Problems of Rush Limbaugh & the Delusions of Dittoheads — The False Dichotomy of 'Right-Wing' Capitalism vs 'Left-Wing' Socialism

Did Rush Limbaugh really make a difference?

Ironically, Limbaugh paved the way for the triumph of the New Liberals who should now be called Uberalls as they stand for Shlomo-Globo hegemony uber alles. Maybe, Limbaugh should be called a 'Limberal' given he unwittingly lent a hand to the Globerals and Uberalls in their total usurpation of power. How was Limbaugh a tool in this?

He was a total cheerleader for US corporations, 'free trade', 'private enterprise', Wall Street, Las Vegas, and money-money-money on the supposition that those are intrinsically 'conservative' forces. His was a pro-rich message though his main appeal was to the rubes. Thus, he helped create the situation of "What's the Matter with Kansas", i.e. so many American social conservatives who were have-lesses supporting policies that favored the have-mores and have-lot-mores in the mistaken belief that Big Money was on the side of Americanism.
Perhaps, Limbaugh's blind spot could be forgiven as his formative years were the Cold War when global conflict according to the US Narrative boiled down to God, Enterprise, & American Patriotism versus Godless Communism & Anti-Americanism. Also, when Rush Limbaugh was young, the face of capitalism was General Motors and good ole boys making things in factories. And the GOP was powerful in California — none other than Ronald Reagan won twice there as governor and dominated in 1980 and 1984 — , and the initial high-tech start-ups had many libertarian-leaning individuals who preferred GOP's pro-entrepreneur policies.

Limbaugh was blind, willfully or otherwise, as to how much things had changed in American Capitalism with the ascendancy of boomers(among whom Jews were especially powerful). And had he inspected matters more carefully, he would have realized that Eastern Bloc communist nations were, in more ways than one, culturally and socially more conservative than the Liberal West(that, under the power of PC, became both less conservative and less liberal, rejecting both traditional values and civil liberties in favor of the Tri-Supremacist Idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos enshrined as the Holy Three). Limbaugh clung to Cold War formulations of the Left vs Right, and his continuing influence after the Cold War turned out to be corrosive. In his twilight, he warmed to Donald Trump, but it was too little too late(and besides Trump turned out to be a clown).

In the 1990s, a boomer civil war broke out between Rush Limbaugh(and Newt Gingrich) and Billy Boy Clinton(and Jews securing their position as the new ruling elites). With the defeat of George H.W. Bush, the so-called Greatest Generation's fall from power(and grace) was swift, and the boomers, biggest generation in US history, took total power(though Clinton did appoint some of the older generation). Bob Dole was useless in 1996, and the death of Richard Nixon marked an end of an era.
According to Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his crowd represented the Radical Sixties, Socialism, and Anti-Americanism. But the real conflict wasn't about capitalism vs socialism but about trying to win over Big Capital. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats had pretty much given up on Big Labor and fixed their gaze on Wall Street, Big Tech, and other Big Money players as the main prizes. It was as if both Limbaugh and Clinton in drag were doing lap dance for Bill Gates and the like. They were both going 'me so horny, we sucky sucky long time'.
In time, Boomer Big Money went with the Democrats, something American Conservatives were reluctant to face until the likes of Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson finally began to gripe about traitorous Chamber of Commerce and 'woke capital'. But even now, so many American Conzos yap about 'socialism', 'communism', and blah blah. Right, the mega-billionaires of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Hollywood, Wall Street, and etc. are all a bunch of 'communists'. And those vain homos and trannies funded by the super-rich represent what? Leninism and Stalinism?
Bill Clinton, a sleazebag but an astute observer of human nature, understood that the rich aren't only materially greedy but morally vain and status-anxious. As long as Democratic policies were overly punitive on the wealthy, many among the rich would reluctantly stick with the stuffy-and-square GOP as the pro-business party. But once the Democratic Party became reasonably pro-business, many(even most) rich folks would come over to the Democrats(even if GOP remained more pro-business) because the Democrats control the gods and own the 'cool'. Especially with Jewish control of academia and media, the gods of the US became the Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and increasingly Holy Homos. As the Democratic Party was the home of most Jews and blacks, it held the moral high ground. And as Jewish Power made homos ever holier, the young generation increasingly went with the Democrats as the happy globo-homo party.

Of course, the GOP had given up 'racism' long ago, but why would blacks accept racial equality from the GOP when they can get racial sanctity from the Democrats? Some Jews, as 'Neocons', did join the GOP because it was even more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party, but it was a matter of inches(and besides, the Neocons were merely using the GOP without offering much in return: "I eat your lunch, and I eat my lunch."). If the Democratic Party was 200% for Israel, the GOP claimed it was 210% for Israel. It hardly made a difference. Also, despite GOP's ultra-hardline support for Israel, many American Conservatives opposed or or were at least less enthused about Jewish-favored policies in the US, such as gun-banning, more mass-immigration, anti-white rhetoric, Christianity-bashing, and promotion of globo-homo. Indeed, GOP's extreme obeisance to Israel and Zionism was really a crutch, a desperate compensation for its disfavor among most Jews. If anything, it betrayed GOP's anxiety as the party of disdain among Jews. In a sane world, those attacked by Jews should attack them back, but as Jews became holy in the US, you had to praise them and seek their approval EVEN when they attacked you. As the GOP couldn't win favor from Jews on domestic issues, it went full-steroids on Israel. GOP gushed as if Jews are the very best, and yet most Jews stuck with the Democrats. If indeed Jews are the best yet most remained with the Democratic Party, didn't it imply that Democrats are morally superior? After all, it seems a happier home for the Very Best.

Anyway, as the party of the three most 'sacralized' groups(of Jews, blacks, and homos), the Democrats had a decisive moral advantage over the GOP, and this state of affairs hasn't changed after four years of Donald Trump whose message was, "I love Negroes, even as they riot and loot! I love Jews even as they ram me in the arse! And, Trannies can use women's room at Trump Tower." Rich people love money but are also anxious about their reputation, and as the Jews/Democrats controlled the gods, most rich folks moseyed on over to the Democratic Party. Besides, it was also the party of big Hollywood stars and rock stars, thus more fashionable and 'cool'. In contrast, GOP was associated with 'racist' redneck Neo-Confederate South & 'homophobes' and Nashville hillbillies. (Its moralism came down to Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza yapping about how the Democrats are the 'real racists' because the KKK members were historically Democratic.) And when the Jew-run media made Trump and 'Deplorables' out to be Worse-than-Hitler and the new nazis, most rich folks(shallow and vain) wanted nothing to do with it. And the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney know only one trick: Try to win back the rich with even more tax cuts and other cucktivities.

Limbaugh of the Cold War mentality thought that the triumph of global capitalism was synonymous with victory for conservatism against Godless Communism and leftover radicalism from the Sixties, but the success of everything he'd championed came to mean the death knell of American Conservatism(and also of American Liberalism as the current power is anything but liberal in the traditional or even radical sense). The great irony is that Limbaugh lost precisely because he won. The Big Money that he so idolized won many times over, and its power led to censorship of conservatives, deplatforming of patriots, denial of financial services to rightists, defamation of people like him, and the rise of global-gangster-fascism(as opposed to good humanist fascism). Limbaugh and the dittoheads assumed that Big Capital was at war with Big Government, and the triumph of the former would ensure more liberty, more freedom, and more patriotism. Actually, the result was the fusion of Deep Pockets and Deep State. Also, Limbaugh and his ilk hoped that Jews could be wooed over to Conservatism because Jews are rich and GOP is 210% pro-Israel(than merely 200% that the Democrats are). They failed to realize that Jews have an agenda all their own. Jews weren't looking to pick sides but take over both parties and manipulate them to Jewish supremacist ends.

In the end(and from the beginning), Limbaugh was more style than substance, and Trump turned out to be no different. For all his maverick playacting, he cared more about money, success, fame, and celebrity than integrity and truth. Though he stood up to the GOP on occasion, he was more often than not a reliable cheerleader and whore for all its destructive policies.

Could Limbaugh have made a difference? Yes, but he missed the chance. Looking back, the most prescient presidential candidate of the last fifty years was Ross Perot whose campaign took on both the GOP and the Democratic Party as the tweedle dee and tweedle dum of globalism and 'free trade'. Though Perot was far from perfect and a rather unstable personality, he was more right than wrong about the dangers posed to American sovereignty by the rise of globalism and the New World Order. Because the GOP was more invested in 'free trade' than the Democrats back then, Perot was hit harder by the Republicans. Limbaugh, a Reagan Romantic of the Cold War mindset, joined with the GOP in mercilessly mocking not only Perot's looks and personality but his warnings and policies. Rush, the attack dog of the GOP, assured all the dittoheads across the fruited plains(soon to become tutti-fruity plains) to denounce Perot and go with George H.W. Bush, 'free trade', and New World Order policies.
Thus, Limbaugh missed the boat. Another chance came with Patrick Buchanan's remarkable speech at the 1992 GOP convention where he spoke for the common man and the American Worker threatened by globalist 'free trade'. Again, Limbaugh reliably sided with the GOP and repeated all the talking points about how Walmart and the like are the wave of the future, and the American Worker had nothing to fear and nothing to lose and had everything to gain. Or, maybe they can learn to code and become big earners in High-Tech.
And of course, 'true conservatives' know that capitalists are all such swell fellows, mostly patriots and natural conservatives(or at the very least libertarians committed to small government and liberty). They would never betray the GOP for all it has done for them with lower taxes, de-regulation, and the like. Limbaugh and dittoheads were fooling themselves.

While capitalists are surely people of talent, drive, ambition, creativity, and even vision, the world of money isn't exactly one of integrity or loyalty. As it's mainly driven by materialism and status-anxiety, loyalty and integrity are the last thing on the mind of capitalists. Capitalism is useful and productive but shouldn't be the core of any meaningful identity, ideology, or value system. Like Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER 2, "all our people are businessmen... their loyalty is based on that..." One may admire businessmen for their ability but never mistake it for integrity.

If Limbaugh had taken a nationalist-populist stance in support of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, perhaps he would have been booted off 'conservative talk radio' that, more often than not, was a propaganda wing of Zionists and the GOP, much like most of so-called MSM is little more than Ministry of Information for the Democratic Party and ADL. Still, he would have been a man of integrity, and had he overcome the obstacles with a populist message, he and his following could have served as a formidable counter-force against globalism pushed not only by the GOP but the Democrats.
But, by working with the GOP to crush people like Perot and Buchanan, Limbaugh unwittingly strengthened the future Democrats who would turn out to be the main beneficiaries of 'free trade', deregulation, Big Tech monopoly, and anarcho-oligarcho-tyrannism. Limbaugh banked on the false hope that triumph of New Capital would ensure dominance of the GOP and American Conservatism. And most dittoheads fell for the myth that the power struggle was about American Capitalism & Conservatism(and Neocons & Israel) versus International Socialism & Liberalism(and all those 'Anti-Semites' eager to throw Israel under the bus) when, in fact, the real tug-of-war between GOP and the Democratic Party was for the 'hearts and minds'(or wallets and vanity) of the rich donor class.

The sad irony is that the rich capitalist oligarchic class won bigger than ever(exactly as Limbaugh and dittoheads wished), and it was this very class(especially dominated by Zio-Globalist Jews) that waged total war on American Nationalism, the white race, Christianity, and populist-conservatism. But American Conzos learned nothing. Again with Obama's win in 2008, there was more nonsensical talk about 'socialism'! True, Obama had links with certain radical figures from the Sixties, some of them Jewish, but most of them had moved on from communism to Zionist-capitalist-supremacism. (Besides, Neocons had Trotskyite backgrounds.) Wall Street was bailed out under Obama, the puppet of the Jews, and Jews got even richer when Main Street took it up the arse. And it was Big Capital that funded globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense. It was the capitalists who promoted 'gay burgers'. And it was the capitalists at Chick-Fil-A who, despite so much support from the conservative consumers, caved under Jewish Capitalist pressure and became Dick-Fil-Ass. And while uber-capitalist banks were shutting down accounts of conservatives and rightists, some of the biggest corporations were pumping many millions, even billions, into groups like BLM and SPLC. It was super-rich Hollywood Jews and Silicon Valley Zionists who pumped record cash into Georgia to ensure Democratic Senatorial wins. Joe Biden raised record money in 2020 thanks to Big Capital and super-rich Jews. And Big Capital conspired with the Deep State and Big Media to turn 2020 into a hellhole with Covid nonsense and BLM nuttery just to punish America for having elected Trump. So, the notion that capitalism is automatically conservative was a boomer myth, a byproduct of Cold War mentality.

But the kind of 'conservatism' set by Limbaugh and dittoheads failed to see the big picture because it was stuck on framing the world in terms of capitalism = conservatism versus socialism = liberalism. What's-the-Matter-with-Kansas was a case of "What's the matter with Limby-Dim and the Dittoheads?" Now, it's true that Limbaugh's reach and influence waned in the age of the internet, but much of the talking points remained. So, Steven Crowder the chowder-head still thinks the big enemy is 'socialism'. Andrew Torba, though laudable as founder of Gab and defender of free speech, gripes about 'communism', ROTFL. (China may be ruled by the CCP, but China gave up communism long ago... or haven't they heard? CCP today is about as Maoist as the current Democrats are Pro-Confederate and Pro-Working-Class.) And so many even in the Dissident Right speak of THE LEFTISTS. Anyone with sense would have realized long ago that true leftism is deader than conservatism, though it may not seem that way on the surface as radical 'wokeness' seem to be everywhere. But it's all just labels over trivia and trifles. Jewish supremacist capitalist-Zionism hides behind the 'leftist' label to create the false impression that its side is about 'equity' and 'justice' when it's totally about supremacism, hierarchy, hegemony, and privilege. If the Democrats are really about equal justice for all, what's with all their 'Muh Israel' catechisms and submission to Zionist Jews and total support for More Wars for Zion?

Alt Right could have introduced something new, but idiot Richard Spencer and his retardo crew decided to larp as Nazis and fall into the enemy's trap, which made it even harder for Trump to try something different.

At any rate, one thing Perot got right was going beyond the stunted worldview of left vs right. The Reform Party was a third party that appealed to both rightist and leftist sentiments. Though Nazism 2.0 turned out to be insane with its imperialism and wars, Nazism 1.0 was essentially sound precisely because it combined rightism with leftism. National Socialism was about German Pride but also about the German worker, the backbone volk of the nation. Perot instinctively understood this, and free-thinking Democrats and Republicans were willing to give him a chance.
It attempted a counter-convergence against the convergence happening within both the GOP and the Democratic Party. After the end of the Cold War, the establishment elites of both parties were converging on 'free trade', globalism, the gods of PC, and total sucking up to Jews. For all the bitterness between Billy Boy Clinton and Newt Gingrich, they were totally agreed on More for Wall Street and More for Big Money. Perot's challenge envisioned a different kind of convergence. Not among the elites but among the masses. The American People, instead of being divided by and manipulated with the false dichotomy of 'left' vs 'right', would converge as a broad mass of patriots in defense of national sovereignty and economic justice. Convergence of the people against the convergence of the elites. If not for Perot's instability and the dirty tricks played by both parties(especially by the GOP), it's possible Perot could have changed the course of US history. And Limbaugh could have been part of something truly remarkable but he opted to be the lapdog of the GOP and cheered on the Walmartians.

A third party is useless if it appeals only to one side. Another 'liberal' party will merely take votes away from the Democrats, ensuring victory for the GOP, and another 'conservative' party will shave votes from the GOP, ensuring victory for the Democrats. The only chance for a Third Party is to win over disillusioned people from both sides. Also, its message must be both left and right. After all, there is much that is good about leftism(without which Western progress is inconceivable) and much that is good about rightism(without which there is no civilizational continuity and stability). Conservatism allows for tradition, caution, and continuance. Liberalism allows for novelty, experimentation, and daring. It's like how evolution works. Without mutations, organisms would have remained the same. And yet, most mutations are harmful and must be rejected. Without leftism, there is just moribund conservatism, and many civilizations grew weak and weary as a result, like Ancient Egypt and Byzantium. The West made great leaps because of the revolutionary spirit. And yet, without the stabilizing gyrational force of conservatism, leftism can turn cancerous and crazy, mistaking every novelty as the 'most evolved' truth. Imagine an organism where the mutations take over. It will turn into Elephant Man.

Looking back on 2016, it would have been better for Trump to run as a third-party candidate. Because he ran as a Republican, he was compelled to play the 'rightist', thus needlessly alienating many people with leftist inclinations. Had he run on a combination of nationalism and socialism, he could have done so much more. Of course, had he won as a third party candidate in 2016, he would have been squeezed by both parties in Congress for four grueling years, but many more Americans would have been with him. Being alone with the people isn't the worst thing, and his tragedy would have been heroic. Instead, as a sham 'rightist' in a cucked GOP, the tragedy of 2020 was a clown-show, a farce.
Two realities decide the fate of America: JEWS CONTROL THE GODS and JEWS GIVE YOU MONEY. In the end, despite all his bluster, Rush Limbaugh bowed to the Jewish-controlled gods and took their money as Talk Radio Industry was controlled by Uber-Zionists.

RUSH - AN AMERICAN ICON

The So-called 'Left' should be called 'Tri-Supremacism', that of Jews, blacks, & homos — Difference between gangster Russia of the 1990s and the US(and West in general) today — Uselessness of the GOP now that Elites can get Material Greed and Moral Vanity in one bundle from Neo-Liberal Democrats

This Coming Leftist Coup Could Backfire—Like 1991 In Soviet Union by WAYNE ALLENSWORTH:

https://vdare.com/articles/this-coming-leftist-coup-could-backfire-like-1991-in-soviet-union

Why call them 'leftist', thereby giving them undeserving credit? The current PC is about Tri-Supremacism, that of Jews, blacks, and homos. No one else matters. Some idiot black criminal, Fentanyl Floyd, died of OD under police custody but became big, big news and we must hail him to high heaven; even Donald Trump was compelled to join the chorus. But all those people attacked and even killed by black mobs didn't count. All those whose properties were destroyed by blacks have been ignored. Blacks have the right to riot, at least when Jewish Power gives the go-ahead. Even though blue cities were attacked by BLM & Antifa mobs and black looters, most white urbanites are still firmly on the 'progressive' side. They feel it's their 'spiritual' duty. Homos are above the law. They spread HIV and caused myriad problems, but we are to weep for them as hapless victims and celebrate sodomy in traditional houses of worship. And June is the crazed 'gay pride' month, with the most powerful industries and institutions all flying the homo flag as the main symbol of 'global values'. All these yrs, what did we see in public spaces but 'gay' flags and BLM signs? (They serve as 'passover' markings for corporations to be spared from the ire of Political Correctness.) And of course, the Jews! The big kahuna of the New globo-homo Order. They get away with everything. They make sure the US favors Zionists over Palestinians and Israel over Iran even though Jews occupy Palestinian lands and Israel has nukes but Iran doesn't. Jews insist on Jewish Supremacism as default US policy but constantly berate whites about 'white supremacism'. Goy whores of both parties deliriously chant "Israel is America's greatest ally" at AIPAC rallies.

The 'woke' order is about supremacism of three groups: Jews, homos, and blacks. White cucks and non-white idiots are told to rally around those three holies. They themselves don't count. If the US is really leftist and cares for the underdog, why is there NOTHING about BDS and Palestinian Lives Matter on the so-called 'left'? There are grassroots elements on left and right that condemn Zionist Supremacism, but their voices never make it to the top. Most Democrats consent to blue states/cities shutting down BDS. Trumpers howl with approval when Trump pledges more support for Israel while dumping on Iran and Palestinians EVEN THOUGH Jews hate white American populists even more than Arabs and Muslims.

So, we need to start by STOP calling the current Western Power 'leftist'.  Stop giving it the credit it doesn't deserve. It should be called 'Tri-Supremacist', and Tri-Supremacism dominates elite discourse and dogma. It will also raise consciousness among most non-white groups that Jews, blacks, and homos are favored over them.

In Russia, the Left actually did its part in bringing down the Yeltsin-Jewish-oligarch system.  The Communist Party opposed the gangster-capitalism and could have won the election in 1996 if not for Zionist-US interference. Later, Russian leftists joined with nationalists against the globalists. 

The problem with the West is there is no real left anymore. The 'left' has been refashioned to celebrate the idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks, thus Tri-Supremacism. So we should call it 'tri-supremacism' because that's what it is, and then, scales may fall from more eyes. Terminology matters. Call it 'leftist', and it gives the impression that progs are for 'social justice' when they're for idolatry of three supremacist groups. Just ask the Palestinians how much progs care about peace and justice for the underdog. Tulsi Gabbard took an anti-imperialist position, and she was totally ignored. Instead, most progs, under the influence of Jewish-controlled media, actually condemned Trump for trying to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan. They are aligned with the Deep State and military-industrial complex. And they embraced the ridiculous Russia-Collusion hysteria that would have made Joe McCarthy blush.

 The difference between Russia in the 90s and US now is that, even though Jewish oligarchs gained immense power and wealth under Boris Yeltsin, they hadn't as yet transformed popular thought. As such, most Russians still thought in nationalist and socialist terms. Even though communism was bad for Russia, its one silver lining was the suppression of Jewish Capital. Capitalism has been the real instrument of Jewish Power as sky is the limit for gaining profits and privilege. Communism suppressed the rise of capitalist oligarchy. Also, communist nations tended to be more insular and conservative on social matters. And they were fairly patriotic because nationalism, like socialism, stressed unity and the collective over mere individualism. No wonder then that in the 1970s and 80s, the Soviet Communist Party tolerated Russian nationalists more than Russian 'Liberals'(many of whom were Jewish/Zionist) who looked to the West for all the answers. So, even though Jewish oligarchs gained super-power in Russia of the 90s, they had no popular support. Most Russians were in nationalist and socialist mode, and Vladimir Putin exploited this reality to consolidate power to the detriment of Jewish oligarchs. Also, as the economic plan of the 90s was so calamitous in a nation without social safety nets, many Russians faced destitution and turned against the shock doctrine of gangster capitalism and globalist 'liberal democracy', aka puppet government of the Zionist-run West.

But things are different in the West. As Jews have had control of media and academia for a long time, they managed to persuade great many folks that Tri-Supremacism constitutes the highest virtues and values of 'Western Civilization'. Howls of 'racism' means we must worship blacks as moral superiors. Sports and Pop Culture inculcated generations of white people with worship of blacks as idols of cool and badassery. Accusations of 'antisemitism' and endless Holocaust remembrance obligate whites to bless and obey Jews as their highest duty. And 80% of Americans think 'gay marriage' is a good thing. That means a huge number of 'conservatives' also feel that way. So, there is insufficient national-popular will in the West to push back against Jewish Power. Jews had the money and connections in Russia of the 90s but not the control of the Russian Soul. In contrast, Jews have such total control over what now constitutes 'Western Values' or 'American Exceptionalism' that even the American 'right' and populism couch their arguments in terms of 'We love blacks more' or 'We love Jews more'. And 'conservatives' have already come a long way to accept homosexuality and even tranny-craziness as something wonderful. Consider how the 'conservative' judge Gorsuch decided in favor of tranny nonsense. Whether 'left' or 'right', the basic premise in the West is Tri-Supremacism, i.e. "Our side is better because we suck up to Jews, blacks, and homos more than your side does." It's pure idolatry, not ideology. 

Also, unlike bankrupt Russia of the 90s, the US and much of the West have an effective social safety net system. Maybe this won't last forever, but no one in the US starved even during the 2008 financial debacle and bigger mess with Covid hysteria. The problem even now is too much obesity. We've seen how even when the so-called 'left' loses to the so-called 'right' in the West, NOTHING changes. Brexit only led to MORE IMMIGRATION of non-whites and more PC censorship. Under Trump and Republican control of both houses, we only got more tax cuts for Wall Street, more anti-Russian/Iran hysteria, more sucking up to Jews, more sucking up to blacks, and more gay-gay-gay.

Words matter, and calling globalists the 'left' has been utterly damaging by lending the false impression, especially among the naive young, that the Jews, blacks, and homos stand for 'leftism' when they are in supremacist gangster-capitalist mode. And of course, Jews are in militarist mode as they push for more Wars for Israel. And as many blacks serve in the military, they are complicit in neo-imperialist ventures to destroy so many lives. Black generals and soldiers got blood on their hands. But where is the cry of 'Arab Lives Matter', 'Muslim Lives Matter', 'Iranian Lives Matter', 'Syrian Lives Matter', 'Yemenese Lives Matter'? There is only silence because the so-called 'left' is totally bogus. They only care about Jewish power, blacks ego, and homo vanity. Call it Tri-Supremacism. One dead lousy Negro Fentanyl Floyd matters more than millions of Arab/Muslim lives destroyed by Wars for Israel and their proxies.

 Republican Party is useless because Billy Boy Clinton in the 1990s merged Republicanism with Democratism. What animates elite mentality? Material Greed and Moral Vanity. In politics, material greed amounts to the freedom of capital to make more money; and moral vanity amounts to the perception of being on the side of angels, be it spiritual or social or whatever. No wonder that the ruling elites in Western History both hogged the wealth and hoisted the banner of Christ. Material greed and moral vanity. 

In the past, the GOP offered material greed to the elites, whereas the Democratic Party, especially in association with the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement, came to define moral vanity for the elites. So, the elites looked to the GOP for material greed and looked to Democrats for moral vanity. Because of its deep connections to Big Labor and legacy of the Great Depression(which, according to New Deal lore, the Democrats overcame by favoring labor over capital), the Democrats were limited in offering material greed to the elites. So, the elites had no choice but to go to the GOP for material greed, all the while inching ever closer to the Democrats on moral vanity. 

But then, Clinton comes along and severs ties between Democrats and the Working Class. He signs onto 'free trade' and ramps up mass immigration of peon labor. And he deregulates Wall Street and hastens the rise of posh cities. Also, leftism is altered from Mayday to Gayday, which is great for the rich as homos love to cater to the powerful and privileged. 

In other words, the Democrats could now offer both material greed and moral vanity to the elites. So, why would the elites need the GOP anymore? Elites got the bundle of greed and vanity in one package from Democrats. At this point, it's difficult for the GOP to offer even MORE GREED to the elites as the elites have done so well under 'Neo-Liberalism'. Didn't Obama bail out the banks? Aren't Hillary and Biden the darlings of Wall Street? With the Democratic Party, the elites can make super-profits and make symbolic gestures with homo flags and BLM signs.

GOP has a future if it becomes a genuine populist party of the have-lesses, but Trumpism proved that's far from doable. So, it's better to get rid of the party. Its only impact is to divide the white vote along false dichotomies of 'left' and 'right'. US would do better as a one-party system where all Republicans become Democrats and form alliances with saner groups against the elites, especially the Jews. 

THE DAY OF RECKONING HAS ARRIVED BY Black Pigeon Speaks

What TREASON Means in a Globo-Homo World dominated by Jewish Supremacism — Were the Confederates 'Treasonous'? — Are Current Deep State Elites Treasonous to the American Nation? — Immigration as Treason

One man's treason is another man's reason and vice versa.

Was Southern Secession an act of treason? Yes, if you regard the American Union as inviolable and indivisible. No, if you believe in states' rights, including the right to secede. It all depends on the very premise, the foundational basis, of one's worldview or national view. One could say US was created out of treason against the Mother Country. Or one can say it was founded on liberty and independence from Father Tyranny, like with Zeus' rebellion against his own father Cronus.

Also, if US is so against treason, why encourage it around the world? US has collaborator agents in every country and encourages(and even bribes) them to serve US interests than their own national interests. US remains in Afghanistan by propping up a puppet regime that many Afghans regard as treasonous.

Also, looking back on US history, was Manifest Destiny a treasonous act? If US values and ideals are about equal respect for all peoples and cultures, then Manifest Destiny violated such principles by expanding westward and committing 'genocide' on the native folks. Was US conquest of the SW Territories treasonous? After all, if US was founded on terms of national independence and sovereignty, did it not violate the sovereignty of Mexico by provoking and waging war and taking so much territory?
Of course, one can make counter-arguments and say that the vision of America has been to spread liberty and expand progress. So, if US took more land and grew bigger in order to spread more freedom and development, it was all worth it and very pro-American.

So, on the matter of the Confederacy, one can make a case for treason or against treason. Depending on the premise, either argument is valid, or invalid. It's like a conscientious objector can be regarded as a traitor/coward or a hero/saint depending on one's views. And then, there are matters of dual or higher loyalty. Muhammad Ali considered himself an American but also a BLACK American and a black Muslim. As such, he had a loyalty higher than that to what he perceived as White America. He didn't serve in Vietnam because he saw it as a white man's war. In a way, one could say he was treasonous, but in another way, he was being true to his higher loyalties, i.e. had he served in the war, he would have been treasonous to Allah(as conceived by Nation of Islam).

Personally, treason is most despicable when it's mostly about personal gain, opportunism, and vanity. If you turn against your own people for thirty pieces of silver, you are scum. Or if you switch loyalties to the other side simply because it seems 'cooler' and more prestigious to with the richer/greater power, then you're hollow and lack a core. On the other hand, what may seem treasonous and are indeed so from the traditional perspective may be necessary reforms. Any great social upheaval or revolution is an act of treason against the past, resulting in much crisis and agony. But it allows the birth of an improved or new order that may well benefit the great majority. Rise of Modern Turkey was an act of treason against the traditional Ottoman order, but it was time for much needed changes. But such treason, as with the American Revolution against the British Monarchy, was fueled by much idealism and vision, therefore isn't despicable like treason for mere opportunism. (Besides, one could argue arch-conservatism is also an act of treason. If the role of the ruling class is to govern well and improve the lives of its subjects, then its absolute refusal to adopt superior means and greater justice could be construed as an act of treason against their obligation to rule well and fairly.)

There are obvious examples of treason, but many are subtle, ambiguous, and/or even subconscious. Take mass immigration to the West. Most non-whites don't consider it as treasonous. And even the ruling elites of many non-white nations encourage their own kind to emigrate. Maybe, it's due to surplus population, gaining greater economic access to and influence over the metropole, hope for remittances from the immigrant community, and etc. This kind of immigration isn't regarded as treasonous because emigrants from nation A aren't specifically going to the US or EU to do harm to their country of origin. For example, Turks aren't going to Germany or US to join some institution to do harm to Turkey. And yet, immigration is a kind of treason in the sense that immigrants are abandoning their own nations, pledging allegiance to another nation, forgetting their own identities & cultures, and mixing with other races to dangerous levels of deracination.
Furthermore, given the imperial nature of the US-EU empire under Jewish Power, there is always the chance(and not a slight one) that the empire will target, sanction, destroy, and even invade your nation of origin. Indeed, what are Iranians to do when the US is causing great harm to Iran? Some Iranian-Americans in the US military will have to drop bombs on their own people if it comes to war. Even Iranian-American civilians must pay taxes that go to support Jewish supremacist war on Iran. What are Russian-Americans to do when the US, under Jewish control, is relentless in its hate campaigns against Russia? What are Chinese in America to do if a war breaks out between US and China?
Look to the past, and what did German-Americans end up doing in World War I? They were recruited to kill fellow Germans. (In the case of World War II, it made good sense for German-Americans to fight for the US because Germany declared war, but US entry into WWI was on bogus grounds to serve global bankers. But German-Americans had to fight and kill their own ethno-brethren. [Jews understand this aspect of American History, i.e. it tends to push treasonous views on immigrants to wage war on their own kind in the Old World, e.g. German-Americans vs Germans and Japanese-Americans vs Japanese. And that is why Jews are adamant about remaining JEWISH-Americans than Jewish-AMERICANS, and that is also why Jews use media power and political influence to drum all politicians and all Americans with the notion that "Israel is America's greatest ally", i.e. Zion is synonymous with America.] Also, German-Americans were such craven cowards that, instead of pushing back against vile anti-German campaign in the US during WWI, they did all they could to Anglo-Americanize themselves. In some ways, Jews were more admirable in their resistance to such pressures following World War II when many Jews were under suspicion of sympathizing with World Communism. Jews were wrong to support communism but right to guard Jewish identity from American Power. The fate of German-Americans and Swedish-Americans should be a powerful lesson about what happens to a people when they lose a strong sense of who they are and where they came from. Of course, the deracination disease has struck not only German-Americans and Swedish-Americans but Germans in Germany and Swedes in Sweden. The fate is Milwaukee, Madison, and Minneapolis. Once wonderful places, now either crime-fested cities or 'woke' tardopolises into globo-homo-mania.)

Thus, the story of mass immigration to the US has been a kind of treason. Immigration can only lead to ambivalent feelings about identity. After all, Mexicans have contradictory views of Mexican-Americans. In some ways, they are fellow Mexicanos, fellow Tacoan brethren. Many Mexicans even see Mexican-American immigration, legal and illegal, as a kind of Reconquista. But in another way, Mexicans feel that Mexican-Americans who speak only Ingles, serve in the US military, and work as Cuckez agents of Gringo Nation are traitors. One reason why so many Mexicans didn't warm up to Jeb Bush despite his being so pro-Mexican and having a Mexican wife was that the couple looked so much like a symbol of US domination over Mexico. Big Gringo Man and Tiny Brown Woman. What Jeb regarded as his warmth and affection for Mexico was seen by Mexicans as domination and condescension. So, while many white Americans considered Jeb Bush as a symbol of treason — globalist selling White America to brown future — , many Mexicans saw Jeb's wife as the kind of typical Mexican female in Hollywood movies with a gringo man or hubber.

So, the charge of 'treason' is never a sure thing as anything can be deemed treasonous simply by moving the goal posts or altering the coding of core principles. The current war on Confederacy is essentially part of the Jewish War on White. Just like Jews say whiteness is not intrinsic to being French or British or Dutch or Swedish or whatever, they say any form of defiant white identity is evil and wrong. Jews used BLM to not only topple Confederate but British statues. Neocons are especially invested in destroying the Confederate legacy because they operate in the GOP. As GOP relies so heavily on the Deep South, it has become de facto the Neo-Confederate Party, or the Neocon-Federate Party. But that means Neocons in the GOP are associated with Southern 'racists', and that means people can connect Neocons & Zionism with White Southern Redneck 'racism'.
This is all very ironic because Jews, both Neocons and Liberal Zionists, totally support Israeli tyranny over Palestinians, turn a blind eye to IDF death squads mowing down Palestinian women & children, and support apartheid as practice in West Bank. Also, these 'progressive' Jews work well with theocratic Saudis and ISIS types. (They even work well with quasi-Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, though to be sure, 'neo-nazism' in Ukraine has a somewhat more positive pedigree for its resistance against Stalinism during World War II.)

The rule of American Politics is, "If Jews want it, they get it." Not only do Jews push for it but, once the word is out that Jews want it, goy politicos of either party dare not push back against Jews. So, both parties are totally for suppressing BDS. Both are for more billions to Israel and more sanctions on Iran and Syria. Both are now for globo-homo-mania. Both are for Negrolatry, what with Trump rhapsodizing about Fentanyl 'groid' Floyd smiling down upon us from heaven. (More likely, angels have their knees on his neck before casting his ghastly negro self down to hell.) If Jews want it, they get it. Jews got the power, and the Power decides. Sure, because the US is a democracy, Jews don't get everything right away, but they eventually get it as they get to push while no one pushes back. If one side pushes while other side doesn't push back, the pusher eventually wins even if it takes time. It's simple law of physics. If a car is on neutral and if someone pushes from the rear while no one pushes from the front, the car will eventually move in one direction. Jews made sure there will be no counter-push to their pushiness.
As for the GOP, the attack on Confederacy is both troubling and relieving. It may lead to anger in the White South, but as the GOP is the Party of Lincoln, it's always been inconvenient for it to rely on so many Neo-Confederate votes. But then, the Culture War against the White South has been so relentless and overwhelming that even many white southerners are now finally dropping their 'shameful' heritage that insults the new cult of Negrolatry. Lynyrd Skynyrd consented to stop using Confed flags at their concerts. NASCAR now follows suit. Walmart began in the South, but Confed flags have been OUT since the church shooting some yrs ago. Dixie Chicks are now just Chicks. While Antifa and BLM thugs ravage memorials and statues, most white Southerners remain on the plantation of cuckery and do nothing.

Also, white Southern elites were trained in places like Harvard and Yale and other 'liberal' colleges. As such, they are little more than mental cucks of Jews and globalists. Besides, the current Southern elite attitudes are, to an extent, in line with traditional ones. The values and agendas are different but the attitudes are much the same. In the past, the Southern elites looked down on 'white trash'. Many of them favored House Negroes over poor white farmers. Today, southern white elites virtue-signal by saying, "WE GOOD REPENTANT southern whites are NOT like those lowlife redneck vermin who still wave Stars & Bars and revere Stonewall Jackson. We suck Negro dong, kiss Jewish ass, and bend over to globo-homo power." Same old elitist attitude in different dress. But even white southern masses are changing. Their religion is football dominated by blacks who thump white guys and hump white girls. In integrated schools, many white guys got beaten up by black guys and cuck to blackness as in their pathetic roles as worthless 'whiggers'. And as rap music is big among white southern boys, they imitate blacks and no longer resist jungle-feverization of white women. They are finished. And there is mass immigration of yellows and browns who mostly vote Democratic. The South is really over. Same with Texas, now a land of cuckboys than cowboys.

In the end, while anything can be accused of treason, the sting of accusation sticks ONLY WHEN made by those in power. If the British had won, Benedict Arnold would have been honored as a patriot who served the crown while Washington and Jefferson would have been hanged as traitors. But the Revolutionaries won, and Washington became the Father of the American Republic whereas Benedict Arnold, at least in US history, became synonymous with 'traitor'.
So, 'treason' is one of those power-words. It gains full meaning only if made with the power to back up the accusation with penalty. In a way, all of today's deep state elites are treasonous. US elites don't serve the US. They are globalists whose main loyalties are to the oligarchic matrix of Jewish supremacist power, multi-national corporations, imperialist military-industrial-complex, the cult of Negrolatry, and globo-homo-mania as the new messianic neo-religion of the West. The Russia Collusion Hoax was one of the greatest acts of treason in US history, but it was presented as the ultimate patriotism against Donald Trump, the treasonous puppet of evil Vladimir Putin or Putler. So many people in the Deep State should be sent to prison or even executed for their plot against Trump who came to the presidency by fair election — if it was unfair, the wronged side was Trump and his supporters, but Trump still managed to eke out a win. But notice the Deep State spins a different tale, and it has the power to protect 'made' people. Just like Wall Street scum never faced justice after the 2008 fiasco, virtually everyone involved in Russia Collusion Hoax will be protected and continue to control America.

Men like David Patraeus are traitors. They don't defend or serve America. They serve Jewish supremacist imperialists and work for the kind of power that encourages Christian churches to drape themselves with 'gay pride' colors. In aiding and abetting Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians and Wars for Israel(that target Muslims and Arabs), these men are actually even violating the principles of 'anti-racism' that they claim to represent. They say US must redeem its 'racist' past, but they have a strange way of going about it by aiding Zionist 'racist' terror against Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians. So, 'treason' isn't about truth or justice. It's about who has the power, who gets to decide the political premise and 'moral' foundation, and who has the means to not only accuse others of treason but to use the power of institutions to make the charges stick.

In current US and EU, the highest 'loyalty' and greatest 'patriotism' are about cucking to Jewish supremacism, worshiping globo-homo queertianity, and kissing the black ass as magical. If you defy such notion, then you're treasonous. But then, being accused of 'treason' by vile Jewish supremacists and globalist cucks should be a honor. One should NOT be loyal to such evil powers. Today, the weasel globalist-generals who serve a globo-homo-ized US military that is used to promote Jewish Supremacism and Jungle Fever/Faith dare charge the great Robert E. Lee, a loyal son of his beloved Viriginia, of treason. With Jews, You Lose. Whites were fated to lose everything when they ceded their power and authority to Jews.

Now, a question. Suppose Southern States had more people and a bigger economy than the North in 1860 and suppose the Northern States seceded from the Union and Southern States waged war to restore the Union. Would the Northern States have committed treason?

Commentary on "2020: Socialist America or Trump's America?"(by PAT BUCHANAN). What to do in One-Party Future? If Jewish Power uses POC against Whites, Whites should use POC against Jews. It's only fair.

https://vdare.com/articles/patrick-j-buchanan-2020-socialist-america-or-trump-s-america

And what would then happen if the Democrats simply held the House, added three Senate seats and defeated Trump in 2020? An all-out effort to abolish the Electoral College that is integral to the historic compromise that created our federal Union. Puerto Rico and D.C. would become states, giving Democrats four more Senators and making America a bilingual nation.

Donald Trump has turned out to be useless. GOP is cooked demographically. It's only a matter of time before US turns into a one-party state like Japan, China, Turkey, or California.

That being the case, it is about time to end the GOP, and all Goppers should join the Democratic Party in a one-party America. The future politics mustn't be about party vs party but about masses(of all colors) against the globalist elites.

And Goppers should go full socialist to hurt Big Capital.

The problem with Goppers is twofold:

White Goppers are for capitalism even though capitalists have pushed for social degeneracy and demographic transformation. Capitalists have certainly NOT been better on the immigration issue. If anything, they've often been worse than the socialists. Also, capitalist monopolists(especially of Jewish ethnocentric bent) are denying free speech and financial services to conservatives(especially in concert with Jewish Supremacist groups like ADL and SPLC).

Why should Goppers be for capitalism against socialism when capitalists use PC to shut down white patriots and POC(people of color) to replace white Americans with? It makes no sense. It is time for Goppers to side with socialists to bring down the capitalists. If that leads to civil war and riots, so be it. It might do some good as many non-whites will flee from a nation racked with economic and social problems. Also, an America without a dominant elite will clear the path for new revolutions that must happen.

Even a bigger problem is the matter of white attitudes about Jewish Power.

Indeed, the single biggest pathology of US politics is this:

Jews use POC(people of color) against whites but whites try to protect Jews from POC in the hope that Jews will appreciate the gesture and side with whites.
Imagine a Jewish guy using a pitbull to maul a white guy, but the white guy tries to protect the Jew from the pitfull that he is using against the white guy. Even though the pitbull is mauling the white guy at the behest of its Jewish master, the white guy goes out of his way to persuade the Jewish guy that the dog is dangerous and may turn on its master; therefore, the Jewish guy should work with the white guy against the mad dog. The white guy, being even more servile than the dog to the Jew, never mentions the fact that it is the Jew who is using the dog against him.

So pathological and pathetic.

Here's a better solution. If Jews use POC against whites, whites should return the favor and use POC against Jews. In any Jewish vs POC conflict, whites should side with POC. See how Jews like it. Let them have a taste of their own medicine. Even a 'white advocate' like Jared Taylor is stuck in this pathetic rut. Even though Jews treat him like they treat Palestinians in West Bank, Taylor goes out of his way to support Zionist imperialism against Palestinians and to protect Jewish Supremacist Power from criticism within his 'white advocacy' camp.

Just look at the pathetic Gopper cucks. Ilhan Omar talks about Jewish power, but Gopper cucks all side with Jewish Power against her EVEN THOUGH Jews have been fanning Muslim-American hatred against whites forever. And even though Jews are working 24/7 to flood white towns with Muslim 'refugees', white Gopper cucks serve the Jews by voting to shut down BDS. What a pathetic strategy. Zionists take over Palestinian towns in West Bank, and Jewish-Americans do everything to flood white towns with Diversity Invasion, but the priority of white Goppers boils down to "How better can we serve our Jewish masters?"

While Jews are using rabid POC dogs against whites, whites are praying for the political conversion of the Jews and beseeching God to protect Jews from POC. So, what good has all this pro-Jewish cucking done for white Americans? Zilch and nada.

GOP is cooked because of demographic changes pushed mostly by Jewish Power. In an insanely diverse nation with no majority group(the America of the near future), should whites side with POC or with Jews?
Well, we know what Jews will do. Jews will keep using POC as attack dogs against whites. Obviously then, the most logical thing for whites would be to use POC to maul Jews in turn. Fight fire with fire.
If a Jew uses a club to beat you, should you try to defend the Jew from the very club that he uses to beat you with? Sounds retarded, doesn't it?
But, that is how retarded whites have become.

Imagine if whites had fought WWII this way. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and all US politicians pledge to defend the noble and wonderful Japanese nation from the Japanese navy while totally overlooking the fact that it is the Japanese nation that is using the Imperial navy against the US.
Sounds surreal, but that is EXACTLY what whites are doing while Jews kick them in the ass with the POC boot.

Should the GOP have welcomed and embraced Mexicans and Immigrants in California and Texas? A Response to Ron Unz’s Racial Politics in America and in California

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california

Most Mexicans and Central Americans in the US are not criminals. If anything, it could be that there are problems with excessive organized crime & violence in Mexico because too many people are overly nice and passive. Too many passive Guillermos and not enough Wild Bills to take a stand against the bad guys. So, bad guys run free and kill freely... like in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN where the bandits push around the overly nice villagers, that is until white gringos arrive to protect them.

Still, even if most Mexicans in the US are not criminal and tend to be reasonably law-abiding(perhaps even more than 'white trash' elements), their increasing presence tend toward social mediocrity and cultural lethargy. (Indeed, this seems to be Steve Sailer's main gripe about Too Many Mexicans. They don't turn LA into Detroit but nevertheless turn it into Guillermopolis.) Much of Mexican-areas in the Southwest may be stable, but it's also so humdrum and 'lame'. Is it good to have such a large mass of passive people without agency(except for leaving Mexico to live in the US)? Having lots of Mexican neighbors may be okay -- and not dangerous like having black neighbors -- , but it also means social and economic stasis. Mexicans follow but don't lead. Also, even if these Mexicans don't commit crime, the fact that many of them do depend on government assistance of some kind will have a long-term depressive effect on society. White Flight from black is due to violence and mayhem. Whites generally don't run from browns on those grounds. But when Too Many Browns make for a depressed economy with low wages, many whites will leave just the same. The reason why white share of California population went down was not only because of mass immigration but mass flight to other states. So, obviously, the dramatic increase in Diversity meant something went wrong for many whites. It made them want to move out.

Could the GOP have earned the loyalty of Mexicans if it weren't anti-immigration in California under Pete Wilson? I doubt this. Even if GOP weren't 'anti-Mexican' -- these days, the mere opposition to more immigration is 'xenophobic' and 'racist' -- , the fact is Democrats will always offer more in terms of government benefits and holy victim pokemon points. At most, GOP can offer Mexicans an equal playing field and chance to be good fellow Americans. In contrast, Democrats offer them more government aid, favorable affirmative action, and elevated status as a 'victim group'. (Even though CA got rid of Affirmative Action, it lives on through many 'holistic' methods.) Of course, the majority of Mexicans will take the latter. It's the same thing with Jews. GOP is even more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party. The likes of Bush and McCain were more brazenly servile to Zionism than Clinton was. But the fact is Democratic Party is sufficiently pro-Zionist, and besides, Jewish elites prefer the immigration-diversity policy of the Democrats because it ensures Jewish domination in yrs to come: Turning whites into just another gentile minority is good for Jewish domination, or so the Jews think. Whites won't be able to politically or electorally gang up on Jewish power.

Now, let's suppose GOP could have won over tons of Mexicans by being Mex-friendly. Suppose Pete Wilson kissed brown babies all day long and suppose Texan GOP went full Jeb-Bush and hailed Mexicans and welcomed more brown immigrants. As a result, suppose the majority of Mexicans in Ca and Tx voted GOP, and in time, browns outnumbered whites.
But in the end, for many white American patriots, it's not about the Party but the Nation. What good is the GOP even if it wins elections IF it allows the browning of America? White patriots will take a white Democratic-ruled America over a brown Republican-ruled America. GOP is secondary to white patriotic interests. They support it because they see it as the less of two evils in the demographic transformation of America. If GOP was for mass-immigration and if Democrats were for preserving the racial composition of White America, most white patriots will go with Democrats. In the end, political parties are means to an end, not the end. It's like blacks went from voting Republican to voting Democratic because the latter offered them more stuff in programs and holy victim points.

Now, what is wrong with Ca and Tx turning majority brown IF most browns are nice-okay people? If the only priorities that mattered are social stability and economics, the browning of America might be tolerable. After all, large numbers of Mexicans may lead to some economic stagnation but nothing like the degradation in black areas of Baltimore or the jungles of Detroit. But white patriots have a historical and cultural view of what America is. It's not just about crime rates or economics. After all, Asians commit less crime than whites. So, if a white community were to become 60% Asian, it might have even lower crime. If the only thing that matters is crime rates, that would be ideal. But white patriots have a sense of connection to the land and its history. Now, amnesiac whites probably don't care. White Liberals and whites of Conservative Inc. don't have much in the way of memory and bond. But white patriots do have a sense of historical America, and they want to preserve it. And in a way, it is history that gives meaning to a people. History makes a person see a particular land in a special way. Surely, an American Indian looks upon the hills of South Dakota differently than a recent Chinese or Hindu immigrant does. The immigrant will look at the scenery and say, 'very nice'. But he has no sense of historical connection or claim to the land. But to the American Indian, there is more to the land than the land itself. It's a sense that this was the land of his ancestors who hunted, fought, died, and were buried. And surely a black in the South, if he has a sense of roots, has a different feeling about the land than a recent immigrant from Guatemala does. To the Guatemalan, some town in Georgia is just an economic zone to find a job. But to the Negro, it is the land where his folks were once slaves and picked cotton and sang coded songs that might have meant, "I'm gonna get even with whitey one day and whup his ass and hump his daughter." So, a Negro in the South feels a special attachment to the land. Or, take Jews and Israel/Palestine. Why did they feel this powerful need to choose THAT part of the world to create or recreate their homeland? Why not some piece of Africa or Siberia or North America? It was due to a deep historical sense that it was on that land that the founding stock of Jews received blessing from the Lord. Then, why wouldn't white patriots feel the same way about American history and territory? America wouldn't exist if not for white adventure, white conquest, white conception, and white creativity. Now, amnesiac whites don't care about the past. They just think of the here-and-now. And white PC-types see the past as one of 'guilt' and 'shame', so whites must welcome racial demise for atonement. But white patriots feel that white folks created something unique and great in the New World, and they should remain the dominant people on the land. This side of white patriotism cannot be appreciated with mere numbers on crime and wages.

Also, the danger of immigrants leading to Democratic domination has something to do with Jewish Power that has grown demented over the yrs. While non-whites supply the votes for the Democratic Party, they don't command the heights. They supply the coal for the ship's engine, but they don't get to steer the ship. Jews control the Democratic Party, and so, when Democrats win, Jews get to decide and steer the future of America. Indeed, I would be less worried IF the Democratic Party were controlled by Mexicans like Guillermo. He seems like a nice guy and have no agenda beyond saying, "hello Jimmy" and getting chubby on tacos. I wouldn't mind if Guillermo were governor, senator, or president. Or the head of Harvard or Yale. But the fact is Mexicans supply the votes but don't control the commanding heights. They supply the feet but not the brains of the Democratic Party. And even Mexican and non-white politicians who do get elected just become puppets of Jewish globalists. Look at the Ocasio character from NY. As a street activist, she used to be pro-Palestinian. But headed to DC, she is suddenly with the Zionists. Look at Elizabeth Warren, the pseudo-Indian. She is just a squaw whore when it comes to Jewish Power. And Negro Obama was supposed to be a socialist who cared about Main Street. As president, he did little but bail out Wall Street, push Homo-Worship, and wage more Wars for Israel.
Now, if Jewish Power was only moderately liberal, it'd be no big deal. But it's gone crazy. It's pushing Homo-Worship as replacement for Christianity. It is promoting all kinds of degeneracy. In the foreign policy field, it's more Cold War with Russia and more neo-liberal or neocon wars or subversion. I don't think most Mexicans are that crazy. But when they vote Democratic, they are not really voting for Mexican power. They are voting for Jewish power that is hellbent on pushing 'hate speech' laws, taking away guns, spreading anti-white hatred, and waging more Wars for Israel. As for Asians, they do better than Mexicans in climbing the ladder, but what do successful Asians in the Democratic Party do? They are like Sarah Jeong who serves as whore to Zion. And that Yuree Koh bitch at the Wall Street Journal who helped to shut down Alt Right Youtube channels like the Killstream. We have all this talk of the New People, but we don't see anything like the New Elite. Indeed, would Jews support mass-immigration IF they regarded yellows and browns are real threats to their hold on Elite Power? No, they just see browns as easy votes and yellows as easy toadies. There is no Elite Equality in the US. Now, suppose anti-Israeli Arab immigrants have higher IQ than Jews and, as immigrants, are poised to reach the top and take over elite power from Jews. Would Jews push for mass-immigration? I think not.

Anyway, even if most Mexicans don't commit lots of crime in California, they(and Asians) did totally change historic California. If one is amnesiac or purely materialistic, I suppose it doesn't really matter. (Indeed, it seems the problem with white Californians is they went from GRAPES OF WRATH mode to 'Good Vibrations' mode. Too much affluence and leisure robbed them of their worker-warrior spirit.) But if one has a sense of history, it is a great loss.
The same applies to the Palestinians. Under Jewish-Zionist rule, many Arabs have done pretty well in Israel. They are materially better off living with Jews than they would be otherwise under Arab rule. After all, Israel is a first world nation, and even Arabs have lots of opportunities there that Arabs in Arab-ruled nations don't have. So, if materialism and individual well-being are all that counts, many Palestinians(those allowed to stay in Israel) certainly benefited from the rise of the Jewish State. But if they have a sense of history, they feel the tragedy of how Palestine was wiped off the map and many of their brethren were expelled from the land. Palestinian individualist-materialists are happy to live in modern and prosperous Israel. But Palestinian patriots with a sense of history feel the pain over the fact that their homeland was taken by another people and that many of their brethren live under occupation in West Bank.

The Problems of Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox

Fruitkin as Prom Queen

As many have surely observed, one of the strangest social phenomena is the level of intense enthusiasm/exhilaration over things that are odd, weird, perverse, and even obscene. Why would this be? Shouldn’t people feel a natural aversion to things that are so obviously weird, distasteful, abnormal, and/or obscene? At best, shouldn’t the reaction of most people be that of reluctant tolerance? But instead, we see people getting all nuttily enthused about stuff like ‘gay pride parade’, ‘gay marriage’, and the ‘gay male prom queen’. So, what is going on? Why is that some things that are naturally abhorrent to most people are being received and praised with so much mindless enthusiasm, exhilaration, and even worship?

Perhaps, psychology has a term for such a response, but we will call it the ‘aversion-exhilaration paradox’. It is paradoxical since some of the wildest enthusiasm seems to be reserved for something that is so obviously off-putting, weird, ridiculous, ludicrous, perverse, and/or obscene.
We know that some things are easy for people to get enthused about. Who doesn’t like ice cream? So, if you tell kids that they’re gonna get ice cream, they’re happy. They don’t have to MAKE AN EFFORT to get happy since they’re naturally happy. And since the happiness and enthusiasm for ice cream come so naturally, there may not be much in the way of intensity of enthusiasm. Okay, so they love ice cream, and they’re gonna get some. Yum, and that’s that.

Now, take something kids don’t like, such as spinach — personally, I like it or hate it depending on how it’s prepared, but that’s another matter. Kids have a natural aversion to certain foods, and spinach is one of them for many children. So, they will naturally be disappointed if their parents say they have to eat a plateful of it. But suppose kids are told that spinach is holy food — indeed food of the gods —, and that if you don’t like spinach, you’re a mentally unbalanced spinachaphobe, you are a hater, and you’re just an all-around bad, bad child. Since kids want to be liked and win approval, they will feel shame for not liking it. And yet, deep down inside, they still don’t like it. But they have to like it because they’ve been told they’re awful unless they like it. So, the enthusiasm for spinach cannot be natural. It doesn’t come easily. It requires a lot of effort. Indeed, EXTRA EFFORT is called for in order to overcome the natural aversion to spinach. And even more EXTRA EFFORT in order to repress the fact that, deep down inside, one doesn’t really like spinach. So, one goes about acting like Popeye, as if spinach is the best-tasting, most wonderful, most nutritious, and most magical food in the world. So, paradoxically, the natural aversion to spinach and one’s effort to overcome it(and repress one’s doubt about one’s strained excitement for spinach)can make one even more enthusiastic of something one doesn’t like than of something that one naturally likes.

Indeed, consider the black queer ‘prom queen’ at the high school dance. What would be the natural response of any sane and normal person to such a thing? Laughter, ridicule, and mockery. I mean it looks like parody, silliness, childishness, stupidity, retardation, a joke. But society, as governed by the Jewish elites and their mini-me allies the homos, teaches young people that it’s terribly ‘sinful’, ‘unjust’, ‘unequal’, and ‘hateful to not ‘welcome’ and ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. After all, it’s no longer enough to just tolerate homosexuals. One MUST exhibit proof of enthusiasm, exhilaration, devotion, and even worship in order to be labeled a ‘good progressive’ person who’s against ‘hate’. So, kids must repress their natural inclination to laugh and ridicule the notion of some funny-ass black jiver queer ‘prom queen’. But since such enthusiasm simply doesn’t come naturally, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to repress their doubts and to express their obligatory enthusiasm. Also, one must repress the fact that one is a wimp who is cowering to the demands of the powers-that-be that imposes such a ridiculous notion as ‘gay pride’ — pride over guys doing fecal penetration one another or men having their penises sliced off to be fitted with artificial vaginas. What is a potent way to hide one’s shame? By exhibiting extreme enthusiasm. Therefore, the aversion-exhilaration paradox.

Aversion-exhilaration paradox is more common than most people might think. So much of what we feel great enthusiasm about is actually something we feel a natural aversion to. Consider TV talk-shows where some ugly, crippled, and wretched woman is paraded onto the stage. Our natural reaction is obviously revulsion since we prefer the healthy and the normal. But since society tells us to feel compassion for the unfortunate, we repress our feelings of aversion. So far, so good, as we should feel sympathy for the unfortunate. We certainly shouldn’t harass, taunt, or torment people like, say, the famous Elephant Man. But what if that’s not enough? If society defacto forces us to praise the notion of ‘cripple pride’ — i.e. it’s not enough for us to feel sympathy for the unfortunate but we must praise, celebrate, and worship them — , then we must not only suppress our natural aversion but force ourselves to believe that we genuinely feel enthusiastic about the ‘beauty’ of crippled people. Since such feelings are not natural, we must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves of such emotions and display them, and so our show of enthusiasm for ‘cripple pride’ may actually be even more powerful than our enthusiasm for beauty. After all, it doesn’t take any effort to admire beauty. It comes naturally and easily. And we don’t have to make a collective show of it since every individual feels so naturally drawn to beauty. And it doesn’t have to be imposed with mass hysteria and punitive taboos since what is more natural than finding pleasure in admiring beauty?

If anything, we feel an aversion to anti-beauty, and this is why extreme Islamic societies suffer from aversion-enthusiasm paradox when it comes to feminine beauty. Muslim men, like most men, naturally admire beauty and wanna see more of it. But Islam says feminine beauty displayed publicly is sinful, shameful, obscene, dirty, sacrilegious, and pretty bad stuff. So, Muslim men must repress their natural love of feminine beauty, and they must embrace the naturally aversive notion that beauty-shown-publicly is vile and wicked. They must force themselves to believe that women draped and veiled in black look pretty good. But since such aversive feelings don’t come naturally, Muslim men must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be anti-beauty. In this sense, the logic behind the current Western worship of ‘gays’ — propagated by Jews — and the logic behind the Islamic suppression of feminine beauty share an element of the aversion-exhilaration/enthusiasm paradox. Both are enforcing onto the masses what is naturally aversive. Western folks have to be pressured to believe that there’s beauty and honor in men porking their penises into the fecal holes of other men, in men having their body parts mutilated and their veins pumped with massive amounts of artificial hormones, and in two guys pretending that they are ‘two daddies’ or ‘daddy and mommy’, indeed as if the anus or poo-sy is the same as pussy. The homo agenda would also have us believe that the rainbow is the symbol of male fecal penetration among homos, of two lesbians having sex by humping a hole with a hole(???), and of a black guy cutting off his penis and putting on a wig and calling himself a blonde lady.

Laverne Cox the Black Guy as Blonde Woman

This sort of thing used to be reserved for Mad Magazine and the Onion when this nation had a healthy sense of satire and irony. Today, you better accept and praise it with a straight face, or else, you will be accused and attacked as a ‘hater’ and be destroyed worse than any Stalinist, Maoist, or communist spy/subversive was blacklisted during the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’. (Btw, given that so many far-right and Nazi sympathizers had their careers destroyed during the WWII era, how come that period isn’t denounced as the sinister ‘Roosevelt Blacklist Era’? Of course, Jews and Liberals control the academia and media, and they’re only offended by blacklist against the far left but never against the far right. It’s the same today in places like London where a university banned a club because it discusses the ideas of right-wing philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. Welcome to the Jew World Order. Jewish defense of freedom of speech was always about opportunism, never about principles.)

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is also common among soldiers. After all, soldiers are humans, and humans naturally don’t want to get shot, torn to pieces, stabbed with bayonets, blown to bits, crippled, blinded, and etc., all of which happen all too often in wars. Also, many soldiers don’t want to kill civilians, even of the enemies. But soldiers don’t have a choice. Once drafted or volunteered into the force, they must shut up and obey orders as long as they are in uniform. Even in a volunteer army, one is free only when one volunteers. Once entered into the service, one is essentially an attack dog of the elites, and since US is run by Jews, American soldiers are nothing more than attack dogs of the likes of Victoria Nuland and other vile hideous Jews who send goy boys to do all the killing, dying, and getting maimed for Jewish supremacist interests.
Since soldiers must do as they’re told and must repress their fears, they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to convince themselves and others of their great fighting spirit and enthusiasm for war. Prior to the Iraq Invasion, American soldiers were shown clips of APOCALYPSE NOW and encouraged to rock to songs like ‘Rock the Casbah’ by the Clash. Soldiers must hide all their fears since it might seem wussy, dishonorable, and even treasonous on the eve of war. So, the very soldiers who are naturally sick in the stomach with fear and anxiety about battles-to-be-fight can seem the most delirious and passionate in their willingness to charge into the battlefield in order to die for ‘national glory’. Consider ‘Ron Kovic’ prior to be shipped off to Vietnam in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. He tries so hard to convince himself that it’s going to be a great adventure where he gets to play the great hero. In a way, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is the basic idea behind SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. The film begins in a manner that is so harrowing that we feel a natural aversion to combat. Most viewers naturally feel, "gee, I’m sure I wasn’t there and I never wanna end up in combat." But the inspirational John Williams music, the Norman Rockwellian iconography of the soldiers-transforming-into-heroes, the uh-goshy patriotism and paeans to the virtues of sacrifice, and all that stuff make the audience feel guilty about feeling any doubts about the nobility of the men’s mission to fight the war and save Ryan. So, by the movie’s end, the audience is made to feel in terms of "Have I been a GOOD man?" Since ‘goodness’ is measured by one’s willingness to fight and die in a war to rid the world of the main enemy of Jews, the audience is ‘inspired’ — and emotionally manipulated, brutalized, and coerced — to repress their natural aversion to getting blown up in war and to replace it with great enthusiasm. Not surprisingly, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was soon followed by TV shows like BAND OF BROTHERS that lionized the ‘greatest generation’.

Overcoming aversion is necessary in any moral order. It’s even necessary for good health. After all, who wants to undergo surgery or take bitter medicine? Who wants to eat healthy food that tastes yucky? Who wants to wake up every morning and get stuck in traffic on the way to work? Who wants to risk his life by entering a burning house to put out the fire? But people must do all that in order to maintain social order and moral values.
Even so, there are good things we don’t like and bad things we don’t like. Spinach is good for kids, but most kids don’t like it. But when it comes to eating shit, we not only have an extreme aversion to it but our aversion is good and necessary for it’s unhealthy to eat da poo poo. So, if we have a fear of being forced to eat da poo-poo, it’s not a phobia but a naturally healthy response to a disgusting act — though there are some people with natural fetishes for eating disgusting stuff, including poo-poo; and some people seem to enjoy eating human flesh. (Maybe libertarians can champion cannibalism whereby the family of a deceased member can sell his body parts to cannibals. That way, no murder is committed, and it’s all about the freedom of choice. And maybe libertarians and ‘progressives’ should unite to legalize the eating of dogs and cats. After all, if it’s okay to kill and devour animals as intelligent as pigs because eating pork is a cultural norm in the West, isn’t it a case of ‘privileging’ western cultural norms over the Asian, American Indian, Polynesian, and some African ones where dogs are regarded as food? By golly, isn’t that ‘racist’ and ‘Euro-centric’? What about ‘culinary equality’ or ‘culinary freedom-to-choose’?) But suppose society says poo-poo is a form of sacred food and that those who find the practice of eating poo-poo disgusting are ‘poophobic’ and mentally sick in the head. Suppose children are educated from a young age that eating-da-poo-poo is wonderful, and since there is a small minority of people who naturally like to eat da poo-poo, eating da poo-poo should not only be tolerated but welcomed in the name of ‘food equality’. Of course, it’s difficult for most people to swallow poo-poo, so they won’t do it. But since poo-poo has been elevated to iconic/sacred status, they must at least show great enthusiasm for the glory of eating da poo-poo. So, at poo pride or poo-ride rallies, they show up and go crazy as floats are wheeled across celebrating the greatness of poo-poo. The thing is they must make an EXTRA EFFORT to be especially delirious in their support since they must repress their natural aversion to the idea of eating da poo-poo. Of course, to conceal the true nature of poo-poo-eating, the promoters of poo pride will wrap the poo culture in rainbow colors and other pleasant-looking imagery and glitz. If Wall Street could package so much worthless shitty derivatives and sell them around the world by packaging/stamping it with AAA-rated approval, then why can’t the elites sell something like the homo agenda or poo pride?

There are necessary things we must accept(even if unpleasant) and there are things we must necessarily tolerate even if they don’t hold much value for us. Because so much of life is about ‘no pain, no gain’, we must necessarily handle much pain and aggravation in all aspects of life. As for crippled people and people with low IQ, they may not be of much use to society, but as fellow humans, they have to be taken care of and/or treated with decency. But there’s a difference between making some effort to be more decent and making an EXTRA EFFORT to convince ourselves that what we must tolerate or acknowledge is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Consider the queer black prom queen pictured above. Yes, there are such people in the world. They are ridiculous, but they are what they are, and they shouldn’t be taunted or attacked. But notice how the school went overboard and convinced itself to pretend that such ‘sexuality’ is the greatest thing since baked buns. There is element of servility, condescension, and narcissism(both vain and moral) in all this. There is the servility to political correctness. There is the condescension in trying to boost the ‘self-esteem’ of some freak-as-noble-victim. (The condescension is racial as well as ‘sexual’, a kind of double ‘affirmative action’.) And there is the narcissism on part of the Negro queer ‘prom queen’ in actually believing himself to be beautiful when any honest person will say he looks ludicrous and ‘faggoty’, and there is the preening ‘moral’ narcissism on the part of the school that thinks itself sooooooooo pwogwessive because it upholds a very ‘anti-normative’ notion of beauty that happens to be oh-so-‘inclusive’. The whole thing stinks of bullshit.
Or consider the case where a school — actually two schools — secretly plotted a sports scenario where a retarded student would be helped to score a touchdown on the football field. Of course, the problem isn’t the compassion that the students felt for the poor kid. That much is to be lauded. It’s their over-enthused fantasy that what the kid achieved is a real touchdown. Now, kids feel a natural aversion to retarded children. Kids don’t want to hang around retards, and girls surely don’t want to date them. And long ago, perhaps such kids were too neglected, mocked, and mistreated. So, one could say it’s a good thing that kids have been raised to be more sensitive today — though, to be sure, the number of retards have been reduced thanks to fetal screening and selective abortion. But, the charade that the retarded kid is a some kind of student-athlete who actually made a touchdown, that is just bogus. Worse, though it seems to be about selflessness, it’s a form of moral narcissism, as if to parade oneself to the world that you are so caring and compassionate that you went so far as to make a retard feel good about himself. But the retarded kid has been sold on a lie. And the audience has been softly bullied into going along with the charade since people don’t want to be seen as ‘mean-spirited’, ‘uncaring’, and ‘hateful’ for calling out on the bullshit. We can treat unfortunate people with caring and decency without going out of our way to pretend that their misfortune is actually some kind of great fortune. We don’t need this Forrest-Gumpity BS which is a horrible fantasy about the world. Also, notice that the ‘moral’ pressure that forces us to pretend that the retarded kid scored a ‘real touchdown’ is much like our pretension that two lesbians or two homo guys can ‘have a child together’. Melissa Ethridge didn’t have a child with her lesbian lover. She had the child with David Crosby, but as in HANDMAID’S TALE, the real biological parent has to be nixed out of the equation while we must pretend that the woman had the child with another woman. We may over-enthusiastically pat ourselves on the back for our supportive compassion and applause for lesbians(as poor noble victims), but it’s all built on a lie that no honest person can take seriously.
So, even ‘good intentions’ can mask pathological amounts of deception and self-deception. It’s like the Housing Bubble under George W. Bush had so many enthusiasts on both sides of the ideological divide since they had to swallow and suppress so much bullshit to fool themselves that everything would turn out alright in offering no-interest home loans to so many people who live paycheck to paycheck or don’t even have any kind of steady income. People have a natural aversion to total bullshit, but if the bullshit is protected and promoted in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ — and of course, Wall Street greed — , then even the experts come under pressure to swallow and peddle the BS. And since their rational minds remain skeptical, they have to compensate by expunging their natural doubts with boundless enthusiasm. There is an element of cultist devotion and religiosity in all this, and indeed, Jews understood this very well as they are the masters of psychology.

Indeed, the aversion-exhilaration paradox is intrinsic to all religions, some more than others. Religions, especially the higher ones, cannot function without pressuring and even forcing people to overcome certain natural tendencies and aversions. The positive side of this is the civilizing effect it has on people as, after all, so many natural human tendencies and drives are ‘base’ and ‘animal’. Surely, any Jewish kid through the ages would have preferred to run around and play than sit at the feet of some mean-spirited hairy Rabbi who instructed him with ‘boring’ stuff, especially as the kid had to undergo much painful effort to memorize a lot of passages of text.
Much of Buddhism is about denial of what comes naturally to us. We naturally embrace the joys & pleasures of life while fearing poverty, disease, and death. But Buddha instructed people to reject pleasure as addictive illusions that filled one with ‘desire’ and ‘attachment’ that prevented people from separating and liberating themselves from the falsehood of the world. As for poverty, disease, and death, such should not be feared or regarded with aversion since they too are mere illusions.

Some Hindu yogis go out of their way to overcome their natural aversion to pain by sitting on cactuses or doing horrible things to their bodies. Naturally, fleshly pain is something we dread and try to avoid, but Hindu yogis seek to spiritually rise above the flesh by overcoming pain and agony. They may not embark on such with enthusiasm or exhilaration but still do so with extreme commitment in order to compensate for their pain and aggravation.
In some cases, doing something one dreads and fears most may pay off in some spectacular way at the very least. Most of us would be afraid to climb a high mountain or jump out of an airplane. But those who made it to the top of Everest surely felt as masters of the world. And once one masters the practice of parachuting, it can be exhilarating to be ‘floating’ up in the sky. And maybe Hindu yogis do feel a kind of transcendence once they master the practice of making their butts impervious to cactus needles.
But what is the payoff for most people when it comes to stuff like ‘gay marriage’ and the homo agenda? Do they really feel ecstatic in the knowledge that marriage has been associated with floopy-doo homo fecal penetrators with whiny voices and fairy-like demeanor? Do they really feel better as human beings by praising and worshiping the people with the styles of Liberace? What do most people get out of this homomania? It is precisely because homomania is so unnatural that the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Cabal must work so hard 24/7 to pump us day in and day out with the homo-cult, which comes in two flavors.
On the one hand, we are to accept homos because we are told that they’re just like us, a kind of ‘new normal’, ‘new mainstream’, and so clean-cut. They are the new ‘fathers knows best’ or ‘father blows best’. But on the other hand, we are also told that we must especially worship homos since they are so showy, so stylish, so special, so wild, so creative, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Of course, the same shtick is pulled with Jews and Negroes. So, we are told that we must regard Jews as ‘just like us’. They must not be seen as the Other, as that would be ‘antisemitic’. But we must also worship Jews because they are so special, so exceptional(in achievement and suffering), so smart, so wise, so funny, so radical, so subversive, and etc.
Same with Negroes. On the one hand, we must see blacks as ‘just as normal and upstanding as respectable middle class whites.’ So, Sidney Poitier was, for a long time, the too-good-to-be-true Negro, a real credit to his race. Even in GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER, he seemed to be marrying a white woman not out of any jungle fever lust but because it was all about love and progress and doing the right thing. You’d expect the union is entirely social and idealistic and hardly sexual as Negroes are too upstanding to think about actual sex. And of course, Obama has been sold as this kind of straight upright Negro. So, how dare any white person stereotype the Negro as a sex-crazed, gorilla-powered, wild-ass, and funky mofo!
But there’s the other side of Liberalism that says we must especially revere and worship the Negro and Negress because they holler like baboons, have huge dongs and big juicy butts(that be twerking like mad), run as fast and jump as high as animals, and fight like savage chimpanzees. So, you see, Liberals love racial and sexual stereotypes AS LONG AS they can be spun positively. So, if BIRTH OF A NATION says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must unite and defend themselves from the Negro, that is ‘racist’ and evil. But if, Jewish-promoted Rap culture says that black men are more lustful, more aggressive, and wilder, and therefore, whites must surrender and put out to the superior and more masterful black race, that is so ‘progressive’ and wonderful. Both views are predicated on racial differences, but notice that the latter is welcomed by Liberals even as they insist, officially at any rate, that there are no racial differences and that racial stereotypes are evil.

It’s truly astounding how stupid white people are in being suckered this way. But of course, many white people do sense a lot of bullshit in all this. Naturally, many whites do fear blacks. Naturally, many whites are worried about excessive Jewish power, especially since Jews are only 2% of the population, so pushy & nasty, and so unpleasant in looks and behavior. Naturally, many whites, deep down inside, find the homosexual thing to be gross. But as they’ve been inculcated in schools and by media — and even at work — that they must defer to blacks, Jews, and homos or otherwise they are ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, and ‘homophobic’, white folks feel that they must repress their natural anxieties and aversions about Jews, blacks, and homos.
How else can we explain the Oprah craze? (And there’s Ellen Degeneris the degenerate who owes her success to the mere fact that she’s a lesbian as she has no discernible talent.) She may have a knack for hosting a TV show, but she is no more than a fat black entertainer. How did she become ‘the one’? Why are so many white folks crazy about her, as if she’s the daughter of MLK? Indeed, even the MLK myth is promoted excessively in part to suppress our natural aversion to his true character. The real MLK was a compulsively lying and cheating opportunistic punk who used to beat up women and laugh about it. But such truth goes against the myth of him as the prophet of peace, and so, we must shout and holler in our reverence for him in order repress our doubts about him. And same goes for the Mandela craze. In truth, whites during apartheid did great things for South Africa by building up its economy and infrastructure, none of which would have existed had blacks gained control of South Africa much earlier. Also, South Africa has been a hellhole since the black takeover. So, any rational assessment of South Africa would fill many people with aversion to and revulsion of black African rule. But we can’t have that since that would be ‘racist’. Since the myth promoted by Jews is that Mandela was the father to a rainbow society of bliss and harmony, we must go batty in our delirious over-praise of Mandela to drown out our doubts and misgivings about the experiment of black rule.
Same goes for Israel. Any rational observer would notice the fact that vicious Jews rule the US, and that they’re working in tandem with Zionist Israelis in their pitiless oppression of Palestinians. (True, Palestinians are no saints, and many of them are unpleasant people, but they’ve lost their nation with the full backing of the most powerful nations on earth.) Any honest broker should be able to tell that the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are snakes. But since Jews are cloaked with the holy Holocaust Cult and have the means to make or break anyone, all politicians go out of their way to bow down before Jews with wild enthusiasm.

Chris Christie - Fat Pig Running Dog of Jews

Surely, deep down inside, fatsos like Chris Christie know Sheldon Adelson for what he is — a vile and cretinous Jewish tycoon. But he and his ilk are goy dogs who must bow down to Jewish supremacism, and they know they will be destroyed for even the slightest criticism of Jews and Israel.
This is especially true of Republicans. As Democratic Party is so owned by Jews, one can be a Democratic and be mildly critical of Israel. But since the white right has traditionally been associated with the cardinal sin of ‘antisemitism’, they must make an extra effort to show that they’ve been healed, see the light, and are on the side of holy shmoly Jews. Since white Conservatives must repress so much of their natural aversion to Jewish foulness, they must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to be pro-Jewish and pro-Zioinst, and this explains why the GOP is so mindlessly rabid in its support of everything Jewish. Republican pansy-boys act toward their Jewish masters like Mel Brooks-as-servant acts to his ‘master’ in TWELVE CHAIRS.

It’s all very sickening but such aversion-enthusiasm paradox is all too common among white people, and indeed, it’s becoming increasingly so since America has gone from majoritarian rule to minoritarian rule mode. Clearly, when the elites are markedly different in identity from the masses, they are going to be more nervous, anxious, and fearful of mass values, mass norms, mass passions, mass biases, and mass prejudices since the natural mode of most people is to want to be ruled by their own kind. Therefore, there will be more pressure from Jews and homos on the majority gentiles and straight people to suppress their natural tendencies, feelings, and values in favor of lionizing, revering, and worshiping the glory of Jews and homos, i.e. the ‘new normal’.
Given the nature of what has happened in America and EU in recent years, ‘antisemitism’ — though unpleasant and nasty at times — was very natural and even healthy in European history. What people would want to be ruled and manipulated by an alien elite with different looks and values? Why did the Chinese eventually overthrow the Manchus? Why did the Indians eventually bid the British farewell? Indeed, suppose Turks are only 2% of the Israel population but have the kind of economic, media, and political control that Jews have over US, UK, and even Russia. Jews in Israel would flip out and call out for Jewish nation for Jewish people under Jewish rule; Jews would be totally ‘antisemitic’ against the Turks. But Jews have been working so hard to make white people see ‘antisemitism’ as some kind of irrational disease of the mind when, in fact, the true disease is the notion that gentiles in America and the West should cower before the Jewish minority elites that, despite all their power and privilege, still go around whining like they are all poor survivors of the Holocaust. Consider the differential in power between Israeli Jews — who are backed by US, EU, Russia, and developed world — and Palestinians who have nothing and no support from the world community. Yet, we are to believe that Palestinians are the new Nazis and we must do everything in our power to save Jews from kids throwing rocks in Gaza at Israeli tanks and jet fighters. Anyone who knows anything naturally feels repulsed by such bullshit. But in America and EU, you don’t get anywhere without sucking up to Jews. And it’s not enough to tolerate Jews. Indeed, it’s not enough to welcome Jews. It’s not enough to praise Jews. We must worship Jews as holy victims of all eternity. Since this is so much BS, we must make a SUPER EXTRA EFFORT to repress all our doubts and to express our full enthusiasm for the Jews.

"Zionists are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life."

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox is well-illustrated by the case of Jack Johnson. In truth, Johnson was a loathsome person. But seen in historical context, we can understand why he had special meaning to black folks. In a society where blacks were, at best, second-class citizens(and often not even that), it was natural for many blacks to feel pride when Jack Johnson beat up all the whites guys and won the championship. Even ‘racist’ white people should be able to acknowledge that much, i.e. even if Johnson was lowly in character as an individual, he was a great boxer and he overcame many social obstacles at a time when there was so much white antipathy to any notion of black pride and power. To be sure, there were white progressives back then who did promote black pride, but it had to be respectable, the sort that was a ‘credit to their race’ and approved by white society. Johnson’s counter-example stood for blacks defining their own brand of racial pride(even if it meant blacks would eventually fulfill the stereotype as gorilla-like thugs with big fists, big muscles, and big dicks).

Jack Johnson the Negro Champion

Ken Burns the white dork Liberal sap

This much, all of us can agree on. But among white Liberals like Ken Burns, there’s this quasi-religious need to be redeemed of ‘white guilt’, and this means that we must all overcome the problem of Johnson’s lowly character and elevate him to something like a super-hero of noble virtues and greatness. So, with the likes of Ken Burns, it’s not enough to acknowledge the social meaning of Johnson within the context of history. We must somehow repress our natural loathing of many of his characteristics and pretend that he was a hero of the ages. But the fact is, if we remove the historical and social context, there’s only the thug. If Johnson were alive today, he’d be just another trashy black athlete, just another black thug in the streets or in jail, or just another black loudmouth who are dime-a-dozen. It was the context that gave special meaning to his life and career, but for white Liberals the CONTEXT of one’s character matters more than the CONTENT. And so, many idiot white Liberals get all gushy about Johnson as if he wasn’t just some socio-historically significant athlete but some kind of prophet-saint of the righteous fist: a kind of one-man black Boxer Rebellion. Anyway, whites today must repress so much of their doubts and revulsion about the real Jack Johnson in order to believe in the culturally sanctioned myth that he was made of heroic stuff. In truth, he was just a thug who liked to beat up people. And although harassed by white society-at-large, he was a bully in the ring since he ducked black fighters — who might have beaten him — and stuck to beating up easier white fighters. If bullying is where the stronger picks on the weaker, Johnson was a bully since he refused to fight other black fighters as tough or tougher than him. When he fought all those white guys, it was like a man deciding to fight only women, as indeed, the difference between the black male and white male in athleticism is almost comparable to that between a man and a woman.
Though we divide the sexuality into male and female, males can take on feminine attributes and females can take on male attributes depending on the set and setting. So, women prison guards come to act like men in their use of force to maintain order among women prisoners.
In contrast, even seemingly tough males will turn wussy in the presence of much tougher males. It’s like an aggressive barking male dog will suddenly droop its ears, curl its tail, and roll on its back in the presence of an bigger and tougher male dog.
White males have been totally pussifed by black males, and of course, this is very humiliating. To the natural male instinct, such a fate is disgusting and intolerable. Why would the men of any nation or race want to be pussified into quasi-womanhood by another race or people? So, the natural white male response to their fate under the lordship of smarter Jew and stronger blacks would be anger and rage, but since they’ve been brainwashed to believe that any negative feelings about Jews and blacks is ‘racist’ or ‘antisemitic’ — ooh, so evil and wicked! — , they repress their aversion and go out of their way to show their enthusiasm for their submission to Jewish brains and black brawn. When Bill Clinton addressed a bunch of white students at a commencement ceremony and told them that their kind is fated to become a minority in America, why was he greeted with such ecstatic applause from whites? Surely, deep down inside, the white students must have felt some doubt and anxiety about the future of their own kind as a minority in the very nation founded politically, culturally, economically, and socially by their ancestors. But as they’ve been brainwashed that they can only redeem ‘white guilt’ by submission to Jews and blacks(and ‘undocumented immigrants’ of all color), they simply couldn’t admit to their aversions about the troubled future. So, they went out of their way to applaud Clinton with rapturous exhilaration to drown out their natural aversions and anxieties.
It was the same with the kids assembled at a Harry Potter convention. When the foul and disgusting J. K. Rowling said Dumbledork is supposed to be a homo, there was first a muted reaction, as if WTF. But as kids have been told that there’s no higher honor in life than worshiping homos — after Jews and MLK of course — , they drowned out their doubts with mindless non-stop applause.

This is how mindless most people are, and this is why the Enlightenment ideals centered around Reason don’t go very far. For the elites, the thing is not to educate the people to think as individuals. First, most people are incapable of individual/independent thought even with extensive education and training. But, even if it were possible to turn most people into free thinkers, why would the elites want such an outcome when it would mean free-thinking individuals thinking their own thoughts and speaking truth to elite power? Why would Jewish-and-Homo or Jomo elites want the vast majority of people who are not Jewish nor homo to think freely and speak truth to Jewish and homo power? So, the Jomo elites seek to use mass education, mass indoctrination, mass advertising, mass taboo-enforcing, mass delirium — so much the feature of ‘gay pride’ parades — , and mass ignorance to further their goals.
Also, since both the Liberal and Conservative elites have been bought, tamed, and chained to the globalist Jomo agenda, the masses have no alternative leadership that might offer alternative formulation of power. There is no Moses figure in America. Jews and Homos are the new pharaohs, and they’ve leashed and trained everyone who matters to be obedient.
The GOP establishment, totally under the thumb of Neocon Jews who are allied to Liberal Zionist Jews of the Democratic Party, have decided to surrender on ‘gay marriage’. Since the corporate class, academia, media, and finance controlled by Jews say we must have ‘gay marriage’, the GOP has decided it better go along. So, all those Americans who’d supported the GOP for socially conservative reasons have all been had. They thought they had a stake in the Republic, but their votes were merely exploited by weasel-GOP elites who are nothing but running dogs of the Jewish elites. Of course, GOP leaders don’t suddenly say that they are FOR ‘gay marriage’. They just say, oh well... um.. uh..., ‘gay marriage’ is inevitable and there’s nothing that can be done about it. Now, Orrin Hatch is an old man who grew up in a much more conservative time and place. You’d think he’d stand up for the real values, but he’s a politician first and foremost, and politicians are prostituticians who go where the power is. It’s like Sal in THE GODFATHER shaking Barzini’s hand since, well, it appeared as though the Corleones are finished and Barzini is the inevitable winner. So, why fight it? Just ho-de-do like a ‘house nigger’. A true conservative would stick up for his principles and fight to the last even if the cause seems lost. But these GOP elite scum have no scruples. They are really out for #1, which is themselves. Of course, the Jomos are cackling with hideous glee as they take notice of how cowardly, craven, and chickenshit most American Conservatives are. And of course, deep down inside, many American Conservatives who sell out this way know they are succumbing to something they naturally feel an aversion to deep in their hearts. So, what will happen eventually? Following the logic of the Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox, it won’t be long before the GOP loudly and ‘proudly’ proclaims that ‘gay marriage’ is the ultimate in ‘family values’. Yes, the GOP has learned to love Big Buttfuc*ing Brother.

Aversion-Exhilaration Paradox in Action:

Goyim repress their cravenness and shame with excessive enthusiasm for whatever Netanhayu says.



Commissars scared shitless of Stalin hide their fears by out-of-control non-stop applause.