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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Patrick Little vs Nick Fuentes — Why Fuentes is wrong and right — The problems of Paul Nehlen and Patrick Little

In the heated exchange between Patrick Little and Nicholas Fuentes, the latter says an election has no meaning unless it is to win. Perhaps it was rhetorical flourish on Fuentes’ part to belittle Little as a pathetic electoral Loser, because Fuentes surely knows that elections mean different things in different contexts. Fuentes would be right in the case of Patrick Little IF there was any real chance of a Republican winning the Senate seat in California. But there is NONE. So, the next Senator of California will be another Democrat. Republicans have about as much chance of winning a state-wide seat in California as a fish has of surviving in the desert. So, I don’t begrudge Little’s use of candidacy mainly as a platform to inform people of the Jewish Question.
Also, if indeed California is the future of America, Little’s reaching out to non-whites serves as a template for what-is-to-be-done by whites. Ideally, the US should remain a white-majority nation, a part of Western Civilization. But if Jews do succeed in engineering the US to become a new Brazil or Venezuela(to the point where White Power will be permanently broken), then the only option left for whites is to get revenge on Jews by forming any possible alliance with People-of-Color against Jewish supremacist power. If Jews amassed great power and destroyed white America by directing the rising tide of color to hate and blame Whitey, then whites must return the favor once the US is lost to them forever. Indeed, I’ve argued that the GOP should fold its tents, and all whites should just join the Democratic Party. Turn the US into a one-party state and then form ANY kind of alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. Make the Jew taste his own medicine. If Jews pushed the Narrative that ‘whites are evil cuz of white privilege and must atone by siding with people of color’, then whites should indeed side with people-of-color and expose Jews as the real rulers, elites, and tyrants of not only the US but the world. After all, just do the math and add up the numbers. Jews are 2% of the US population but control how much of finance, foreign policy, media, academia, gambling & other vice industries, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, sports franchises, Big Pharma(the harma), and etc.? So, if the future of the US is California, whites cannot regain White Power & Dominance again but they can, at the very least, get sweet revenge against Jews by, ironically, playing the Jewish rule-book. Jews have insisted that everyone, ‘good’ white and people-of-color, must unite against Evil White Privilege. Okay! Since Jewish Privilege is the Ultimate in White Privilege, then all white goyim should side with blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims against Jews. Whites should demand NO special treatment for Zionists over Palestinians. After all, if favoring one group over another(especially one with far less power) is a form of supremacism, then US media and foreign policy are totally supremacist in favoring Israeli-Zionist death squads over Palestinian women and children being gunned down out in the open(with the blessing of US whore politicians who take 30 pieces of silver from Judeo-Nazi globo-pimps).
So, given that Patrick Little or any other Republican has zero chance of winning the Senate seat in California, I have no problem with Little using his campaign as a platform to raise the JQ and wake up peoples of all races and backgrounds as to which people have the Real Power and are doing most harm to the world. On that score, Little deserves more respect than any Cuckservative GOP candidate who did little but sing hosannas to Israel DESPITE THE FACT that Jews have been at the forefront of the War on White. GOP’s cuckservative whores and wussies deserve no respect. Pat Little did nothing wrong in using his campaign to spread a message. He had no chance of winning the election so he decided to speak what cannot be spoken in American politics.

Another reason why Fuentes is wrong is focusing so much on ‘winning’ is that certain ideas take time to sprout, grow, and bloom. When Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, he knew he had slim chance of winning. And he knew he could have gotten more support from donors if he’d championed globalism and ‘free trade’. He didn’t. Instead, he spoke up for the American working class. He was attacked by the Media for his ‘fascism’. For much of the decade, people like Rush Limbaugh derided Buchanan as a ‘populist’ than a conservative. Buchanan failed to win once again in 1996 and lost big in 2000. And for his opposition to the Iraq War, he became a total persona-non-grata in the Republican Party. So, it seemed as if Buchanan was the biggest loser in US politics. But precisely because he stuck to his guns, stood on principles, and carried on with core conviction, his ideas eventually bore fruit with the rise of Donald Trump and populism(that, among the base, now has more positive connotations than ‘conservatism’ that came to conserve nothing). Also, Buchanan’s 1992 speech, which had been denigrated as one of the biggest mistakes ever, is now seen by many as one of the great political oratories in US history by some people. The speech would surely resonate with many Americans if they heard it today. So, when Fuentes just dismisses anyone who fails in political campaigns as irrelevant ‘losers’, he’s being glib and shallow. He is also betraying himself because he also could have won much more in the media if he’d taken the 30 pieces of silver from the likes of Ben Shapiro or some well-funded Establishment operation. But because he chose the honest and courageous path, he has to build up his reputation from the margins. The easy path has been denied him, so he has to take the longer and harder uphill path with a machete. Along the way, there will be lots of poison ivy, snakes, and other dangers, but it’s never meant to be easy for those with principles.

But in one respect, Fuentes is right and Little is totally wrong. It’s one thing for Little to court controversy and take tough stands on sensitive issues, but it’s quite another for him to spread lies, talk nonsense, exaggerate his importance, turn it all into empty theater, and, worst of all, go 14/88. It’s a cliche but true: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Just because Jewish Power is now the worst evil in the world doesn’t mean that all enemies of Jews are good people. Farrakhan has been blasting Jewish influence & corruption, but he is a son-of-a-bitch himself. And even if past ‘anti-Semites’ may have had sound reasons for their antipathy, it doesn’t mean everything they did was justified. Some of those pogroms in Ukraine spiraled out of control. And the Nazism constituted a kind of Teutonic ideological pathology no less demented than Jewish globalist supremacism.
We should all know this by now. Sure, the Soviets achieved the awesome feat of defeating Nazi Evil, but the Soviets also committed lots of evils. The US did noble things around the world but also terrible, ugly things. Jews did a lot of good as well as lot of bad. The good can be bad, the bad can be good, and most peoples and nations are mix of both.
It makes no sense to go the David-Duke path where just about the ONLY GOOD JEW is Gilad Atzmon who happens to be especially harsh on his Tribesmen. Even if we have every right to be very angry with current Jewish Power, we can still keep our heads and not fall into the trap of praising insane ideologies and movements just because they were ‘woke’ on the JQ. We tend to think in terms of ‘enemy of our enemy is our friend’, but the ‘friend’ can turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Remember how the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators(from Soviet tyranny), only to discover that the Nazis considered Ukrainian Slavs to be a bunch of ‘subhumans’ to be treated even worse than under Stalin. But for whatever reasons, Little has decided to take his anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-supremacism into Neo-Nazi territory. He claims that the Shoah didn’t happen. He says outrageous things like how Germans treated Jews better than Japanese were treated in internment camps during WWII. Sure, we can find anecdotal evidence where a handful of Jews were treated better because they bribed the Germans. Or for propaganda purposes, Nazis created a few ‘potemkin concentration camps’ where Jews were treated rather well to make ‘documentary’ films to show to the world. But then, Soviets did the same thing. Judging by communist documentaries of the USSR, one would have thought that workers and peasants were living in a socialist paradise of plenty and bliss. Patrick Little, who is now so skeptical and cynical about Jewish claims, is willing to swallow every BS peddled by crazed Neo-Nazis and their ilk. But the essence of truth is not a matter of black or white, night or day, this or that, especially when it comes to something as grand and complicated as history. Just as it’d be stupid to say everything about Nazism and Hitler was bad, it’s wrong to be totally anti-Jewish on everything. And just as we must be careful not to fall for Jewish BS(about Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, white people, the ‘far right’, etc), we must be careful not to fall for nonsense endlessly peddled by Neo-Nazi types. Granted, Neo-Nazi psychos have no power whereas Jews have immense power around the world. But lies are lies, nonsense is nonsense, and we need to stand on the side of truth. What matters is not 'Jews are good, whites are bad' or 'whites are good, Jews are bad', but 'people, Jews or whites, must make an honest effort to be good on realistic terms.'

Because Patrick Little spouted off Neo-Nazi talking points, he disgraced himself. Worse, he associated all the necessary and compelling points he made about Jewish Power and Zionist influence with crazy 14/88 ‘Hitler did noting wrong’ nonsense. Before Little let down people like Fuentes, he disappointed and alienated people like Ryan Dawson. Dawson was looking forward to a sane discussion about Jewish power and what’s happening in Israel/Palestine, but it wasn’t long before Little veered into utterly crazy talk about how Nazis treated Jews like guests at Waldorf Hotel. It got repulsive, and in a subsequent video, Dawson reiterated the importance of not losing one’s head and lurching into cuckoo banana territory. Just like outlandish theories about 9/11 undermine intelligent skepticism of the official narrative, insane anti-Jewish vitriol undermines necessary exposure and criticism of Jewish power. Just because Jewish globalists now act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean we should be praising the Old Nazis. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it is for this reason that Fuentes was correct in not associating himself with Little.

Though I don’t think Patrick Little is a fed-larping-as-‘far-right’-dissident, he might as well be just that whenever he spouts off about how ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’. On the issue of Shoah, Little makes the same ‘mistake’ as those in the Holocaust-Desecration cult who extrapolate one falsehood about the Narrative to nullify the entire event. For example, even experts now admit that many accounts of what happened at Auschwitz can no longer be supported by evidence. And there have been Jewish charlatans who fabricated tales for attention or fortune. And certain confessions made by Germans were under the duress of torture. But that doesn’t mean the main event didn’t happen. Surely, there were plenty of men who exaggerated or told tall tales about Gettysburg or Normandy, but that doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen. Skepticism is a good thing, but why is it that so many people who become skeptical of the Jewish Narrative become easy suckers for other extreme Narratives? It’s as if, having been soul-cleansed of one sacred narrative, they crave another one that fills them with certainty. Because truth is often complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous, people who come to reject the Big Lie easily fall for another Big Lie. They break free of the Lie but still retain the craving for some all-encompassing truth that had been satisfied by the former Big Lie. It’s like people who lose religion often turn to secular cults with a fanaticism that mimics religious fervor. Isn’t it ironic how secular progs are more rapturous and delirious in their celebration of Homomania than many religious people are in their worship of God?

Anyway, regardless of whether Patrick Little is a ‘fed’ or not, his antics are reminiscent of the flaming lunatic named Sinead McCarthy. Though initially greeted as a lively, funny, and irreverent voice of the Alt Right with her parodies and passionate views, she soon turned totally nutter and argued in favor of Flat Earth Theory, as if to Westboro-ize the movement. It was then that people began to suspect she is really a nutjob or an infiltrator whose game is to make the Alt Right look bad by having their views be associated with nonsense like Flat Earth and other silliness. And yes, she also went 14/88 and then began to attack most Alt Right people as either ‘fags’ or worse. Little is nowhere near that level of insanity, but his campaign, at least when it came to Hitler-Nazis-Shoah, clearly went off the deep end. Granted, there are plenty of Judeo-Nazis who are no less crazed. People like Max Boot would have us believe Putin is ‘new Hitler’ or that Iran poses some ‘existential’ threat to the world. Ben Shapiro is a Jewish supremacist hypocrite who berates even the slightest hint of identity and interests among white people but demands that all whites rally around Zionism. And who can forget Madeleine Albright who said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids or Sheldon Adelson who called for nuking Iran, a nation that has no nukes? Insane. But we shouldn’t be countering insanity with insanity. Judeo-Nazis are evil but so were the original Nazis.


Sadly, even people who should know better in the movement keep flirting with or pushing 14/88 garbage. Kevin MacDonald has done important work on the JQ. Also, we can forgive his past associations with men like David Duke and Don Black because, having been pushed to the fringes, he had no choice but to form alliances with people of shared interests. After all, the conservative De Gaulle formed an alliance with French Communists in the Resistance against German Occupation. But Kevin Macdonald now has enough name recognition to be pushing Neo-Nazi radical nonsense on Occidental Observer. How can MacDonald scoff at accusations of ‘supremacism’ when he allows pro-Hitler garbage on his website? Now, the problem is not nuance or complexity when it comes to the discussion of Hitler and National Socialism because, after all, positive things can be said about them, as of communism and other radical movements. The problem is gushing endorsement, which some writers at Occidental Observer have clearly made of National Socialism. Never let your hatred of a**holes turn you into one.

On the JQ, Fuentes has broached the topic without going cuckoo bananas. He named the power and discussed what really happened with USS Liberty and other instances of Zionist spying, theft, and sabotage. And he did it without the ‘Heil Hitler’ nonsense. Because Pat Little veered into nonsense territory with 14/88 garbage, he got stuck in the ditch. Sure, he will continue to have back-slappers on 4Chan who love to egg on any self-destructive loudmouth, but that’s no way to be a serious and mature person.

If Nehlen imploded because he wasn’t smart and feisty enough to handle the controversy and firestorm — even at his most outrageous, there was something soft, passive, and Mr-Rogersy about him — , Little’s problem seems to be he’s too bright and aggressive for his own good. Intelligence is a great asset but not when it lacks patience, balance, and probity. Instead of carefully weighing and digesting everything he’s learned in the past few years, Little just takes them as literal truths, immutable and invincible, and lets his mind run free to draw any conclusions that cast Jews in an evil light. Little has mental energy that was rarely evident with Nehlen, but he ingest ideas like he vapes on that stupid pipe of his. He’s read this and that, so he knows best, and there is nothing more to know. He’s like a born-again(or born-to-kill-again) Evangelical except with Damn-the-Jews as his new-found faith.

Personality counts for a lot in human affairs, and the strengths of Little’s personality are also his deficits. He can be tireless, which is good, but to the point of zealousness. He can be combative but to the point of being insulting and arrogant. He can be engaging and articulate but to the point of sophistry. Of course, none of this matters if he is indeed a ‘fed’ just larping as ‘right-wing dissident’ whose main objective is to associate legitimate criticism of Jewish Power with neo-Nazi desecration and mockery of all things associated with the great tragedy called Shoah.

Is the GOP the Party of Mediocrity?

Not long ago, Mitt Romney said something about 47% of Americans being predisposed to voting for Obama since the Democratic Party is the party of big government and dependency. The assumption is most of the 47% are people of low talent, low intelligent, and low energy who simply cannot do much on their own; there are many such people in the U.S. and little can be done about them.

If this were true, then the counter-assumption would be that the GOP is the party of success and excellence. Thus, if many low-IQ blacks, incompetent non-white Hispanics, and members of the 'white trash' are naturally inclined to go with the Democratic Party, then it should be safe to assume, at least according to Romneyism, that groups known for their success, excellence, and talent will go with the GOP. But consider the five most successful groups in America: Jews, elite Wasps, East Asians, Asian-Indians, and gays. Are they going with the Democrats or with the Republicans?  85% to 90% of Jews are liberals; though 20% voted for McCain and 25% vow to vote for Romney, many so-called 'neocons' are really liberal moderates who support the GOP only for Zionist and pro-Wall-Street reasons. Asian numbers are increasing fast, and Asians are vastly over-represented in elite colleges and generally out-earn most other ethnic/racial groups, but 60% voted for Obama--the percentage is surely higher among young well-educated Asians--and possibly more will vote for Obama in 2012.  And 75% of gays are Democratic.

So, Romney's point about the 47% is only half right. Yes, it's true that a lot of incompetents and dependents vote Democratic. But it's also true that the most successful and more energized groups in America are also heavily Democratic. And since Jews pretty much control the academia and media--that shape the views and values of most white Americans--, many successful whites have also come to identify with the Democratic Party. (Democratic-ization of educated whites may also be the product of the New Media. In Old Media that favored 'objectivity', news personalities on TV mostly kept their liberalism under wraps and tried to treat all sides fairly. Ted Koppel was a perfect example. Even when people he vehemently disagreed with appeared on Nightline, he treated them fairly and with respect--at least to the best of his ability. Thus, news media in the past had been less judgmental, sending a message that you could be conservative and still be respectable figure in the mainstream spotlight. But with the rise of open politicking in the news--Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and with shows like Jon Stewart--, people with 'wrong views' are openly vilified and constantly tarred-and-feathered on the air as 'racists' or 'homophobes'. While conservatives may have Fox--the least respected news channel in the eyes of educated people--, most news channels and just about all else on TV is liberal or pro-Democratic. With all those liberals openly and brazenly shaming conservatives who, for example, oppose 'gay marriage', it's tougher to be a conservative and remain respectable. Since people are social creatures and want to be liked--the rule of behaviorism--, most educated people will cower to the powers that be that decide what is 'nice'.But since no one wants to feel like a coward, those who go along with political correctness are praised by the powers-that-be as having 'made a courageous choice'. In other words, the trick is to bully people into conforming and then hype the conforming as a show of individual courage. Liberals probably learned this trick from Christians who shunned and persecuted those who didn't accept Jesus but then profusely praised the bullied convert as having made the right choice--as if he really had a choice.)
So, the problem of the GOP isn't merely quantity--the rising numbers of blacks and browns that make up the American electorate--but quality, i.e. the most successful, intelligent, and talented people(s) in America are going with the Democrats. So, GOP is being squeezed from top and bottom. It's not 53% of winners vs 47% of losers, but 40% of dwindling number of white conservatives being squeezed by successful Democrats from the top and by unsuccessful Democrats from the bottom.

Now, libertarian Republicans might blame the GOP's failure in capturing the successful--the Jews, gays, Asians, etc.--due to GOP's fatal alliance with Southern Redneck dummies who cling to their guns and Bibles. After all, what smart person would want to belong to a Party of George W. Bush and Bob Jones University that preaches Creationism? But are libertarians correct in their political assessment? If the GOP were to go fully materialist and libertarian, would it attract a whole lot of smart people? Would the promise of lower taxes and more 'free markets' attract the successful educated classes?
Not so fast. Man doesn't live on bread alone. Kids headed to elite colleges wanna be (or see themselves as) not only materially successful but morally/intellectually advanced. It just so happens that libertarianism sounds too selfish, crass, and vain to a lot of educated people. Successful people may be vain and crass, but they prefer to see themselves as something other.
Even educated secular people need to be won over by 'spiritualist' means, and libertarianism--either in the Paulian or Randian form--doesn't appeal to most highly educated people.
One of the things they don't like about libertarianism is its brazen honesty of power and success. While most successful people do primarily care about power and success(and privilege), they want to believe that they're living for 'higher values' such as 'social progress' or 'social justice'.
Also, though libertarianism argues that free markets and individual liberties will take care of social problems(at least with greater efficiency than other -isms), most 'good people' want to believe in having an ACTIVE role in improving the world. Libertarianism says, 'If you take care of yourself, then society will take care of itself.' Such indirect solving of problems may work or may not work, but 'good people' want to believe that they are actively and consciously engaged in bettering the world.

So, what is the future of the GOP when it has lost not only most of the lower 47% but most of the elite 15%? Does that mean the GOP will be a party of mediocrity?
One thing though... the alliance of the well-educated elites and unwell-educated lower classes is possibly only because of the wide buffer provided by the white middle class and working class. If that buffer didn't exist and if America were made up only of elite liberals(of Jews, Asians, upper wasps, gays, etc) and the unwashed masses who want free everything as 'rights' and entitlements' from the government, the whole system would collapse overnight. So, ironically, it's the GOP white middle that unwittingly enables the alliance of the top and bottom of society. But it gets squeezed just the same.