The political dictionary every American needs (badly)

November is coming, so buckle in and prepare to get a clue and raise your political intelligence (PIQ) in three minutes, turning back the clock on decades of intelligence and secret society conditioning!

Firstly know that I don’t care what your beliefs/opinions/emotions are and that for your own good, and ultimately in the interest of national (not to mention family) unity, neither should you. Words have agreed-upon meanings, a fact that becomes all the more important (not less important) when dealing with something contentious. You have to take the introductory course before you can walk on fire. That’s just how this works. But fools rush in where angels dare not tread, and the oligarchy (who loves feeding us false paths to upward mobility) will take all the lazy-minded and turn them all into controlled partisans or incoherent sectarians if we don’t share this information. Here are a few words that will absolutely blow the lid off of your neighbor’s closed, padlocked, debt-ridden and cultish mind!

So if you think as I think, if you feel as I feel, that there’s more to being an adult than grinding, grinding, grinding at that grindstone (all respect to Robert E. Howard) then please read on.

one, two, three

The three (Cold War, West-defined) worlds are:

  1. The First World refers to “The Free World”
    (i.e. the “Western Bloc” led by the USA, UK, NATO, Japan
    and their allies).
  2. The Second World refers to “Global Communism”
    (i.e. the “Eastern Bloc” led by the USSR, Warsaw Pact, China
    and their allies).
  3. The Third World refers to “neutral zones”
    (ex.: the Non-Aligned Movement led by India and Yugoslavia,
    as well as other neutral countries).

So for example the phrase the third world, at any rate in formal or serious contexts, is NOT a synonym for “developing nations”.

The (pre–French Revolution) estates (in essence “statuses”, not to be confused with “palatial estates”, “the sum total of one’s holdings”, or “real estate”) are:

  1. The First Estate refers to “the Clergy”
    (referring to clerics [priests, bishops] not clerks).
  2. The Second Estate refers to “the Nobility”
    (referring to purported purity of blood not high-mindedness of intent).
  3. The Third Estate refers to “the Peasantry and the Bourgeoisie”
    (i.e. townsfolk or merchants).
  4. The Fourth Estate now usually refers to “the Press”
    (i.e. the media not garlic).

See also Caste.

The main section of this post consists in five the five broadest political ideological word pairs:

  1. Nationalism and globalism
  2. Rightism and leftism
  3. Liberalism and conservatism
  4. Republicanism and democracism
  5. Socialism and communism

As you can see, some of these pairs denote opposing schools of polity* while others denote further radicalizations. But two of these pairings represent neither opposites nor intensifications but are both distinct and potentially mutually complementary. Can you guess which ones? (Find out below.)

nation, globe

The nationalist (basically in opposition to the globalist, the integrationist/assimilationist and the communist) is the same thing as what the communist predictably calls the “racist” probably because (much like what the ethnic mafia does underworldly) the nationalist party is concerned with the interests of their own nation, people (in the singular sense), ethnicity, culture, (also clan, tribe, folk, family,) etc. (Otherwise the term nation-state would be needlessly long.)

So for example Donald J. Trump is NOT an American nationalist although (and this is going to make perfect sense given the family ties that do the most for his net worth) Trump is a hardcore Judeo-Israeli nationalist (see Zionism), tries to coerce Jews to move to Israel (and to Palestine), and actually lobbied Israel to elect Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu their prime minister. (Facts, as they say.)

To nationalize means “to bring under the control of a national governing body” whether from private ownership or from lower-level (local) governments. (It is not the same thing as to socialize since users generally still have to pay, nor is it the same as state- or municipally-controlled industries such as household utilities.)

Things that have been nationalized in the USA (in which national appears to be fully synonymous and interchangeable with federal [but not federated]) include: postal roads (1775); military railroad (1862); Merck & Co. and all US railroads (1917, later reprivatized); telephone system (1918, later reprivatized); Tennessee Electric Power Company (1939); railroads (1943, briefly); Amtrak (or the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 1971); Conrail (the Consolidated Rail Corporation, 1976); Resolution Trust Corporation acquire hundreds of savings and loan associations (1976); airport security (TSA, 2001); other possible nationalizations since Wikipedia posits.

What have these “nationalizations” to do with race? Well a percentage of “White men” (albeit probably code for WASPS or Freemasons) is required for statehood, so that’s what.

The globalist (occasionally internationalist, sometimes even transnationalist) is a kind of “the world as nation” thinker. Globalism seems to hold strong appeal among those with no strong geographic nationality or who aren’t given to a settled way of life (hunter-gatherers, herders [including shepherds], nomads, exiles, refugees, asylees, banishees, shunnees, undesirables, or among those with strong international ties (intellectuals, merchants and other international businesspersons such as bankers. But don’t you go saying the J-word now or they’ll ding ya!)

According to Wikipedia, “globalism is to globalization what nationalism is to nationality“. However it doesn’t seem that at any register globalization is used to mean internationality. Rather it seems to mean exactly what you would think: the process of something going global (in the context of greater travel technology and infrastructure since the 19th century, so absolutely analogous to nationalization.

(Never trust Wikipedia!)

right, left

The rightist is the exact same thing as the “hierarchicalist”.
(Not to be confused with anything to do with individual “rights” nor with a “legal system” [note that in many languages their word for “right{-hand}” {or “straight”} means law considered academically]!)

The leftist, logically enough, is the exact same thing as the “egalitarian”.

So for example the right is NOT a synonym for “conservatives”, and
the left is NOT a synonym for “liberals” (but much more on this latter term further on)!

So, contrary to the communist propaganda (“mainstream media”) use of the term, far right (wing) cannot be taken to mean “any rigidly separatistic ethnofascist”, unless that group is for some reason rigidly hierarchical (preferably as a matter of principle and not simply a matter of strategy) and only to that degree and in that sense, nor the radical left a synonym for “a Marxist”, since Marxists have only ever talked about equality but in praxis implement intellectual élitism exactly as Plato’s Republic idealizes and Marx’s Manifesto rantingly plagiarizes and which like a wildfire (and like all ideologies to be fair) just kills a lot of people before (generally not the élite who promoted it) finally burning itself out.

Groups that are rather inveterately centralized and hierarchical (that is to say rigid in their understanding of different roles, discouraging cross-training and informality) as a matter of some supposedly divine principle or historical precedent (as of a hangover from a past empire) might be said to include some within the Roman Catholic Church and frequently your more ceremonial religious organizations, as well as arguably academia or the higher education system. It is worth noting that such groups tend to reward, rather than punish, sexual differences whether these be abstinence (as with your Catholic clergy or Orthodox monks) or non-binary, non-biological and even extemporaneous (“fluid”) approaches (as with an apparently formidable number of schoolteachers today).

(Presumably the terms refer to the right or left of some aisle in some parliament or congress, or again perhaps the wings of some state building, this has never been fully explained, though I probably just stopped searching out of boredom because there’s so much more mind-blowing crazy crap ahead!)

The centrist is neither a rightist nor a leftist.

liberty, tradition

The liberal (probably should be libertist, so we don’t keep confusing it with “prodigal”, also not to be confused with liberated in a sexual sense even though this would appear to be a central tenet, and some might say the only central tenet, of those who call themselves “liberals”) promotes liberty, freedom or rights, and even Wikipedia admits that a person who can coherently be called a liberal is understood as supporting (and not just saying they support):

  • individual rights (including civil rights and human rights),
  • liberal democracy (which would mean they would have to favor the voice and will of the mainstream majority not the causes of fringe minorities whether these be rich or poor),
  • secularism,
  • rule of law,
  • economic and political freedom (whoops, there went socialism and communism!),
  • freedom of speech (and there went political correctness),
  • freedom of the press,
  • freedom of religion,
  • private property and
  • a market economy (i.e. no price controls or restrictions on contract freedom).

So libertarians (who would infringe on only that which is aggression) are to liberals what vegans are to vegetarians, where the second group in each set merely continues on the path that the first group began on and still nominally embraces.

The opposite of the liberal is the fascist. (And just to be clear, the fascist [synonym: conformist] can be and is theocratic or secularistic, conservative or progressive, anti-Semitic or philo-Semitic, really any extremism they put on to scare people into getting on board and falling in line.)

Emblem of the French Republic with fascio (whence fascism).
The French national anthem contains the word fatherland
and the phrase “let impure blood water our furrows”.
Fascio (plural fasci from the Latin fascis, fasces)
is an Italian word meaning “bundle” (UK: “faggot”).
Fasci are symbols of unionism as opposed to confederalism.
Fasci may be inspired by a fable attributed to Aesop.
Its use dates back to the Etruscans.
Often used with an ax, an old Cretan symbol of civilization.
(Now wasn’t that fasci-nating?)
Nazis claimed their salute (oddly akin to Bellamy’s) was also Roman.
Another Italian sociopolitical loanword is hegemony.
The power of a phrase truncated

The conservative (not to be confused with the conservationist, really ought to be conservatist, whose meaning is shockingly obvious by contrast with the true definition of liberal) is the “social traditionalist”.

So while rightism and leftism are, rather nominally, opposites, it turns out that those who are genuinely and practically liberal will perhaps be the most strongly conservative (see list above).

To really drive this point home, think of the verbs to conserve and to liberate. You’ll find that both verbs have a sense of “to use less of” or “to free up” something or somebody. And so by reducing these politicized concepts to regular everyday verbs it suddenly becomes a matter of common sense that obviously they would admit of extensive overlap!

Taking the concepts one step back into the area of society, by leaving the people of a land to exercise their liberty, you are also helping them to conserve their culture: that is to say that you are doing their traditions a favor. We all know this to be the case in matters affecting non-European groups, so the real trick here is applying the same principle to all the inhabitants.

And what we’ve been conditioned to call liberals are nothing of the kind (the only kind of liberty they might believe in is sexual liberty, just because of their Moloch cult); they are merely anti-conservative parasites who are always itching for some change (whence the more honest term progressivist) with no guiding ideology that has ever been articulated in the open. Behind this apparent incoherence they are assuredly none other than the glib minions of the cryptocracy.

The opposite of the conservative is the radical. (The radical can also be the opposite of the moderate.)

republic, democracy

The republicist (originally in opposition to democracists, later somewhat weirdly in opposition to monarchists) is not that red elephant with devil stars (though more of a “red” than many guess) but rather the person who believes in a Platonist (Atlantean?) system (outlined in Plato’s Republic which EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ before Marx and Alinsky) in which there is no such thing as a family unit and in which a governing body of robed, egg-headed judges or “philosopher-kings” has final say.

The word republic (originally RES PVBLICA [res pvblica, transliterated res publica] in the Latin, nominative case) literally means “public thing” or “public matter”, making it an etymological twin to the word pub!

But the Greek (being the language of Plato) is actually ΠΟΛΙΤΕΊΑ (πολιτεία, transliterated politeía) which literally means “city”: see also policy, politics, policing, politico, polity, metropolis (“mother city”), cosmopolitan (“of a universal city”), Constantinopolis, polite (as in urbane).

Now there are:

  • Democratic-Republics (like Switzerland, France, USA) that are, in practice, little more than Freemasonic dynasties and
  • “Socialist Republics” (usually thought of as doomed communist dictatorships that may survive if converted say into ethnofascist ones, like the former USSR, the present [and covertly nationalist] PRC [CCP], NK [despite the name]) that never do anything even approaching what the propaganda claims they do (which ironically the inhabitants of those countries know better than do foreigners and especially Americans who are almost alone in all the world believing their own government’s propaganda) and are implemented exclusively for the destruction of the nations or goyim, and the diplomatic history bears me out on all that this wisecrack implies: the USSR cut ties with Israel when the latter refused to go communist, and Israel cut ties with South Africa when the latter declined to remain apartheid.

All republics tend to genocide a lot of Europeans (allegedly blue-blooded lizard people but nonetheless) as well as often a bunch of old-school Jews. If you benefited form the old system, then you’ve got to go, often ritualistically and perhaps in their twisted minds inspired by Exodus.

The democracist is not that blue donkey but rather the person who promotes an Athenian city-state system in which some class of legally recognized citizens (considered as sub-noble or common) are able to vote for everything and anything, including whom to execute.

A famous example of this which we now call “direct democracy” was when Athens famously voted to murder Socrates, which was how Plato justified the Republic. Aristotle meanwhile was mostly an aristocracist. Just kidding, but Aristotle did endorse pedophilia for population control. No, Aristotle was a great guy, and Socrates’s legacy in general was just all kinds of terrific. The classical philosophers were absolute sweethearts. (Try picturing all of this the next time you see a revered bust.)

Now even a droplet of common sense will tell you that democracy (which is also a key component of liberalism) by its simplest definition and its most obvious process favors the majority and not minorities. Then again, given the original platform of the Democrat Party that actually makes a ton of sense. And it also means that Democrats are not now democratic in any discernible way since they are busy taking on what they themselves proudly admit are “minority” (a nice word for “fringe”) causes, be they rich or poor. (Follow the money. FOLLOW THE MONEY.)

To democratize, intuitively enough, means “to bring something under the control of regular people”.

society, community

Now pay especially close attention because here are two things that get confused a lot which often makes people with much needed common sense sound like complete mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging and incontinent idiots:

The socialist (from the word society whence also social, association) believes in “to each according to his contribution”.

The communist (from the word common whence also commoner, community, commune, qibbutz [kidding]) preaches “to each according to his need” . . . but please let me know if you ever see an example of (((them))) practicing what (((they))) preach.

This is so crucial because communism is frequently misunderstood as internationalist- or globalist-socialism to Nazism’s nationalist-socialism. The Nazis (again short for “nationalist-socialists“, a fun proof by the way that the socialist is no more a leftist than the liberal is a leftist) and the Communists (of the Bolshevik “Russian” USSR or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) both claim to be socialist, the difference lying in one being nationalist (or what communists call racist) and the other being racial integrationist/assimilationist and globalist though this never works and basically died with Trotsky.

It is a fun fact that the USSR, which was the first to state to de jure recognize the Jewish State of Israel (an ethnostatic “Jewish democracy” as very few seem to guess) in 1948, also routinely misinformed people in the West that their family members who were actually living in the USSR had died in the Holocaust, apparently in another propaganda effort to pad the numbers for that coveted Zoharic and occult six million value (“You will return minus six million”) which of course came crashing down around them (along with ostensibly everything else) in the 1980s. Note that Chabad Lubavitch, a cult that was used to rein in the Hasidic movement and advance political Zionism, was founded in Russia in 1775 coinciding of course the fall of the Jesuits who sought refuge in Russia and Sweden and barely predating the rise of the Rothschilds, the Illumined Freemasons, and the Sabbatean Frankists. And you can bet that those few Holocaust survivors who were given a microphone stateside (and I’m not even speaking of those who were either factually debunked or who admitted their lies on their deathbeds) were part of this global control program. And so it is that those who preach material detachment often are or work for the very people who dispose of enough money to completely control our sense of facts and ethics so as to guarantee that we will dance to their tune. But this isn’t some trade secret since it’s a chief tenant of Marxian theory (as well as common sense) that power over others means power over the minds of others. The twist is that so-called communists would indulge in this as much or more than those they decry, thereby “bettering” if you will “the instruction” (see Shakespeare).

Not only is communism formally apocalyptic, rapacious, impracticable, designed only to demoralize, break backs, and therefore unworthy of being considered a serious state model, but we can further reduce socialism and capitalism into one thing: since one means that the state dominates the economy and the other means that the economy dominates the state, the net result therefore is substantially identical with differences lying only in necktie preference. This helps explain why the illusion of capitalism only exists in tandem with the illusion of communism: the two of them are fully codependent, fanaticism-based scorched-earth systems which are strategically propped up to drain the world of practicality and to advance the prominence of the (all generally agree inhuman) lending industry.

To socialize a sector means “to burden the taxpayer with paying for the rendering of that service to all who are deemed eligible”.

Remember this. Nothing is free except tyranny. If you make the personal choice to be a pet or livestock (and generally attacking all who refuse as “uncivilized”), this means that you live at another’s expense, and therefore when you are eventually deemed a liability you will be harvested.

a note on the color red

Red, the color of (as Pádraig Pearse called it) “the blood of serfs”, can communicate “communist”, “republicist” or simply “commoner” (as in “not noble”, as in “red-blooded”).
A red line is used to refer to the fire department (where the blue line refers to the police department).
Conversely, in traditional Christian painting (see iconography) red stands for “divinity” with blue symbolizing humanity.
In Western liturgical rubrics (a word that also means “red”!) red stands for the element fire, the Holy Spirit (Western Shiva?), transformation and enlightenment.
In the West “a Red Mass is a Mass celebrated annually in the Roman Catholic Church for all members of the legal profession, regardless of religious affiliation”, originating in the early second millennium (Wikipedia). (A Blue Mass for public safety employees such as law enforcement, firefighters and ambulance personnel began in 1934 in the USA.)
Obviously the Freemasons, as self-proclaimed heirs to the élite of the Crusades, hoard for themselves the treasures of the East while selling the public on a toxic inversion of that which they know/believe to hold moral or spiritual potency.
(We who are not royals are, in actual fact, divine.)

the stateside of life

This is the part where you’re just glad you don’t speak French or any other Romance (i.e. Latin-based) language wherein state, status (Latin cognate) and estate (see top of post) are all the exact same stupid word! (I really mean that you should be thanking the Force and the Source for this since by the logic of the WWII apologists we all ought to be speaking French since we fought on their side [or rather on the side of some of the French though the 1960s showed quite a different side]!) The trouble with American English however is that we use the word state to refer to what have become subordinate components of the UN member-state that is called the United States of America. To make things even more confusing Massachusetts is called a commonwealth. Commonwealth is a term coined by John Locke who penned the underlying principle of the United States administrative system, in this case at the “state” level. (The biting misfortune that you immediately thought of the British Commonwealth cannot be over, well, stated. I mean if you were this internationally minded in how you use other terms, I wouldn’t have had to write this post!) Basically state means what we Yankees think country (“land”) or nation (“people”) or perhaps even federation (“union” and NOT to be confused with confederation/confederacy) means!

Fun fact: the (Southern) Baptist churches are organized confederally, as are Benedictine monasteries.

Statist is a term sometimes used by anarchists on the rest of us, pointing out that we are advocating a monopoly on coercion (which boils down to “violence with badges” and frankly “terrorism” [not to mention “taxation is theft”]).

The meaning of government (which is the sum total of our politics), also sometimes confused with state (which is the sum total of our polity) mostly among people who have crossed a “national” (really state) border or sea, is more akin to that of administration or régime.

So for example we are not under the United States Government but rather Biden’s government. That is why we do not pledge our allegiance to a government but to a republic, which is a class of state in the international sense of the word. (That is to say, if you like, the sense of the word state that is meant throughout the British Commonwealth rather than the one that equates to commonwealth LOL)

Hey, you ever get the feeling that as an American you’ve been cleverly set up to fail in global matters lest you bring any of your middle-class morality to bear on “diplomacy as usual” in the same way that Mormons are fed on a steady mental diet of a lexicon that renders them incapable of comprehending an actual Christian? If so, you’re right over the target. Shall we press the matter further? Yeah, why the anarchy not?

Illustrations of Freemasonry by William Morgan

It is high time for a Constitutional Amendment stipulating a separation of the state
from the church, the lodge, the mosque, and the synagogue!

How many of these did you know?
Anything to add or correct?
Comment below!

Remember that no matter how many times people declare that you ought to “vote your conscience”, they themselves will always vote for whatever they think will add to their ability to expand, or not to lose, their circle of influence..

In the next blog post: comity, equity and polity! (JK)