Elites invoke Universalism to renege on their Responsibility to the National People

For most of history, it was difficult for mankind to trek and communicate across great distances. So, the elites of a community developed a strong bond with the people on their allotted territory.

This bond between elites and people was most resilient among the Jews, not least because their nomadism required strong tribal bonds to keep the community together. The paradoxical nature of the Jews is their preferred mode of existence tended toward the division of elite and people yet their commitment to Tribal Will demanded conservation of unity. The Jewish Will of the Tribe grew stronger against the Jewish Nomadic Drive. Under normal circumstances, the Tribal Will should have weakened under the pressures of Nomadism, but Jews forged for themselves a culture of blessed particularity and unceasing paranoia(and humor of contempt) that militated against the Jewish loss of identity and unity, especially between elites and peoples. Jewish Culture claimed that Jews are a specially chosen people of the only true God and, furthermore, warned of decay and downfall were Jews to give into temptation of assimilation with other peoples and their wicked ways. Thus, even though the Jewish mode of nomadism was naturally most conducive to weakening of identity and unity, the Jewish spiritual worldview fed on that very existence to produce the opposite effect. What should have made Jews weaker as a Tribe made them stronger as a Tribe. The Jewish example illustrates how a people can rise above or triumph against Determinism with a special mindset. It is like the sport of Judo where one channels the force of the opponent against the opponent. What is naturally directed against you ends up favoring you against the opponent. If he pushes, you pull. If he pulls, you push.

If, in the past, the difficulty of travel, trade, and communication drew the local elites and local masses closer, the ease of worldwide networks has had the effect of pooling together the elites or the best-and-the-brightest all around the world. Thus, globalism acts against the unity of the elites and the masses in any national community(with Israel being an exception because Jews have a special mindset). It is natural for the best-and-brightest to favor other best-and-brightest, just as it is natural for the rich, the famous, and/or the beautiful to seek the company of other people of comparable status or qualities. Since the rich and privileged can travel and communicate easily around the world, they've come to disdain the local community of 'losers'. Why would a rich Briton care much about 'dumb and dirty' working class Britons when it's more fun, thrilling, fulfilling, and glamorous to hang around with rich Hindus, rich Asians, rich Arabs, and rich Russian Jews? (To be sure, the internet has afforded this 'privilege' to the masses as well, and this accounts for the rise of the Alt Right made possible through independent worldwide networking of Eurosphere nationalists. Since the white elites no longer care about white masses, the white peoples around the world have formed an international network of voices sharing their disillusionment with the globalist elites and their venal ways, especially in 'cucking' out to Jewish Globalists whose advantage depends on white-elite-collaboration with the likes of George Soros. And yet, Alt Right networks, even though international in reach, has an agenda at odds with globalism. If globalism is a neo-aristocratic pact among elites around the world to bond closely with one another than with their own peoples, Alt Right's neo-nationalism is about mutual pact among different nations and races to respect each other's borders, histories, and unique narratives.)

Since the globalist elites have chosen neo-aristocratic privilege over identity-and-unity with their own peoples -- Irish elites feel closer to Hindu and African elites than to fellow Irish masses -- , they must make up for their moral deficiency. After all, favoring one's globalist elite privilege above the interests of one's people sounds rather vain and greedy. An Irish elite member who prefers identifying with rich Asians, Africans, and Muslims has pretty much betrayed his own countrymen.

So, how does he go about regaining moral legitimacy.

1. One is universalism over nationalism. The elites may argue that nationalism is too narrow and petty. It's about us-versus-them, whereas universalism is about the good of all humanity. This may sound nice and noble, but it's just a pipe dream invoked as an excuse to abandon what is real and doable. It is doable for national elites to look out for the interests of their national people. In contrast, it is impossible for even a nation as powerful and rich as the United States to save and redeem the world. So, lofty rhetoric used by globalists is just a convenient utopian hat-trick to morally excuse their reneging of responsibility to their national folks.
The truth is the elites of any nation can effectively rule over the nation, but even the grandest project by all the elites of the world cannot fix or redeem the world. It's like a father and mother can feed their own kids but cannot take care of all the children of the world.
The lofty-impossible is a useful crutch to excuse one's dereliction of duty to the real-possible. Parents who neglect their own kids and let them starve in the name of caring for and saving all the kids of the world are just fooling themselves as they throw a party for themselves in the name of saving ALL the kids.
This is a definitely problem in the black community where leaders are full of Big Talk about 'social justice' bu utterly lacking in down-to-earth actual deeds that might make a real difference. So, when a globalist elitist yammers about humanity-over-nationality, it's just an excuse for him to indulge his own narrow interests. After all, if one's goal is the lofty-impossible, one can stick to mere rhetoric while doing next-to-nothing since nothing real can be done to save all of humanity. When national leaders take after celebrity phonies like Bono and George Clooney, they no longer care about their own people. Just take a look at Justin Trudeau who can't tell the difference between Hollywood and nation.

2. Another is Multi-Culturalism and Diversity. Generally, a nation has a dominant racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group that defines the essence of the nation. It's like Greece is defined by its majority Greek population and Turkey by its majority Turkey population. So, the core national duty of the national elites is to be mindful of the interests of the national majority. Greek interests should trump all else in Greece, and Turkish interests should take precedence over all others in Turkey.
But this is problematic to the globalist elites that now rule many nations, especially advanced ones. The ruling elites don't much care for their own people since their main identification is with globalist elites they rubbed shoulders with at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, and etc.and whom they meet at globalist gatherings and conferences.
Still, as national leaders, they come under pressure to look out for the interests of the national masses. So, a kind of tension develops in these globalized national leaders. They feel closer to the diverse membership of the Global neo-aristocracy but are obligated to represent & serve the identity and interest of their national masses.
So, what is to be done? Multi-culturalism, mass immigration, and Diversity are meant to do the trick. If their own nations are made more diverse and multi-cultural, it means their nations are no longer defined by a dominant history, narrative, or culture. Their nations are now just another globo-diverse nation. Since all nations are to be defined more by multi-cultural 'minority rights' than national-majority-interests, the globalized national elites no longer need to be mindful of representing and serving core national interests. After all, if each nation is just a diversified mini-version of the World, there is no such thing as national interests, and national leaders can more legitimately pursue global interests while neglecting national ones.
If UK is made into a mini-version-of-the-world with its Africans, Hindus, Chinese, Pakistanis, and etc. who are all said to be equally British, then there is no need for British elites to favor British interests since Britain is just one more carbon-copy colony of the Globo-Community.
Also, the intermarriages among the elites of the world, like intermarriages among the European aristocrats in pre-modern times, tend to favor globalist privileges over national interests. If Chinese in America or Canada marry whites or Jews, they are going to feel closer to globalist empire than to China the motherland.

3. Pop Culture as Core Culture. In order for the globalist elites to justify their own privileges, they've given up on the notion of High Culture and Serious Art. Sure, they might still attend classical concerts once awhile, but they'd rather have fun, like Princess Diana did with celebrities and trash culture. The globalist elites prefer the Pop Art of Andy Warhol and his imitators than serious art or high culture that may be deemed as elitist and 'exclusionary'. So, with pop culture, Pop Art, dance music, and Hollywood as the centerpiece of globalist elite culture, the impression is created that the richest, most privileged, and the most powerful people are 'just like us'. After all, there is Hillary at a rap concert. There is Justin Trudeau hanging with famous homo celebrities. There is even the British Queen who's into 'hip stuff' now. There's some national leader taking a photo with Bono or some Hollywood star. And in some cases, these phony celebrities, like Oprah, become a member of the elite. Elites 'hipsterize' themselves to seem like any other consumer.

But in the end, all of this for the globalist elites and for them alone. For the rest of humanity, there's just tattoos, piercings, and obsession over 50 genders as the meaning of their life.

Freedom, Independence, and Liberty are NOT possible without EXCLUSION

INCLUSION is now the buzzword in PC lingo pushed by Globalists.

But inclusion can work against freedom, liberty, and security. Indeed, freedom and liberty are impossible without security. Does anyone really free in a jungle full of dangerous animals? Does anyone really feel free in high-crime Detroit? Does anyone really feel free in the war zones of Syria or Libya(caused by Zionist-imperialist intervention)? Radical Inclusion leads to breakdown of security(and stability) and that means less freedom and liberty. Coercive Inclusion of US military imperialism into the Middle East and North Africa led to countless deaths and chaos everywhere. And Coercive Inclusion of masses of Africans and Muslims into Europe is leading to crime and mayhem.

Inclusion forces intrusion(even invasion) of other homelands. When EU is forced to be 'inclusive', it means it must surrender to intrusion and invasion by masses of Africans and Muslims. When White Americans are forced to be 'inclusive' of masses of non-white immigrants, it means having to live in a nation where they are reviled and blamed for everything.

A woman who is forced to 'include' every penis can only be rape victim. A woman without the choice to exclude the men she doesn't like is no longer free.

And this goes for victims of stalking as well. Such victims call on the police for safety to keep stalkers away. A woman doesn't feel safe with such types trailing her. This is especially true with famous celebrities who are stalked by crazy fans. In order for such people, women or celebrities, to feel secure(and free and independent), the police is called on warn or even imprison the stalkers. Women and celebs want to EXCLUDE stalkers from their lives.

Freedom and liberty have often been about Exclusion. Exclusion can happen by expelling a people who are deemed dangerous or threatening(or invasive). Or it can be achieved by mass-escape or mass-exile.

In the case of the Vietnamese and Algerians, they finally got together to expel the imperialist French invaders. Natives used guns and bombs to send the French back to France. Vietnamese and Algerians sought national independence via the expulsion of the French. Independence was achieved with the exclusion of the foreign French invaders.

In the case of Moses and Hebrews(if the Biblical legend is to be believed), they self-exiled themselves from the Egyptians. For the Hebrews to be free, they needed to exclude Egyptian tyranny from their lives. Since they couldn't overthrow Egyptians in Egypt, they chose mass-departure from Egypt to found their own homeland. Thus, Egyptian power came to be excluded from the lives of Jews, especially with the help of God who sent the Pillar of Fire and split the sea to devour the Egyptian cavalry(according to myth anyway).

So, Jews found freedom by excluding Egyptian tyranny from their lives. (But in founding their own homeland, they intruded into the lands of other peoples and slaughtered tons of them, again if the Biblical legends are to be believed. In forcing those gentiles in the Promised Land to be 'inclusive' of Jews, there were blood invasions and reprisals. Recent history has similar themes of freedom-by-exclusion and oppression-by-inclusion. The 20th century Exodus is about Jews gaining freedom by excluding the gentile world from their own lives. By departing from gentile lands and creating a Jewish state, Jews would welcome only the Jews and keep out the gentiles. Jews in hostile gentile nations would seek exile and exodus to Modern Israel, thus excluding gentile tyranny from their lives and living freely with other Jews. But this creation of the Jewish homeland required the the intrusive 'inclusion' of Jews upon Palestinians. Palestine was forced to 'include' Jews who soon turned into intruders and invaders who came to lord over the Palestinians. Exclusion meant freedom for Jews, but Inclusion meant tyranny for Palestinians. It's like the Japanese found new opportunities in Manchuria, but it required the coercive 'inclusion-invasion' of Northeast Asia. Later, for the Chinese to be free of Japanese Rule, the Japanese had to be expelled and excluded from China.)

America was founded on themes of exclusion. Colonial elites(Founding Fathers) rebelled against the 'tyranny' by King George and the Brits(even though historians say it wasn't all that bad). Also, white folks worried about Indian raids and red folks scalping white folks and leaving them bald. So, in order for America to be created, the colonials had to declare independence and EXCLUDE British power from the Americas. And in order for white folks to be safe and secure(in order to be free as civilized folks), they had to exclude the 'red savages' and dangerous animals(bears, cougars, wolves, and etc) from their domain.

The very idea of INDEPENDENCE implies exclusion. After all, to be independent means to be free FROM something.

When the Pilgrims came to America, they chose exile in order to exclude British religious tyranny(or what they saw as such) from their lives. When Robert Duvall flees in THX 1138, he is trying to exclude the tyranny of the System from his life. He wants to be free. He wants to be free FROM something. It's like the movie THE GREAT ESCAPE. The prisoners are trying to be free FROM of the German Prison Camp System. They want to exclude the power of German Guards from their lives.

Of course, themes of exclusion and inclusion are often inter-connected, as in the Moses story. Jews seek to exclude Egyptian tyranny from their lives. But in seeking a homeland of their own, they force other peoples in the region to 'include' Jews who come as intruders and invaders.

Also, there is the troubled relation between man and God. In some ways, man wants to be free of God. God has too many laws and injunctions. So, some Jews wanted to dance and party around the Golden Calf. They wanted to follow Edward G. Robinson than Charlton Heston. But God insists on the Jews including His laws in their lives because He figures Jews freed from God's Laws will succumb to their wild egos and start acting nuts like Sarah Silverman and Anthony Wiener. (To be sure, God sometimes want to exclude human affairs from His existence because humans are pesky, ridiculous, and retarded. But just when He wants to say 'get lost, idiots', humans are praying to Him and beseeching Him for help after they mess up. And God figures He will include their prayers in His plan for humanity...)

In a way, one might argue that the theme of INCLUSION in current American politics allows freedom for all of humanity. US is the Promised Land to which all peoples of the world should escape to. All the world is like one giant Egypt, and every people who want to flee are like Jews. Just as Jews sought freedom by excluding Egyptian tyranny from their lives by seeking mass-exile, all these immigrants are trying to exclude from their own lives the tyranny of their own kind by coming to America. So, Chinese wanna flee from China, Indians wanna flee from India, Africans wanna flee from Africa, Mexicans wanna flee from Mexico. Their own people are their worst enemies, and they want to exclude their own race and culture from their own lives and come to America and be included as 'Americans' by presumably superior white folks who run a better political, economic, and social system.

But this is where the analogy with Hebrews break down. Hebrews were not escaping from their own people. They ran from Egyptians. In contrast, Immigrationism says that people should 'escape' from their own race, culture, and land. They should become McCitizens of America.
Yet, there is another contradiction, that of multi-culturalism. Even though all these immigrants say NO to their own race & culture and reject their own homelands in order to join the White World, the white/Jewish 'progressives' who control Western media/academia insist on immigrant-folks maintaining their non-Western 'identities'(as redefined by multi-culti politics). (Better to exploit tensions in the service of 'progressive' politics because non-whites who get along with whites might become 'Republicans'.) So, we have the strange phenomenon of non-white immigrants(and esp their children) rejecting and forgetting their own race, culture, and language(and becoming just generically American in Hollywood and MTV sense) but also taking on 'identity politics' of hostility toward whites. However, this non-white 'identity' is a political construct than something genuine or organic. It is imposed on non-whites by PC politics that didn't originate in their homelands. (For example, no non-Western culture has been traditionally homomaniacal, but multi-cultism would have non-white kids in America believe that worship of homosexuality is part of multi-culturalism. It even fuses Islamic identity with homo decadence.) Non-white 'identity' according to multi-cultism is less about the intrinsic assets of a race, culture, or language than about the politics of hostility toward whites. Indian-Indian identity isn't the same as Indian-American 'identity'(as constructed by PC). Asian-Indians in India are Indian regardless of events and developments in the rest of the world. Even if the entire white world were to vanish overnight, Indians in India would organically and historically be Indian. But 'Indian-American' has no such autonomous or independent meaning. It is premised on PC-ordained Indian-American hostility towards whites as the holders of 'white privilege'(according to venomous PC). Multi-culti identity is about the exploitation of identity politics to corral non-whites against whites. This kind of identity can only exist in opposition to something. It lacks autonomy.
A Japanese in Japan is organically Japanese even if the rest of the world were to vanish. Indeed, Japan was Japanese for many centuries in isolation. But Japanese-American 'identity', as constructed by PC multi-cultism, cannot exist except in the context of hostility against whites.
This is why we have PC-ized Asian-Americans identifying with blacks against whites. These clowns might have had an autonomous identity back in their homeland. But in the US, where they've lost their racial, cultural, and linguistic identities, they rely on multi-culti 'identity' of hating 'white privilege' with the implication that Asians have more in common with Africans than with whites(with whom Asians are closer genetically, in terms of civilizational achievement, and as victims of black violence). It also means Middle Easterners(who are Caucasian if not white and whose histories are more closely tied to the West) have more in common with Mongolian-Americans and Peruvian-Indian-Americans. As white Hispanics count as 'people of color', it also means someone like Marco Rubio can claim to have more in common with a Nigerian-American than with European-Americans. It just gets surreal. And the politics of victimhood identity means that white homos and white women can claim to have more in common with blacks, browns, and yellows than with straight white men. It just gets more and more surreal.