Jewishness is the New Faith in the US, meaning Jews Always Win regardless of Political Outcomes — Jews as the 'New Whites' — White Conservatism Cannot Win Worshiping the Gods controlled by Jews and rigged to elevate Jews to Godhood while casting Whiteness down into Hell as Demonism

Jews control the gods, and that means they decide what is holy and unholy, what is sacred and what is taboo.

Now, if only one half the nation accepts those gods and demons, the other half would at least be free to worship its own gods. But what if ALL of the nation worships those same gods. Then, both or all political parties must honor those gods and hound those demons. As Jews control the gods of the entire nation, Jews are advantaged while whites are damned. Why? Jews who control the gods via media, academia, and organs of the state made Jewishness holy and whiteness unholy. So, whereas BOTH parties must kneel before Jewish holiness, neither party can stick up for whiteness. Indeed, the Democratic Party denounces and defames whiteness(to the point where the slightest whiff of white identity or interest counts as 'white supremacy'), and the best the GOP can do is to be timid and silent. Indeed, the anti-white Democratic Party has the gods on its side because whiteness is now the Devil. Surely, the side that denounces the Devil has the moral advantage against the side that is either silent or tepid in its anti-Devil rhetoric. Because whiteness is the Devil, neither side can speak up in its favor. One can denounce it like the Democrats or remain mum on the matter, like the GOP(though there are plenty of anti-whites in the GOP as well). GOP is NEVER explicitly pro-white. The great majority of White Conservatives vote for the GOP as the un-anti-white or less anti-white party than the pro-white party.

Now, if Democrats favored the gods of the Jews whereas the GOP favored the gods of proud whites, we can have a clash-of-the-titans scenario. "Their gods vs our gods." But when both sides worship the same gods and reject the same demons, the side that is more passionate in its worship and denunciation has the moral ground. Democrats are seen as morally superior and spiritually holier because they have the blessing of the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, & Negroes and make more sanctimonious noises in their honor.
In a world where Jews control the gods, those three groups are the ultimate icons of sanctity. And as white 'conservatives' have drunken the same Kool Aid with their 'muh Israel' & 'holy holocaust' invocations, MLK worship, and even acceptance of globo-homo, they are at a severe moral disadvantage. After all, no matter how much the GOP claims to be for Jews, blacks, and homos, the fact remains most Jews, blacks, and homos are with the Democratic Party. As Jews, blacks, and homos are holy and better than the rest, the Democratic Party must be superior as most Jews, blacks, and homos choose to be Democrats. If God blesses one thing over another, the former must be better as who are we to question God? Similarly, if Jews, blacks, and homos are indeed holier, their blessings upon the Democratic Party must mean it is the better party of angels. This is the fatal weakness of White American Conservatism. It values the Holy Other over its Selfness. Whiteness is like a planet revolving around the Jewish sun as the source of moral radiance. As if incapable of generating its own light, it relies on the Other, the Holy Jew, for the light. But then, what is the control of electronic media but control of the modern sun? Jews control the media. Those who can't or aren't allowed to create their own light/sun have no recourse but to rely on the light/sun of the Other, and the Jewish Light is coded with the message, "Worship and Obey Jews", as if without Jewish 'wisdom' and 'truth', there can only be darkness and ignorance among your kind. Indeed, the reason why Jews push Censchwarzhip in the Age of the Internet is there finally is a means by which goyim can independently create and share their own light. Jews want a world where they not only own the main bonfire but the means to make fire. After all, if everyone can make fire on their own, they won't have to rely on the main bonfire and could make their own fires to rival the bonfire. No wonder Jews ordered Amazon to shut down Parler and other free speech sites. It's like the British Imperialists once monopolized the salt trade in India. Making and selling of salt independent of British Control might as well have been called 'hate salt'. But then, today the dirty lowlife Hindus work with Jews to colonize and control the West.

At any rate, while the GOP denounces overt displays of white supremacism like KKK and Nazis, it doesn't go whole hog on denouncing whiteness itself. In contrast, the Democratic Party does. So, in the current 'spiritual configuration', the Democrats totally denounce the White Devil whereas the GOP does only half-heartedly. As if to compensate for this moral deficit(of not fully condemning the Devil), white 'conservatives' make noises about how 'Democrats are the real racists' or how GOP is even more pro-Israel or how 'conservatives' care more about defending homos from Muslims. So, white 'conservatives' can never be for whites or whiteness. At most, they don't denounce the White Devil as vociferously as the other side, but this opens them to accusations of being uncommitted to fighting 'racism' and 'white supremacism'.

Jews have it so good because they control the gods, and that means both parties worship Jews, Zionism, Israel, Holy Holocaust, and Jewish Whatever. Jews know best, and that's that. So, even though Jews favor the Democratic Party, they know they will be revered, obeyed, and praised regardless of which side wins elections. If both parties and all factions in the US are united on ONE THING, it is total obeisance toward Jews.
It's like whether Catholics or Protestants win, God wins because despite their sectarian differences, both churches worship the same God and Jesus. So, God and Jesus can never lose among the Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. The various churches may bicker among themselves over interpretations and institutions, but they are all for God. Also, the Devil is always the loser regardless of which church dominates society. Whether a particular society is ruled by Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox folks, the Devil is always bad.
As Jews control the gods in the US, Jews are worshiped by both sides. Democrats and Biden praise Jews and Israel. Trump, McConnell, and the GOP praise Jews and Israel. Even Jewish crooks are allowed to run free and remain above the laws. Jews are to US political parties what God is among the three main Christian Churches: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. Just like God always wins among the three churches, Jews always win regardless between the two parties. Jews are worshiped by all.
In contrast, whites and whiteness in American Politics are like the Devil in the Christian Churches. Regardless of which church controls society, the Devil is denounced, and regardless of which party wins office, whiteness is either bad(the Dems) or not good(the Repubs). Democrats now denounce whiteness with murderous glee, and the most the GOP can offer as counterpoint is, "We whites are okay because we go out on a limb to worship Jews, blacks, and even homos."

Things were so different in the past. Back then, US was a Eurocentric nation and proud of it. Whiteness was at the center of American Politics and Culture. So was Christianity. Neither political party could win by denouncing whites or whiteness. So, whatever differences there existed among the political parties, they all pandered to white identity and white interests because whiteness was, if not holy, a matter of pride, glory, and dignity. Even Jews and blacks sought to be a part of the White Order as a 'credit to their race' in the eyes of the great White Power. And neither Democrats nor Republicans had any notion of promoting anti-whiteness. And while there was white sympathy for other groups, such as American Indians, blacks, Jews, or poor immigrants, they were not objects of worship but of pity.

US used to be a nation where the glory of and respect for whiteness was a given. Just about everyone in the Democratic Party and Republican Party was pro-white and pandered to whites. FDR and Harry Truman relied on countless white voters who would now be called 'racist'. Also, the theme of Past Liberalism was "whites are good but can be better" and therefore must allow reforms for a more perfect union. It wasn't about 'whites are evil' or 'whiteness is demonic', the dogma of the current 'progressivism'.
As for American Conservatives, they won't as yet join in the 'whites are the devil' chorus but they won't say anything good or proud about the white race, white culture, or white history. At best, they are into 'boomer antics' of appealing to either colorblindness(which no one cares about anymore) or sappily trying to prove that 'conservatives' are not 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic'. Always defensive and apologetic than assertive and judgmental like the other side.

In more ways than one, Jews have become the New Whites. In the past, both political parties pandered to whiteness as the essence of Americanism. It was understood that Europeans settled and built America. Whites were proud that America was built with ideas, values, and skills brought over from Europe. So, whatever the ideological differences, whites didn't have to worry about the threat to whiteness regardless of which party won. Some whites may disagree with Republican policies and other whites may disagree with Democratic policies, but those were mostly over economic matters. GOP was better for more affluent whites whereas the Democratic Party was better for working class whites, but the important thing was both parties were pro-white. So, whatever the political or economic outcomes of elections, there was hardly any negative racial consequence for whiteness. Indeed, FDR running an anti-white campaign would have been inconceivable. If anything, even Liberals back then ran a very pro-white campaign against the 'Japs'. And the moral theme against Nazi Germany wasn't about White Evil but about good freedom-loving whites of US and UK against the tyranny-embracing Teutons under Hitler. In our time, however, the Democratic Party and even the GOP are loathe to speak of any goodness associated with whites or whiteness. Whites can only be good by washing themselves of the sin of 'whiteness'. This is what they teach in Whiteness Studies, which is nothing but Dogma on Deviltry.

What whites enjoyed in the past, Jews now enjoy. It is unimaginable for anyone in either political party being critical of Jews, Jewish privilege, Zionism, Israel, or Jewish Supremacism. Jewishness is a Given in the current idolatry. Just like Rudolf Hess once said "Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler", the current US order is about "Jews are America, America is Jews." Whatever differences may exist between the GOP and Democratic Party, they are 100% united on one thing: "We Cuck to Jews who are now bigger than god and jesus." Even with Jews doing everything to destroy Donald Trump and smear American Conservatism, the only thing we hear from GOP is 'Muh Israel', 'Destroy Iran for Jews', and 'Todd Bless Sheldon Adelson'.

If Whiteness was once a Given in Old America where no politician could gain office by bashing whites or whiteness, Jewishness is the Given in New America where no politician or pundit dares to call out on Jewish Power or denounce Jews when they do wrong. Indeed, it's gotten to the point where noticing that a Jew is doing bad is worse than a Jew doing bad. So, if a Jew sticks your behind with a knife, his violence is less problematic than you noticing 'A Jew stabbed me in the ass'. Jews were behind the Jew D'Etat over the bogus Ukraine Scandal, but that hardly mattered and the main worry was anyone noticing, "Hey, it's a cabal of Jews up to no good."

Goyim in the Democratic Party suck up to their Jews, and goyim in the GOP suck up to their Jews. And of course, the Jews of the Democratic Party and Jews of the GOP meet behind closed doors and work together on the basis of "Is it great for Jews?"

The more things change, the more they remain the same. True, whites are no longer on top, but Jews are now the New Whites. But actually things are worse. After all, even though whiteness itself wasn't attacked by politicians and leaders in the past, there were calls for reform against evils done by whites. At the very least, it was understood that whites could be good or they could be bad. Even though whiteness was a matter of pride and dignity, it wasn't a license to do whatever. This allowed for reforms within the white community. The idea was whiteness is a matter of pride, and therefore, whites must be mindful to live up to their dignity. So, even though whiteness was favored over non-whiteness, whites were hardly blameless or immune to criticism. Whiteness was proud but wasn't sacred.

In contrast, Jewishness is more than a matter of pride. It is regarded as downright sacred and holy, therefore, immune from scrutiny and criticism. Per chance some Jew commits a great evil and goes to jail, he gets special treatment and is likely to be pardoned sooner than later because Jews all look out for one another as fellow tribesmen. Jews believe that even a bad Jew's liberty is more precious than the lives of countless goyim.
Not only are Jews served by both parties but no one dares to criticize anything about Jewishness. Even so-called 'radicals' in the Democratic Party support anti-BDS legislation and travel to Israel and stand before the Wailing Wall like cucked dogs.

Even when whites had it all in the US, there was the reminder among whites, "We are good but can be better and must strive toward creating a more perfect union", and this entailed necessary criticism of certain abuses of white power and privileges and also the obligations of Wasp power and privilege. But there is no moral pressure on Jews toward betterment because they and their goy servants regard Jewishness as holy and godlike.
A proud people of dignity are still human and have room for improvement, and that's how whites felt about themselves in the past. But why would a people into self-worship ever bother with self-criticism or self-improvement? They are holy, they are godlike, and that means goyim are mere cattle who exist mainly to serve Jews. And why would goyim dare to make criticism when Jews deserve not only respect but worship? After all, you don't criticize the gods. Either out of mindless obeisance or abject fear(or both), no one dares to name the Jew, and that means American Democracy has become dysfunctional. For all the talk of 'liberal democracy' and electoral processes, the modus operandi of American Political Psychology is hardly different from Stalinism, with Jewish Power now revered, worshiped, and obeyed like Stalin in the bad old days of the Soviet Union.

Political psychology matters as much as political processes. Imagine if North Korea became a democracy(as process) with free elections BUT the Political Psychology of the Kim Cult remained. It would technically be a democracy but still operate like a 'theocracy' because most people would have an irrational attachment to idolizing and serving the Kim Clan. Political Freedom is useless in tandem with Psychological Bondage, which is the case of the US. Despite all the talk of freedoms, liberties, and rights, the depressing truth is so many people, high-middle-low, are psychologically chained to the gods controlled by Jews. Appeasing Jews and their allies is the highest good in the emotional realm of so many Americans. It could be some no-name Karen whose entire life revolves around 'Muh Israel', BLM, and LGBT nuttery. Or it could be some cuckservative in the GOP so eager to win doggy biscuits from Jewish Power by praising Israel or embracing Lady Gaga. Or, it could be some Deep State goon who thinks he's on the side of angels because he serves the globo-homo neo-imperialism. (For shallow fools, celebration of sodomy is next to godliness. What do you expect in a society where Pop Culture is The Culture for most people, from elites to the masses?) Or, it could be Trump who can't stop blabbering about how he loves to take it up the arse from Netanyahu and did wonders for black employment rates. Never mind whites.

Commentary on "The Allure of Protective Stupidity"(by Steve Sailer)

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-allure-of-protective-stupidity/

Not sure Stalinism offers the best understanding of what is going on.

Communism had to be simple because it was about the pride of work, dignity of labor, simple virtues of proles. Back then, the bourgeoisie had all the privilege. Workers were barely literate or semi-literate. More literate in places like Germany but still less educated than the bourgeoisie with fancy taste and refinement. In the story of the princess and the pea, the girl notices the pea because she is really of royal background. If she were a true prole, she would have been content with a hard wooden bed with a bunch of peas. Just any place to sleep.

Especially because communism came to power in backward Russia(and later even more backward China), the themes had to be simplified even further. In USSR, communism was less about the workers inheriting wealth and property from the bourgeoisie(that had been hoarding it all) than about turning peasants into proles to build a modern economy. According to classic Marxism, the contradictions within capitalism would lead to revolution. But because capitalism would have already built a modern and wealthy economy, revolution would be about taking the loot of the rich and sharing them equally among the workers. Also, the workers would have collective ownership of factories, land, and resources. And with more leisure and less work, workers could lead moderate ‘bourgeois’-like lifestyles. They would work about 4 hrs and devote other time of the day to art, culture, ideas, and etc. The bourgeoisie would lose out as a class, but bourgeois-ness would remain as lifestyle. In habit, culture, and attitude, Marx was even more bourgeois than Adolf Hitler who was half-bourgeois and half-bohemian. He didn’t so much want to destroy everything bourgeois as elevate workers to a point where they too could partake of the good stuff enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.

No such luck for Russia and later China. When the Revolution happened, the majority were still dirt-poor peasants. Because there wasn’t much wealth to take from capitalists, a whole new economy had to be built. That meant the workers had to be driven to work even harder. They had to be tough. There was no time for nonsense. It was work, work, and build, build. So, naturally, the ideology had to be simplified for the masses. Trotsky scoffed at Stalin’s ‘second-rate’ intellect. Lenin and Trotsky were hyper-intellectuals. Marxist ‘Greeks'(as Nassim Taleb might describe them). Stalin was a Marxist ‘Roman’. He was about getting things done, and the fact was communism would have to build a modern economy from ground up as there wasn’t one to take and inherit from the bourgeoisie(that was much smaller in Russia). And then, later Mao made Marxism even simpler because China was even more backward than Russia. In the Soviet Union(at least until the 60s when there were some burgeoning signs of a consumer economy), the main theme was about the basic needs of survival. It wasn’t about choosing which pastry and wine but having enough bread and water.
US was much better off than the USSR, but then, universal prosperity didn’t arrive until about after two decades after WWII. At the turn of 20th century, majority of Americans were still on the farm. Great Depression and WWII led to hardships and shortages. After WWII, 50% didn’t have indoor plumbing. So, even though there was certainly more choice than in the USSR, most people had to do with basic stuff.

But from end of WWII to the present, US and Western Europe have continued without a great depression. There were some recessions(some serious) along the way, but life got easier for more people. With everyone taking substance for granted in a world where even poor people grow fat, style took precedence. And this goes for ideology as well. When a lot of people were hungry, the ideology was about bread. And when wars destroyed so many lives of common folk, the ideology was about peace. But there’s no shortage of bread. And recent wars have killed just a fraction of lives lost in WWI and WWII. And there’s no draft. So, ideology has turned into a game of personal choice. It’s like shopping for various kinds of cheese, wine, candy, chocolate, and etc.

Oddly enough, consumerist mentality went better with leftist ideology. This seems counter-intuitive because capitalism was on the ‘right’ and socialism was on the ‘left’ during the Cold War. But if leftists are more likely to complain, nitpick, bitch, and fuss about social problems, it means their mentality is more like that of the finicky consumer with ‘customer is king’ mentality. Jews are known for haggling and negotiating things down to the last penny. Homos are known for being fussy and bitchy about everything. They are less likely to be content with any product. So, the consumer who is never content with any product and the progressive who is never content with society share the same kind of mentality. In a society where consumerism is king, leftism was bound to take on features of consumerism.
So, today’s ‘progressivism’ is different from yesterday’s when the theme was Bread for Every Man. Same bread for every man? How boring. Just like consumers want lots of choice among various breads, cookies, and pastries, the new ‘progressivism’ is like 31 flavors of Ice Cream. Even within homo ideology, there is ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bi’, ‘trans’, ‘queer’, and many more. And people can mix and match their grievance products. So, a New Muslim can intersect his identity with ‘gay’ identity, feminism(which also comes in many flavors such as slut pride, vagina mania, corporate feminism, etc), and immigrant-identity(legal, illegal, undocumented, New American, New Jews, etc). Just like there are many kinds of Comfort Food, there are now many kinds of Grievance Products.

And capitalists appreciate this PC branding. As rich folks and big corporations are always worried about being called out for being greedy and profit-obsessed, how convenient for them to market grievance-approved products… like Gillette that is against ‘sexual harassment'(all by white men) and Nike that features Kaepernick. That way, they can rake in the dough while posing as ‘caring’. And the fussy consumer mentality and griping ‘progressive’ mentality fuse into one. Some snotty consumer who wants to buy the very best is also glad to know that the product is buying is also ‘woke’. It flatters both his status and standing. In a way, corporations appreciate micro-complaining and micro-bitching. Such gives them more of a rationale to crank out new and improved products. Sometimes, the new stuff is indeed better. Other times, like so many variations of smart-phones, it’s mostly hype to rake in more bucks.

Your average conservative is more likely to be ‘socialist’ in his tastes and outlook. He is more likely to focus on basic needs and basic values. Less likely to be fussy wussy about the very best. Less likely to complain that not everything is as he wants it. But people who are content with basic bread and stuff make less demanding consumers who want more and better. Can anyone imagine John Wayne character complaining that his coffee ain’t the fancy kind? In contrast, homos are always bitching about everything, and they can be a real pain in the ass. But you have to give credit where it’s due, and so much of improvement in consumer goods was driven by people who always found faults in something. Germans were hardy but also extremely thorough, which made them obsessed about creating the ever-more-perfect machine or system. It’s no wonder they built a greater economy than Russia with all its resources. Culture of Complaint can do some good… in the right measure.

In Response to Fred Reed’s Observations about the Military and Conservatism - Of Jews and Dogs

The Military instinct: The Human Race as Feral Dogs

https://fredoneverything.org/the-military-instinct-the-human-race-as-feral-dogs/

Fred Reed: Recently the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to offer a prospect of extended peace. There seemed nothing left to fight about, at least on any scale. Yet the United States quickly launched a half dozen wars of no necessity and threatened others. Why?

WHY? Well, which group in the US has (1) elite control over institutions and (2) special animus against Russia, Iran, and any nation that happens to be disliked by Judea and/or Israel?

Mexican-Americans? Black-Americans? Hindu-Americans? Greek-Americans? Eskimos?

The answer is simpler. It’s World Jewry or Jewish Globalist power. If Jewish Power had never gained supremacy in America, the US military would not have invaded Iraq, would not be foaming at the mouth at Iran, wouldn’t have engineered a coup in Ukraine, and would not have triggered a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, a nation with an economy on par with Italy!

True, there is a male-warrior instinct, but if US military ventures are primarily motivated by Male Aggression Principle, why isn’t US calling for war with Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe? Or with Israel? After all, the UN has a long list of human rights violations committed by Israel.
The real issue revolves around the question of "Who gets to choose the targets(as outlets for male warrior aggression)?" ‘Male’ or ‘conservative’ aggression is satisfied with hunting and destroying ANY enemy, therefore real power rests in those who get to choose the target for destruction. It's like chefs will cook anything: fish, fowl, meat, or vegetables. It all depends on who's holding the menu and making the order. The US military is a kitchen of destruction. It waits for orders from those who are looking at the menu. And it's the Jews who got the menus.

It’s like dogs will happily hunt any animal. The real question concerns who gets to decide what is to be hunted? Should the hunt be for rabbits, foxes, wild boars, deer? Dogs don’t decide. They obey the master. In America, those who get to choose the prey for the predatory military are ethno-tribal in nature. They are Jews.

Fred Reed: Dogs form packs, mark territory, and bark furiously at strange dogs. So, it seems, do people. An empire is just the result of these canine instincts.

But dogs lack agency. They look to their master for orders and approval. So, even though dogs naturally love to fight, hunt game, or just growl at other animals, they rely on the master to decide what should be hated, hunted, fought, or growled at, as well as what to be gentle with, showered with affection, protected, and/or loved. A dog can love or hate another animal or particular person... depending on the wishes of the master.

If dogs are ordered to attack, they will. If they’re ordered to show affection, they will. If you rouse a dog to attack and kill a cat, it will gladly. But if you admonish the dog to befriend the cat and treat it nicely, it will do just that.

Yes, the US military is like a dog, and it lacks agency. It follows orders. And its masters are in organizations like AIPAC. John McCain the militarist only hates nations and peoples hated by Jews. John McCain is McCanine. If Judea told him to be nice to Putin and treat Russia as a friendly nation, he will change his tune overnight. People like McCain not only crave an enemy to hate but a master to serve. As World Jewry are the current master of the West, dogs like McCain do their bidding.

Or consider the Wehrmacht. Sure, there were German generals and soldiers who relished a good battle and the blood-and-guts ‘heroism’ associated with war. But their animus or amity depended on the Fuhrer. When Adolf Hitler told them that USSR is an ally, they were happy to shake hands with Soviet troops. When Hitler ordered them to attack Russia, they did so at the drop of a hat and killed millions.

Fred Reed: Conservatives tend to be tribal, intensely loyal to their group–race, country, ethnicity, religious faith–which in national terms becomes patriotism. They lack empathy.

Actually, conservatives have more sympathy for people within the group, community, or tribe. Liberals feel less kinship sympathy for their own kind. Also, ‘empathy’ isn’t necessarily sympathy. It means the ability to read other people’s thoughts and feelings. The reason why some conservatives lack sympathy for certain other groups is precisely because they are empathetic in reading their minds. For instance, a keen conservative can read the mind of a Negro and see through the BS about ‘social justice’. They look into the Negro male mind and hear, “Where da white women at?” and read the Negro female mind and hear, “My booty be da center of everything.” And keen conservatives are empathetic in reading the minds of Jewish Neocons and their dirty tricks.

Liberals may appear ‘empathetic’ because they claim to be more open-minded about OTHER peoples, but this has less to do with genuine empathetic understanding of others than a naive conceit in their trust or superficial interest in the Other. Most Libby-dibbers who open their hearts and borders to Muslims have NO IDEA what Muslims are really after. Most Libby-dibbers who get all mushy about homos have no idea how the homo mind really works. Homos are vain, narcissistic, self-centered, and bitchy. But libby-dibbers see them as the New Saints who materialized out of ‘rainbows’. True empathy requires the keenness of mind to read the hearts of others. It’s like what Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER PART 2. He tries to see things as others see things.



Now, it’s true that many Conservatives are mere morons into ‘Muh country, muh God and muh guns, and etc’. But then, so many libby-dibs are into ‘Muh self-righteous vanity, muh Diversity and muh Inclusion, and etc’. They are enthralled with silly slogans and pat chants.

Fred Reed: Soldiers invariably fit the conservative pattern, prizing loyalty to their units and to their country, seeing threats everywhere, and becoming alarmed easily.

True, but the imperialist mindset can be construed as libby-dib. Most conzo-wonzos are content with what they got, what they are familiar with. It’s the libby-dibs who want more and get tired with what they already have. This leads to an imperialist mindset. (The ultra-conservative systems of Byzantine and East Asia were not interested in conquering or converting the entire world.) Also, libby-dibs believe they are intellectually and culturally superior, and such attitude leads them to believe that they have the moral right to remake the entire world in their image and ideal.

So, the US empire is a fusion of doglike conzo-wonzo soldiers and birdlike libby-dibby imperialists. After all, isn’t it odd that the US is now an empire that sends its soldiers to invade and transform other nations to… raise the Homo Flag?

So, aggression principle has both a conzo-wonzo aspect and a libby-dibby aspect.

Conzo warrior mentality is more defensive and preservative. Pre-Modern East Asia was very conservative, and its military was all about defending the realm from foreigners. This changed only in the 19th century as the the libby-dib West forced Asia to open up to world trade... or get blown to smithereens. (The two times Japan went into imperialist mode owed to Western influence. Hideoyoshi got guns and backing from the West. And modern Japan modeled itself on European and American empires.) Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA is about the wisdom of cautionary conservatism in war. Be like a mountain and preserve the domain. Don’t risk losing the domain with vain ambition. But the reckless son wants to win it all and gambles everything, even losing the domain. (Ironically, the ‘far-rightist’ Hitler was more of a libby-dib warrior in ambition, and ‘far-leftist’ Stalin was more of a conzo-wonzo warrior in caution.)



Libby holy crusader mentality is more offensive and transformative. The West became the most progressive part of the world and waged offensives to conquer and transform all the world with Christianity, free trade, ‘human rights’, and etc.

Same goes for religion. The conzo spiritual mindset is more orthodox, more about preserving tradition and dogma. The libby spiritual mindset is more about spreading the gospel or the Truth to all of mankind, even if it means killing countless heathens and infidels. Communism was a secular version of the libby missionary mindset.

Now, there is good and bad side to both conzo mentality and libby mentality.

Conzos are less aggressive outwardly and therefore less likely to conquer other peoples. But this ultra-defensive posture can lead to isolationism, stagnation, and fear of new ideas that might bring forth progress. This is why the Ottoman Empire and East Asia fell behind the more dynamic and liberal West.

As for Libbies, they are more aggressive, adventurous, and ambitious. So, unlike the conzo Hindusphere and East Asia, the more libby Western Europe discovered the world and created new trade routes and made advances in every field. But it also meant conquest, imperialism, slave trade on massive scale, genocide, and etc. And today, the cult of Tolerance among Western libbies is leading to mass invasion by the Third World that could very well mean the end of Western Civilization.

Ideal is a kind of balance of conzo and libby tendencies. But in the US, both the conzo and libby tendencies of gentiles are harnessed to serve the ethno-ambition of Jewish globalists who manipulate and command gung-ho US conservative soldiers to invade and destroy nations(hated by Israel) and also to ensure the spread of Homomania and Hollywood values. Instead of a meaningful balance of conzo-ness and libby-ness, both are perverted to serve ethno-supremacist ambitions and homo-negro degeneracy.

Now, the US could play a responsible role as the policeman of the world. After all, there’s always the chance of dogs around the world getting out of control and barking and attacking one another. If a responsible person were to wield the stick and command the field, the dogs would know who’s boss and learn to behave. US could play this role if it were ruled by sane and sensible leaders.

But instead, the US is like a demented master that trains and encourages some dogs to attack other dogs. Indeed, American Power is now like Jews-as-masters abusing and exploiting goy Americans as bulldogs. US has become the master of New World Disaster. It used Jihadis to tear Libya and Syria apart. It encourages Saudis to raise tension levels with Iran. It used neo-nazi elements in Ukraine. It provokes North Korea with military drills with servile South Korea, a yellow dog that takes orders from American dogs who take orders from the Jewish Master.
Even US allies come under US bullying. So, even if a nice nation like Hungary wants to be friendly with the US, Russia, and Iran, the big US bully steps forth and says YOU CAN’T TRADE WITH THEM BECAUSE WE SAY NO(AND WE SAY NO BECAUSE JEWS SAY NO); IF YOU DISOBEY, WE WILL DESTROY YOU THROUGH SANCTIONS AND INTERFERENCE VIA CIA.
It’s how the current world is.

Who's Responsible for the Real War Against Women?

In the 2012 election cycle, the Democrats picked on the theme of 'War Against Women' against American conservatives. Why? Because American conservatives oppose the idea of free birth control  for American women, especially affluent ones who could easily afford it themselves.
The poster-slut for the 'War Against Women' hysteria was Sandra Fluke, a chubby privileged Georgetown university student who expects others to pay for her birth control pills. So, according to New Feminism, there has to be War against economic and moral sense in order for America to be a safe place for women! Unless Fluke gets her free sex soma, a war is being waged on her ilk by evil American conservatives.

More serious is the issue of abortion. Though most conservatives are not hardline anti-abortionists, there are people like Todd Akin who want to ban abortion in all cases and say utterly stupid things about rape. I suppose such idiots do wage a kind of war against women's interests, especially since I'm one of the biggest advocates for abortion for the sake of eugenics. Spending $500 to abort the low-IQ child of a poor dumb woman is better than spending $500,000 to raise a kid who will likely turn out to be no good and useless, even criminal.

Of course, there are sound moral reasons for being made against abortion. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion. No matter how one looks at it, it is a taking of human life or near-human life. But I don't subscribe to the notion that all lives are sacred or equally valuable, and evidently neither do liberals, especially considering that black women perform the disproportionate number of abortions. Despite all the liberal talk of the evils of 'racism', liberals are only too happy to oblige dumb black women to abort their kids. Feminists defend abortion as a woman's right, but in fact, most educated and privileged women tend to be responsible and intelligent enough NOT to end up with unwanted pregnancies. Those who are burdened with such problems tend to be low IQ black and 'white trash' women, and feminists are only too eager to facilitate the killing of their children. If dumb Democratic women want to kill their own kids, I say let them.

Of course, many conservatives are sincerely moral in their opposition to abortion, and their view that unborn lives are the sacred blessings of God isn't evil nor meant to be a 'war on women'.  There are, to be sure, some men who want to ban abortion and restrict women's access to birth control because such choices facilitate greater sexual freedom among women. Even so, it would be a stretch to call it a 'war against women'.  Liberals, after all, want to restrict our freedom to eat certain kinds of food, but it would be ridiculous to call it a 'war against eaters'. While anti-abortionists and anti-junk-food people can be over-zealous in their desire to control how we live, they don't see it as waging war against sections of humanity. Conservatives think women shouldn't abuse sexual liberties, and liberals don't think we should abuse our eating freedoms. Both are costly to society when people mess up.

That said, there is a Real War Against Women in America, and most of it is not coming from the conservative side. Most of the real war against women--of all races--are committed by black men. Black men rape lots of black women, white women, Hispanic women, and Asian women. Look at statistics, and black men--nearly all of them Democratic--are the main perpetrators of sexual crimes in this country. And Rap Music is saturated in the language of hatred toward women. Women are called 'hos' and demeaned as prostitutes. Black men are also more likely than others to get women(regardless of race) pregnant and run off to have sex with yet more women. MLK himself was notorious for this. His drunken war against women was relentless. He would sometimes get sloshed, beat up women, and then later brag about it. Black men, almost all of them Democrats, are more likely to beat up their spouses or girlfriends. The Knoxville Horror Case involved black men doing horrible things to a white woman.

And in a case in Texas, over 20 black males raped an 11 yr old Hispanic girl, but of course, the Jewish-controlled media tried to minimize the extent of the horror. Indeed, the liberal media have a double-standard when it comes to the coverage of War Against Women. In the case of the Duke Lacrosse Team rape hoax, the media jumped to conclusions and accused white males of raping a black stripper. But in the case below involving a real rape of a white girl by a black thug, the media all but covered up the story. So, there is no doubt that the liberal Jewish media also take part in the Real War Against (mostly)White Women:


And in female to female violence, there is a good amount of War against white women committed by black women. Black women, who are bigger and stronger, will often push around, intimidate, and beat up white women. Of course, most of the victims are 'white trash' than affluent white girls who live in their safe communities and remain blissfully ignorant of all the black-on-white violence.

Hispanic men also tend to be neglectful toward their women. Many Hispanic males get women pregnant and run off, leaving the women and children to be raised by welfare paid for by white tax payers, many of whom are conservative. Conservatives are forced to pay for so much of this Real War against Women, but it's conservatives who get blamed for the 'war on women'.

Jews are also notorious in their War Against Women. Jews run most of the porn industry that degrades white women as into sex meat to be penetrated through every orifice. There is no dignity in porn, no empowerment. It's just Jewish promotion of interracism and miscegenation in order to demoralize and commoditize the white race into sex objects to be packaged and sold. This is why Jews love Marilyn Monroe; she was the symbol of white beauty turned into commodity to be marketed by Jewish men. How did she end up, by the way? Indeed, how do so many porn stars end up? And how do many young white women who enter Jewish-controlled Hollywood end up? They are turned onto drugs, fast & easy life of self-destruction(as with Lindsay Logan), and many of them die young or end up messed up for life.
Also, Hollywood movies and pop music culture promoted by liberals encourage young girls to dress like whores, act like fools with drugs/alcohol/sex, and take wild chances that lead to all sorts of trouble. Worse, by encouraging men to act like apes, liberal popular culture has encouraged a lot of young men to act thuggish, and that can't be good for women.

And despite feminism's claim to be for women's rights and interests, the culture of hostility it stirred up between men and women has been negative for both sides. Men and women prosper and find happiness together, but the bad blood instilled between the sexes by radical feminism has led to much social tension and unease. And liberal popular culture, by encouraging males to never grow up, has robbed women of mature partners in love.

As for Great Society and other big government programs, it has encouraged dependency on government among poor women who raise their children as 'single mothers' without need of husbands; morally and emotionally, it's bad for the women and the children. And the erosion of traditional values and the suppression of the culture of shame has liberated men to act like sex fiends, especially in the black community where too many black males act like punks who go from sack to sack without any shame.

So, we need to ask... who committed the Real War Against Women?