engineered by Our Media"(by Jonathan Cook)

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018-10-30/bolsonaro-is-a-monster-engineered-by-our-media/

Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the “free press” – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.

Nothing will make sense unless we mention Jewish control of much of Western Media and Finance. And of course academia that produces all the 'thinkers' and strategists and enforcers of law firms, courts, and deep state. While ALL global oligarchs and corporations have some things in common, ethnicity and group-identity do matter. Jewish oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, Chinese oligarchs, Iranian oligarchs, and etc. are all in the Game for Wealth and Privilege, but they don't think alike. The reason why Jewish Power hates nationalist candidates is because nationalism means 'our nation, our people, and our land first'. America First or Brazil First. This is bad for Jewish globalist supremacism because nationalist regimes will put their nation before Jewish globalist interests. Generally, a nation is defined by its majority population. Poland has minorities of non-Poles, such as Vietnamese, but Core Poland is the Polish people. So, a nationalist Poland is about prioritizing the identity and pride of Poles. Now, this shouldn't be a threat to ordinary Jews or even successful Jews. After all, Poland is open to world trade and has gotten over its worst anti-Jewish excesses. So, why are Jews so pissed? Because they seek world dominance and hegemony. And that means making white nations(and some others) prioritize Jewish-controlled globalism over nationalism. Also, nationalism, because it boosts national and ethnic pride and identity, is more difficult for Jews to manipulate. In order for Jews to gain control over a people, they need to suppress national pride in favor of 'white guilt' or Homomania or Afromania. Nationalism is like a heavily shielded phalanx. This is why Jews push Diversity, Homomania, Afromania, and White Guilt. Diversity makes it more difficult for white nations to pull together into one. Homomania undermines moral integrity, and young ones become most excited about waving 'gay' flags in honor of homo fecal penetration. Afromania undermines white manhood by presenting blacks as superior studs with more muscle, bigger dongs, and louder voices. It infects white women with Jungle Fever and white boys with cucky-wuckery. It says black race is superior to the wussy white race that needs to be mixed with cooler blackness. And White Guilt makes whites feel that they are uniquely guilty of historical 'sins', and therefore, the ONLY permitted pride among whites is the Pride of Redemptive Self-Loathing. Then, Jews can manipulate whites into supporting Jews, the people with Sacred Victim Identity.

The problem with Jonathan Cook's brand of leftism is it analyzes the world only in terms of Economic Interests, as if the world is made up of Noble Poor and Evil Rich. He also assumes that all the Rich think alike. Not so, especially when a Rich People happen to have a strong ethnic identity. Jews do have a strong identity, and therefore, Jewish Rich aren't only out for money. They are out for Power in service of Jewish supremacism. Consider the sanctions against Iran. From a purely economic viewpoint, it makes no sense. Lots of Jews can make tons of money dealing with Iran. Iran would be happy to do business with Jewish oligarchs in US and EU. So, why the sanctions? Why are Jews sacrificing business opportunities in Iran? It's because they, as an ethnic-minded people, see Iran as a threat to Israeli hegemony. And take Russia. Jewish bigshots can make tons of money by encouraging more trade with Russia. So, why the sanctions? Because Russian brand of nationalism(though mild) and sovereignty inspires other nations to defy the Jewish globo-homo hegemony. So, unless Cook mentions the Jews, he won't get at the heart of what is going on. Indeed, one reason why even non-communist Jews valued Marxism and ideology of Class Conflict was because the theories obfuscated the level of Jewish involvement in capitalism. By turning the conflict into one between the Workers and the Generic Bourgeoisie, it led people to overlook the fact that Jews had a special role in world capitalism, especially in finance. People don't live on bread alone. Money is nice but ultimately meaningless. Like Sheldon Adelson said, he found true meaning in life by becoming an avid supporter of Israel. Money gave him privilege and power, but Zionism gave him meaning. Granted, there are lots of rich people without meaning. They just rake in all the dough. But such people eventually end up serving those with meaning(whatever it may be) because power is like electricity. In and of itself, it has no higher purpose. It has to be directed at something. So, power from an electric generator is used to power TVs. Or radios. Or computers. Jews use the Juice to serve the Jews. This is why they are so powerful. They not only have money but meaning. In contrast, deracinated creeps like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have no meaning except money, money, and money. So, when it comes to meaning, they follow the lead of the Jews who do have meaning. So, Bezos' Washington Post continues to shill for Israel and Jewish supremacism even though Bezos the Bozo isn't Jewish.

Simon Jenkins:
When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes.

Of course, Jenkins is full of BS. Not because he's wrong about much of social media but because he'd be fine with the lies, fake stories, vulgarity, and stupidity AS LONG AS the political outcomes favored globo-homo hegemony. After all, homomania was spread through trash culture, celebrity nonsense, PC mobs on social media, and lots of herd-like hysteria. But people like Jenkins never protested the trashiness as long as it served their agenda. Also, the reason why there are so many crazies in social media is because the globalists have pushed the erosion of roots and culture. So, we have too many clowns who get swept up with the latest trends, fashions, and hypes. If there is one good thing about the spread of nationalism via social media, it is the desire to reconnect with roots, identity, and heritage that give life meaning.

Also, even if social media are full of fake news and conspiracy theories, they are beneficial as counterweight against the power of Deep State and Corporate Media. Alex Jones spread lots of nonsense, but his conspiracy theories did encourage his fans to be more critical and less trusting of the Deep State and globalism. Given that the Deep State is a warmonger and that the big corporations brainwash us with endless BS advertising, it's not the worst thing to be more distrustful and cynical about the Powers That Be. Under Limbaugh-ism, many Americans were led to support the Iraq War. But under Jones-ism, Americans are far more likely to question the US aggression. Indeed, Jones condemned Trump for his attacks on Syria. Social media are filled with lots of alternative truths and lies. But even alternative fake stories are still preferable to fake stories by MSM because, whereas MSM tells lies to support globo-homo imperialist hegemony, alternative fake stories are made to question the Power and oppose imperialism. So, even if not every alternative 9/11 story is true, it still encourages people to ask more questions than just TRUST the Power, which by now is utterly corrupt, not least because it is concentrated in the hands of Jews who, unlike Wasp elites of old, will not tolerate any criticism of them. Jews say we must condemn 'white nationalism' but ignore the fact that 'white nationalism', like other forms of nationalism, is a reaction to Jewish Supremacism. When Jews in media say they are going to do to white people what they did to Palestinians -- replace them permanently -- , of course nationalism against Jewish supremacism is going to be a response. Jews claim that they stand for a polyglot multi-cultural society against 'white supremacism', but Jewish vision of Diversity isn't about all peoples sharing power equally and proportionately. No, it's about Jews at the top using the Diverse Mass against white people. It's like British using their multi-colored troops to put down national resistance in the colonies. If Jews were truly for equality and proportionality, they would be pushing for a New Social Order in which Jews own only 2% of wealth, 2% of media, 2% of Wall Street, 2% of Hollywood, 2% of gambling, 2% of Silicon Valley, 2% of Law firms, and etc. After all, Jews are only 2% of the population. But Jews never seem alarmed by the fact the the 2% is gaining more of the wealth, privilege, and power. So, Jewish opposition to white nationalism is to protect Jewish supremacism. Jews seek to use Diversity to create divisions against goyim so that the 98% won't be able to unite against the 2% that rules the West.

Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite’s power.

If Trump is an intensification of the worst impulses of neoliberal order, why are Jews and Deep State so angry at him and even cooked up Russia Collusion nonsense to derail him? If neoliberals are all about greed, why do they oppose Trump's wish for peace with Russia? It will mean more business opportunities for US corporations and businessmen? NeoLiberal is Judeo-Hegemonic, and Jews put their identity and power above all things. The fact is the US is the most powerful and influential nation on Earth. So, when Trump says he is a nationalist, it is a green light for other nations to follow suit. Neoliberals hate this because their increased profits depend on Free Trade Globalism. Also, Jewish supremacism depends on suppression of national identity and pride in goy nations, esp white ones. Money isn't everything, and Jews know this. Germany is the biggest and richest nation in Western Europe, but it is politically among the weakest. Why? It's nationalism and identity have been totally suppressed by Shoah-Worship and German Guilt. So, Jews can run circles around Germany despite its great wealth. In contrast, Hungary, though much smaller and poorer, has pride of identity, and that makes it difficult for the likes of Soros to run roughshod over it. It's not only about money and class. Jews know that national identity is the most unifying force in a nation. Indeed, even a poor backward nation like Vietnam was able to expel a superpower like the US because of the power of nationalism. Rich people, middle people, and poor people can become one under nationalism. Even socialism works best along with nationalism. Nationalism breeds trust and shared sense of destiny. Socialism works better within homogeneity than amidst diversity where some groups feel they are being robbed by others. Because socialism works best within the national framework, the fascist-socialism is the best kind. Sweden's success didn't owe to democracy or liberalism. It owed to homogeneity, intelligence, trust, and unity of rich-middle-and-poor. But look how the social fabric and social welfare in that country is beginning to fray with Diversity Invasion that fills the nations with leeches.

Trump and Bolsonaro are not logical CONCLUSIONS of the world order. They are limbo-figures. What they stand for is inconclusive and contradictory, not least because the nations they rule over are now so diverse, fractured, and messy. Trump has been all over the map, partly due to his impetuous nature but also due to Deep State obstacles that have sabotaged his plans for making up with Russia, ending war in Syria, and erecting a wall along the border. Because of these pressures, Trump has been forced to be even tougher on Russia to prove he's not a Russian agent.
While the super-rich may prefer Trump's tax cuts, they are not just about money. Most of the super-rich hate Trump because they are either Jewish and/or Globalist. Jews hate Trump for reviving nationalism(that may stand in the way of Jewish supremacism), and globalists like Bezos hate Trump because they are post-national and see the entire globe as their oyster for the taking. A nation, even a nation as big as the US, is too small for their scope and ambition.

Do the globo-oligarchs prefer 'fascists' like Trump and Bolsonaro over true socialists? Maybe, but keep in mind that Bernie Sanders stood with the globalist oligarchs against Trump in 2016. Also, Sanders seems to be just as anti-Russia and anti-Syria. So, is Sanders really a Socialist First or Zionist First? As for Jeremy Corbyn, the Establishment's opposition to him has little to do with his economic policies. The Power knows they can always pull the strings and manipulate things to rein in socialism no matter who wins. The reason for all the ire against Corbyn has been his pro-Palestinian stance. Most media are owned or financed by Jews. If Corbyn just played at being socialist and waved the Israeli flag, Jews would be seeing him as their boy. But Corbyn has often sided with Muslims and Palestinians, and this pissed off Jews. British Jewish elites pushed mass-immigration-invasion into the UK to use non-whites against whites. The Jewish narrative was 'we noble Jews and you noble colored against those evil racist whites'. But Corbyn listened to Muslims who said, "Racist Jews are killing Arabs and waging evil wars in the Middle East" and agreed, even if mildly. And that set off the media firestorm against him.
So, what do Corbyn and Trump have in common despite their different economic theories? They are both hated by Jews. Jews hate Trump for igniting 'white nationalism'(against Jewish supremacism), and Jews hate Corbyn for supporting Palestinian nation-hood(against Zionist supremacism). The failure to mention the Jewish Power in this is either a blindspot or craven cowardice on the part of Jonathan Cook.

The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US... Former socialist leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule.

Hugo Chavez became virtual dictator. He rose through army ranks, and he used cronies in the military to back him. The reason why his successor is still in power is due to strong-arm tactics. Also, Chavezism failed for two reasons. Total dependence on high oil prices and promising freebies to masses of Diversity. Even as Chavez railed at Uncle Sam, his nation's economy depended totally on American capitalism. Without US consumers buying Venezuelan oil, there was no economy to speak of. Also, Venezuela is a low-trust and low-talent society. All that race-mixing led to too much low IQ and high-impulse African genetics. And, Diverse societies lack trust. White elites in Venezuela don't feel a common bond with the masses. And mixed-race people are confused in identity and feel nothing in common with native Indians. With such low talent, its economy depended on selling oil. And when oil prices were high, Chavez could dole out freebies to the masses to gain popularity. But he did nothing to expand industry or encourage enterprise. When oil prices plummeted, the whole thing collapsed. Socialism only works in tandem with nationalism and productive capitalism. Capitalism creates the wealth that can be taxed. No taxation, no socialism. Communism was about all the economy run by the state, and that was one huge failure. Also, socialism requires trust. People must think in terms of paying into the system and getting things back. In low trust societies, people try to pay nothing in while getting everything out. Now, a homogeneous people can be lacking in trust too. Look at Greek national character(though, to be sure, Greeks are much mixed due to endless invasions). But diversity makes it even worse. This is why any socialist who rejects capitalism and nationalism isn't for real. Socialism must rely on healthy capitalism that can be taxed. Socialism must maintain national unity that allows for trust and common bonds. This is why Swedish socialist policies must be for Swedish. If Swedes conquered Poland and Hungary and tried to maintain socialism for all three peoples, it'd be a mess as there would be too many divisions. How did Soviet socialism work throughout its vast diverse empire? Non-Russians got tired of Russian imperialism, and Soviet elites got sick of providing free stuff to an empire of leeches who did minimal work but demanded maximal benefits.

The real problem of Latin America isn't socialism or lack of socialism. It's diversity. Socialists will say all the world will become nice if they adopt Swedish social democracy, and libertarians blame the failure of Detroit on 'socialism' of the Democratic Party. It's all BS. Swedish social democracy worked for Sweden due to its racial, social, and cultural factors. Sweden will fail as it fills up with Diversity. Its social democracy will not work in an African nation with too many contentious tribes, low IQ, and lack of cultural capital. But then, libertarianism will also fail in places like Detroit because blacks are predisposed by genetics to be wild and crazy. Yes, that is race-ist but race-ism is truth. Races evolved differently to have different talents. Blacks are talented at chucking spears at hippos and running from them. They didn't evolve for civilization. They were not domesticated by evolution. Bringing them inside civilization is like bringing in coyotes and badgers into the house. They still got the wild genes.

Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America.

What about Cuba? Castro gained total power, and while the Cold War was on, the Soviet Union provided it with generous subsidies. But what did Castro create? Nothing. His entire economy depended on freebies provided by the Soviet Union.
There are good things about capitalism and socialism, and societies need combination of both, but Cook's worldview is simply, "It failed because socialism wasn't allowed to take over totally." Has he forgotten about how the Chinese rejected Maoism? How the Soviet Union collapsed? Communism doesn't work. Also, history teaches us that capitalism isn't a universal panacea either. While capitalism allows for great freedom and opportunity in business, it is also fiercely competitive, and some nations are bound to do better than others(or some groups in any nation are bound to do better than others). So, Hindus are far more adept at business than blacks in Africa. Chinese, with their generally higher-IQ population, have done better with capitalism, along with Japanese. In contrast, low-IQ nations failed with capitalism. Chinese have also done much better under capitalism than the native populations of Philippines and Southeast Asia.

Anyway, socialism isn't some panacea. I know socialists feel justified in pontificating about it because socialism is about 'social justice', but the world doesn't work simply on the basis of chest-thumping 'good will' and 'righteousness'. The fact is too many Latin American nations are too diverse, too divided, too low in IQ, and etc. to succeed with either capitalism or socialism. So, both libertarians and socialists are wrong when they apply their theories on the global scale. The best that such nations can hope for is a kind of humanist national neo-fascism where elites instill the people with some positive national character. It won't fix problems overnight but can set the nation forth on a sound long-term path that favors the right kind of genes and habits. Bolsonaro isn't such a character because he's essentially a lout.

Within days of Corbyn’s election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it refused to name, warning that the British army’s commanders had agreed they would sabotage a Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.

It's about the Jews. Jews hate Corbyn because he's pro-Palestinian. It's not about socialism. Jews and British oligarchs don't fear socialism because they can easily pull strings to undermine it, like they've done under both Blair and Cameron. What they can't stomach is how Corbyn gave moral support to Palestinians and Muslims opposed to Neocon wars. That is the good side of Corbyn. And his socialism isn't bad either. But he too is an idiot because he's for mass colonization of UK by Africans and Muslims. Ironically, even as he denounces Zionist colonization of West Bank, he totally supports the Third World colonization of the UK. This is why being a socialist isn't enough. One must be a social-nationalist.

Finally, the problem of putting socialism or class consciousness at the center of meaning is that class is too fluid. Consider all the immigrants in the US who began on the bottom but whose children rose to the top. If someone has a working-class father but becomes a rich person, what should be his 'class consciousness'? There are legit class interests, but class is not a deep identity(and ever-changing along with technology). Also, a society cannot function with a single class; communism tried to utter failure. It's natural to have several classes(and many sub-classes) due to differences in talent and specialization of tasks. So, how can the various classes co-exist and cooperate? With nationalism. Nationalism instills the elites with the sense that the masses are part of the national family to guide than merely economic units to exploit. And nationalism instructs the masses that the rich elites are okay as long as they use their wealth and talent for the good of the national community.
But globalism undermined this. Globo-elites, libertarian or proggy, pretend to care for ALL humanity, but that is of course impossible. So, they end up making noises but doing nothing except fill their own pockets... like Bono. It's like a parent who neglects his own children by pontificating that he loves all the children in the world. All talk, no walk.

The best societies are ones where socialism serves nationalism. The cooperation among the classes based on shared identity, trust, and culture of responsibility. Globalism and Diversity undermine all this.