Is the 'Conservative Media' Really Retarded?

My Commentary on Conor Friedersdorf's ATLANTIC magazine piece on the delusions of the 'conservative media'.

This is an interesting piece and well-worth reading but ultimately more a tirade than a honest investigation of what wrong's with the conservative media. While Conor Friedersdorf is right about the shortcomings--to say the least--of conservative journalism and punditry, he fails out to spell out the real reasons for the problems due to lack of courage, honesty, or knowledge. As he works in journalism, I doubt if it's lack of knowledge.

Yes, the conservative media suffered from what might be called the Obama Derangement Syndrome, akin to the Bush Derangement Syndrome among liberals from 2000 to 2008. Back then, liberals were hysterical about the looming 'fascist' state run by Christian Theocrats. They embraced the trashy Michael Moore as truth-teller. They were so sure of Kerry's victory in 2004 and itching to celebrate. And so on.  In a way, the Bush Derangement Syndrome was all the more surprising since there was so much open criticism and denouncement of Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign. Though the media went soft on Bush after 9/11 for reasons for patriotism and unity--and this fatally played a role in the path to the Iraq War--, once the war began to go badly, the media rolled up their sleeves and did the job of reporting the truth on Bush's abuses. This was especially true after his re-election and Hurricane Katrina disaster. Given the opposition against Bush from the academia, media, Hollywood, musical celebrities, TV comedians, and etc., there was really no need for the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush's power was watched, investigated, and checked. Consider the whole Valerie Plame scandal. And much of the media loathed Karl Rove, Cheney, and others, and did their job in digging up dirt on them.

The problem with Obama is the media have been uncritically with him from day one. While Birthers may be on a wild sheep chase, the whole phenomenon was the result of the media's refusal to dig deeply and honestly into Obama's past. During the Democratic primaries, the media even covered up John Edwards' sex scandal in order to split the white Democratic vote between Hillary and Edwards to benefit Obama. When Sarah Palin's VP candidacy was announced, a huge crew of MSM went snooping all over Wasilla, Alaska to dig up all the dirt on Palin. But the media were mostly busy building up the cult of personality of Obama as 'black jesus' or 'the one'. It was as if the media became part of the Democratic Party in Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood tradition. Instead of doing their job of investigating a presidential candidate's past, they mostly tried to shield him from criticism, refused to ask him tough questions, and favored him in the overall coverage. The media didn't cover but covered up for him. The media promoted and hyped him. They were part of his marketing and advertising campaign. And many words written about him by journalists had a 'spiritualist' tinge, as if he could walk on water or something.

It wasn't the MSM that uncovered the fact of Obama's long, close ties with the vicious Jeremiah Wright. Indeed, had the media revealed that earlier--along with Edwards' sex scandal--, Hillary might have had winning chance in the 2008 primaries. But the media were in Obama's pocket and vice versa. When the Wright scandal finally became news, MSM reported it as objectively and coldly as possible WITHOUT judgement. Now, suppose McCain had been found to have been associated with a deranged nut for 20 yrs and lied about never having heard the man's crazy rants.
Obama had known all about the Wright but called him his spiritual guide and mentor(mainly of course to gain street cred among black voters in the Chicago South Side). But he was able to ride out the storm because the media provided him with an umbrella. He was mostly evasive about the subject, and the media refused to judge him, and then dropped the story because it was said to have 'no traction'. But whether a story has traction or not is dependent on the mainstream media. After all, the Don Imus 'nappy headed ho' story would have had no traction if the media hadn't jumped all over him for weeks on end. And Buchanan's convention speech in 1992 was considered a success... until the media jumped all over him with judgmental fury.

This refusal to be tough on Obama--as on the other candidates--is what made so many American distrustful of the whole Obama narrative, and this is what gave birth to Birthers and other conspiracy theories. Though I never cared for Birtherism, it is funny that the most hyped politician in American history is also the most secretive and protected. Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER is mostly a self-created myth with little substance, and much of Obama's records have been kept sealed and hidden. Why? It's almost like the secrets in THE DAVINCI CODE. If Obama has nothing to hide, why has so much been hidden about him? Why are the media giving us the myth and not the real man? I think because there isn't much to the real man, just like there isn't much to the real person behind the Hollywood actor. Now, it's the role of Hollywood and marketing to put forth the myth than the man. But it is the role of journalism to ferret out the man from the myth. Have the media done that with Obama? Indeed, the Obama Derangement Syndrome is actually bigger among liberals than among conservatives, albeit in a pro- than con- way.
Some liberals were fainting and foaming at the mouth at the mere sight of him. They were describing him akin to a god. Chris Matthews said he had tingles going up his legs and compared Obama's Wright speech with those of Lincoln. He even thanked the devastating hurricane for coming to Obama's aid in the election. In other words, Obama's victory is more important than all the flood damage and people freezing in the cold. Newsweek ran covers of Obama as something like 'gay jesus'. This is journalism?
It is no wonder then that some on the Right decided to fantasize the worst possible scenarios about Obama. The funniest is Obama being a secret Muslim out to destroy Israel. Ridiculous since no politician in recent memory has been more controlled and owned by Jews. And favored by Jews.
But, it was not wrong for many conservatives to try to do the job that liberals refused to do. Especially since liberals make up over 90% of MSM and since the media are supposed to serve as a check on the powers-that-be, there is something seriously wrong when the media refuse to do their job with the 'most powerful man in the world'. Even leftists like Glenn Greenwald have written about the failure of the media to look into Obama's real record and deeds.

What Friedersdorf refused to discuss is the power of Jews in all this. The problem with the media is not so much liberal domination as JEWISH liberal and neocon domination. Not all liberals are the same, not all conservatives are the same. Some liberal groups are far more powerful than others. On the Democratic side, Jews followed by gays are by far the most powerful and influential. Polish-American liberals and Arab-American liberals don't have anything like the power of Jewish liberals and even gay liberals. Since Jews are so powerful on the liberal side, one would think the American Right would be the bastion of forces critical of Jewish power. When Wasps were the dominant elites in America, Jews called out on Wasp power, privilege, connections, and influence. Since Jews are the new elites of America, naturally we expect there to be criticism of Jewish power, privilege, connections, and influence. And since most Jews are liberal, we would expect this criticism tto come from the Right. But there isn't any. So-called 'conservative media' is really neoconservative media.  Though there are non-Jewish conservative voices all over the so-called 'conservative media', they all got their gigs with the blessing of the Jewish neocon establishment. They must be mindlessly uncritical in their support of Israel. They must be foam at the mouth about the 'Muslim Threat' to please their neocon bosses. They must be for 'diversity', which is what neocon Jews want, indeed no less than liberal Jews. The reasons for the Jewish love of 'diversity' is simple. It serves Jewish elite power. Just like the diversity of India allowed the small British elite to rule for two centuries by resorting to 'divide and rule' among diverse groups, Jewish elites seek to increase non-white diversity in order to play gentiles against one another. (Of course, Jews don't want diversity in Israel where they are the majority.) And it worked this time, with Jews using blacks and browns to ensure that white majority can no longer elect the candidate they want. But of course, Romney is no less owned by Jews, namely the neocons.
What with up to 60% of Democratic funds and 40% of Republican funds coming from Jews, Jews pretty much control both parties. And with Jewish oligarchs owning most of the media--and with Jews serving as managers in most media companies--, both the liberal and conservative media are really about serving Jewish power and interests. Indeed, liberal MSM has over the yrs favored neocons as the voice of American conservatism, and, as a result, much of the political discussion has turned into liberal Jews and their goy puppets bickering with neocon Jews and their goy puppets. And both sides have been purging people they don't like. Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas were purged from  liberal media for daring to speak out about Jewish power and privilege. And so-called 'paleocons' and 'Arabist realists' have been purged from GOP ranks.
The fact is there is a great disconnect between so-called 'mainstream conservatism' whose script is written by cynical neocons(whose main objective is to use to Christian Right dummies to serve Zionist interests) and other conservatives who've come to hold most 'conservative leaders' in contempt as shills for Zionist and Wall Street interests. The main reason why most conservatives lost interest in the Tea Party was because it was co-opted by Wall Street neocons. Tea Party originally began as an attack on Wall Street/Big Government collusion--aka crony capitalism--, but neocons and their puppet hacks like Sarah Palin turned it into mindless support for Israel and Wall Street. It was this disconnect that discouraged so many white voters who chose to stay home this time around. Most people I know who supported Ron Paul refused to vote, so disgusted were they by how Romney was cherry-picked by the neocon establishment. This simmering disgust with neocon Zionists among conservative is the great untold story of this election. We hear nothing of it because both the MSM--which really should be called the liberal Jewish media--and the 'conservative media'--which really should be called the neocon Jewish media--suppress stories about Jewish power and influence. For many real conservatives, Romney is just another shill of Wars for Israel and Wall Street Zionist-globalist financiers. The real story of this election isn't who voted for Obama or who voted for Romney but who DIDN'T vote for Romney and why? Many conservatives saw Romney as the product of neocon cheating in the primaries. But the liberal Jewish media colluded with neocons. Because of Ron Paul's critical views of Israel, the MSM did all it could to bury coverage of him and his arguments. In some debates, he wasn't even asked any questions. Though Paul was polling well in the early rounds, the scripted grand narrative was he was a 'fringe candidate'. The real problem of American politics is that both liberal Jews and neocon Jews are not enemies. They see eye to eye on most issues. Neocons are essentially socially liberal Jews working in the guise of 'conservatives' to win conservative support for Israel. Also, neocon presence in the GOP serve to dampen any possible criticism of Jewish power from the Right. Since American conservatives are so grateful to have some Jews on their side, they go the extra-mile not to do or say anything that might offend Jews. And if something conservatives do or say may offend Jews, conservatives go out of their way to praise Jews, memorialize the Holocaust, and support Zionist dispossession of Palestinians in order to show they don't have an 'antisemitic' bone in their bodies.

Why was the neoconservative media so deluded? They cherry-picked the 'conservative' candidate that most conservatives didn't trust or like. They got so swept in trying to fool people that Romney was a true blue--or red bled as the case may be--conservative that they were not only disconnected from political reality but from conservative reality: the fact that many conservatives didn't like Romney at all. While many conservatives did vote for Romney out of hatred for Obama, many hated Romney too much to bother going to the pols, which is why so many white voters chose not to vote.

American Conservative magazine is a good barometer of how a lot of conservatives really felt about Romney. Neocons are a small part of conservatism, but they hog most of the elite positions in the GOP and 'conservative media'. And even non-Jewish conservatives working in the media and government are so careful as to not offend neocons in any way. Though the Jews are the natural enemies of white gentile interests in America, white conservatives have this fatal alliance with neocons that prevents them from taking on Jewish power. When Jews rose to power, they attacked Wasp power and privilege with full force. But this is not allowed with Jewish power, and this is the most dangerous reality in America. Consider. Wall Street is dominated by Jews. Media are dominated by Jews. Elite academia is dominated by Jews. Upper echelons of government is dominated by Jews. Top law firms are dominated by Jews. Foreign policy is dominated by Jews. We have Jewish power-networking that goes beyond anything Wasp networking in the past. Wasps also never hid their power. They admitted their power and were even self-critical to settle for reforms. But Jews, though the most powerful people in America, have used the Holocaust card to play the Eternal Victims of history. So, even though Jewish Wall Street played a significant role in the economic debacle and neocon Jews played a key role in the Iraq War, the Jewish-controlled media and Jewish-controlled courts allowed Jews who were responsible to get off scott free. In 2008, Wall Street put their money on Obama. Obama served Wall Street by filling up his economic team with Wall Street insiders. Few Wall Streeters had to face any kind of justice. If anything, they got huge 'bail outs'. Now, where were the media on this? They made some noise, but they let it pass because Jewish oligarchs who own the media are friends with Jewish oligarchs who run Wall Street. And Jewish controlled Hollywood made only tepidly critical movies about financial wrongdoings. Jewish Hollywood would rather make movies about all those 'crazy terrorist Muslims'--superhero war porn movies set in the Middle East where US blows up all those swarthy 'muzzies--and the remake of RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn. Or the remake of STRAW DOGS where a white woman is raped by rednecks when the real problem of rape--indeed the real war on women--involve astronomically high black rape rates.
And consider both the liberal Jewish media and neocon media's coverage of Iran and Israel. Israel has 300 illegal nukes and crushes Palestinians on a daily basis. Iran has no nukes and has passed every international inspection. Yet, Israel is showered in billions in aid while Jewish-controlled US uses its muscle to economically strangulate Iran to death. Even so-called liberal Jews support the economical strangulation of an innocent people to serve Zionist interests. And though the president of Iran never said, "Israel will be wiped off the map", that trope was allowed to fester in the media forever.

There can't be an honest conservative media until conservatives break out of the stranglehold of neocons on the GOP and conservative think tanks. But then, the liberal Jewish media have always favored neocons as the Voice of Conservatism. Liberal Jewish newspapers mostly choose neocon columnists, and liberal TV channels invite mostly neocons to speak for conservatism. Yes, there are lots of dumb conservatives regardless of neocon domination, but it's the neocon domination that makes American conservatism obsess mainly over the interests of globalist Wall Street and the Jewish Zionist Apartheid State of Israel. But then, liberal Jews want to keep things this way because if American conservatism was reclaimed by real conservatism, there may finally be a power that speaks truth to Jewish power that happens to be overwhelmingly liberal, globalist, and anti-white. (Jews are more anti-white working class and anti-white middle class than anti-white elite class. Jews shower white elites with all sorts of rewards as long as the latter play to Jewish demands like 'gay marriage'. And 'affirmative action' is geared to favor smarter/richer whites and Jews over poorer white gentiles, and so both Jews and affluent white liberals have little to fear from 'affirmative action'. It's white poor and white working class who bear the burden of affirmative action.)

Friedersdorf writes:

"In conservative fantasy-land, Richard Nixon was a champion of ideological conservatism, tax cuts are the only way to raise revenue, adding neoconservatives to a foreign-policy team reassures American voters, Benghazi was a winning campaign issue, Clint Eastwood's convention speech was a brilliant triumph, and Obama's America is a place where black kids can beat up white kids with impunity. Most conservative pundits know better than this nonsense -- not that they speak up against it. They see criticizing their own side as a sign of disloyalty. I see a coalition that has lost all perspective, partly because there's no cost to broadcasting or publishing inane bullshit. In fact, it's often very profitable. A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption."


Here, he's mostly wrong. Richard Nixon has never been seen as the champion of ideological conservatism by most conservatives. If anything, conservatives have been bashing him over the years as a traitor in just about everything. He came to be loathed by much by conservatives as by liberals.
'Adding neoconservatives to foreign-policy team' is a NEOCONSERVATIVE fantasy because neoconservatives dominate American 'conservatism. I mean duh. Friedersdorf got it backwards. He seems to think conservatives cooked up this neocon fantasy. No, neocons eventually took over the GOP and 'conservative' think tanks, and they cooked up the fantasy of neocon foreign interventionism as the cornerstone of conservatism. Most conservatives don't want war with Iran and want to bring the boys home.
As for Benghazi, it was indeed a great issue for conservatives, and liberal media's actions prove it. If it was not damaging to Obama, why did the media go along with his lies and help him cover up the truth of what happened? Here, I'm afraid, it's Friedersdorf who's playing the partisan hack. Obama lied about Benghazi, and if the media had covered it honestly, it could have been fatal to his re-election. That is why the media made sure it didn't get any 'traction'.

As for black kids beating up white kids, this isn't just something that happens in Obama's America but something that's been going on for some time. Maybe Friedersdorf is one of those affluent white liberals who lives in gentrified or gentrically cleansed 'Europeanized' American cities with relatively few blacks. The fact is most racial crime in this country is black on white. Blacks are physically tougher, stronger, and more aggressive. Just like most sexual violence is mostly male on female, most racial crime is black on white. And it's not about poverty since most white victims are poor whites attacked by stronger black thugs. But there's also lots of black crime on Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, and gays--most of it suppressed by the media unless the victims happen to be Jewish or gay, the two most favored groups in America. Blacks know they are tougher; blacks know that non-blacks are afraid of them. Indeed, we can see this in blue states. How many white liberals live in Detroit? Property is cheap, but white liberals stay away out of fear of black violence. And Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and etc--though they are all blue Democratic cities--are divided along racial lines. NYers elected Giuliani to deal with black crime. NY is one of the main practitioners of racial profiling, and most NYers support the policy because of fear of black crime. This is where Friedersdorf shows his true colors of politically correct lies and deception. But he can afford the fantasy of wonderful relations between blue state whites and blue state blacks since he probably lives in one of those urban places that underwent gentric cleansing. Affluent white liberals and Jews have reclaimed the choicest parts of big cities by hiking real estate prices and shipping dangerous blacks to suburbs or small towns where poorer whites will be prey to black crime. We all know about this dirty secret. It's the Parisian model where the metropolitan areas are kept white while blacks are relocated in the suburbs. White urban liberals are following the same model. If blue states are so friendly and welcoming to blacks, why are blue cities getting whiter via gentric cleansing and why are blacks being driven out to small towns and suburbs by section 8 housing programs? Why are so many blue state blacks leaving for red states to look for jobs? What have white liberals in Michigan done for people in Detroit? How come blacks in Chicago keep losing jobs and housing in the city? Why is Chicago being 'Europeanized' through gentric cleaning under liberal Democratic rule?

Friedersdorf makes some important points, but he fails to go all the way because he's too politically correct, too afraid, and too partisan. He too is just another hack, and for that reason, he fails to see the looming defeat of liberalism as well as conservatism in the coming future. While the GOP may well be dead as a national party, it was the existence of the GOP that held the Democratic coalition together, just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan kept the alliance among USSR, UK, China, and the US. Once the Axis fell, those powers all eventually became enemies. The Democratic coalition of rich Jews and privileged gays, affluent white feminists and angry black welfare mothers, Hispanics and Asians, and etc and etc cannot hold once the GOP throws in the towel. Indeed, go to any blue city, and you can see how divided it is along racial lines. In NY, Jews occupy the upper echelons. Asians tend to do well, along with gays. Most Hispanics work at menial jobs while many blacks sit in jail or work in government that is fast running out of money. Without the GOP, no way this alliance can hold together.

As for Glenn Beck, yes, he's a self-promoting lunatic, but his form of hysteria is quite common among leftist academics, intellectuals, and media people who see 'racism', 'fascism', 'nazism', and 'antisemitism' everywhere. Just go to any college campus and take any course on all those 'evil white males'. Or consider how opposing 'gay marriage' makes one a 'homophobe'. It used to be that gays were thought to be mentally ill. Today, hysterical liberals say you're clinically sick in the head if you don't like the idea of fecal penetration among men as the basis for marriage.

Who's Responsible for the Real War Against Women?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem for GOP with Hispanics Is Legalism, Not Nativism.

There's a lot of noise that GOP's failure to win over Hispanics owes to white conservative nativism. While it's true that there are 'nativist' elements in the GOP, American conservatism hasn't been ruled by nativism as a principle for a long time. After all, Reagan gave us amnesty, and the GOP has been open to all races. Nixon went for the Southern Strategy, but he went out of his way to court Hispanic votes, especially by expanding 'affirmative action' to the Hispanic community.

As long as I can remember, I don't recall the GOP calling for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion against non-whites.  Despite the existence of certain nativist types in the GOP, the official line and policy of the GOP have been anything but. And especially with the rise of Neocons in the 90s, the nativist elements have been all but eliminated from the mainstream conservative movement. Pat Buchanan was sidelined in the 90s. Steve Sailer was no longer welcome to contribute as writer to mainstream conservative publications or serve as the spokesman of conservatism on TV. Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor were purged from the National Review while mainstream conservatism cozied up to figures like Linda Chavez.

George W. Bush was very pro-Hispanic and even promoted Hispanics in the military and justice department. And Bush went out of his way to make his Cabinet even more 'diverse' than Clinton's. The message the GOP was sending in the 90s and under Bush II was, "our party is open to everyone, and we especially want and welcome non-whites."  While most nativists voted for the GOP--as the 'lesser of two evils'--, the GOP establishment and mainstream conservatism was NOT promoting or pushing nativism. Rudy Giuliani ran NY as a sanctuary city. McCain has been a notorious advocate of 'amnesty'. And Romney has been a 'moderate' conservative all his life, even something closer to a liberal. Even Southern conservatives were eager to hire and use ilegal Mexican labor. And if the GOP has really been so Waspy and Anglo-nativist, just how did it hand over its keys to neocon Jews even though most neocons are ex-Trotskyites who harbor negative feelings toward traditional conservatism, aka Paleoconservatism?

What really turns off Hispanics to the GOP is legalism, not nativism. GOP has more than amply demonstrated that it's willing to welcome and embrace Hispanics. So, why won't Hispanics take the bite? It's because GOP insists on legalism as opposed to illegalism. GOP expects Hispanics to live, act, and behave according to the same rules, laws, values, and standards as whites.  This means legal Hispanics should side with legal non-Hispanics against illegal Hispanics. It means Hispanics shouldn't expect legal favoritism via 'affirmative action' and 'disparate impact' programs. THIS is what Hispanics don't like about the GOP.
GOP is not dominated by minutemen types guarding the US-Mexican border. It's dominated by corporations, compassionate-conservative Christians, Catholics, and Neocons who want to broaden the base of the party. But the GOP, at least more than the Democrats, insist on Constitutional principles to be upheld by all: Since US is united by rule of law, it won't do to favor certain groups over others.  Conservatives even construe the legacy of MLK as one of color-blind equality under the law(though MLK was politically socialist and for programs like 'affirmative action'.)  Hispanics want special/preferential treatment from the government than equality with whites, and THAT element of illegalism or extra-legalism is what prevents them from joining the GOP. Democrats don't merely offer equality. They offer special favors, or more-equal-than-others-ism. So, an illegal alien would be made a legal citizen. So, illegals get access to all sorts of benefits in the US. And all Hispanics, legal or illegal, are to offered the full spectrum of preferential treatment via 'affirmative action', section 8 housing, and 'disparate housing' decrees.  Hispanics are drawn to the Democratic party because it offers goodies and freebies on the basis of illegalism.

In our sick age, homos are presented as angels while illegal aliens are associated with the 'dream'. Thus, the American Dream no longer means the opportunity of legal citizens to have good jobs and afford homes. It means instant citizenship to illegals who came here by breaking the law. And it gives a whole new meaning to MLK's cry of 'I have a dream'.  It no longer means the American Dream of equality for all races but special preferential dream of illegalism and extra-legalism for non-whites.

This doesn't mean there isn't an element of nativism or white racial consciousness in the GOP. But then, immigration-ism among non-whites is also a form of racial consciousness. Would most American Hispanics be for illegal immigration if most illegals were non-Hispanic Hindus, Chinese, or Muslims who come to take away jobs from Mexican-Americans or Mexicans in America? No, Hispanics are for illegalism because it means more power to their own kind. They think and act racially but then accuse white conservatives of doing so, even though most white conservatives insist only on equality for all under the same set of laws.
Would most Asians be for immigration if it didn't mean MORE of their kind in the US? Mexicans and Asians are for 'diversity' for the sake of their own racial power.  They are acting racially, and in their own nations, they are far more 'nativist' than conservative whites are in America.
Also, Jews want to increase diversity not out of the goodness of their heart but because more diversity means more opportunity for Jewish elites to play divide-and-rule among gentiles. Thus, the pro-immigration stance among Jews is also a form of racial/tribal consciousness. Jews in Israel sure don't call for non-Jewish immigration since Jews are the majority over there, no more than Mexicans tolerate non-Mexican immigration into Mexico and Asians tolerate much of non-Asian immigration to Asia.

The Problem of Intellicism, or Faux Intelligence by Association.

Intelligence is a much admired commodity in cultural circles. Though it is the biggest agent of inequality in society, even liberals and progressives who profess to be for equality love intelligence. Indeed, they take pride in being more intelligent than conservatives, even insisting that the difference is grounded in genetics, i.e. those with 'conservative genes' are less intelligent than those with 'liberal genes'.

Whatever the nature of intelligence may be, there is true intelligence and fake intelligence; there are truly intelligent ideas/statements and not-so-intelligent ideas/statements. Of course, something doesn't have to be true to be intelligent. Many brilliant scientists were brilliantly wrong about lots of things, and indeed science is a means by which intelligence hopes to arrive at the truth by the way of mistakes. Though intelligent  people can be wrong--due to misguided theories(however brilliant) or limited availability of data--, intelligence is a key factor that eventually allows intelligent people to arrive at the higher or deeper truth. Of course, intelligence alone can't accomplish this. It has to be intelligence wedded to courage, honesty, and integrity. Intelligence, after all, can just as easily be used to deceive, disguise, and trick people. Magic tricks and con-man tricks require intelligence, but that doesn't mean they express, reveal, or demonstrate truth. Advertising is run by intelligent men, but it's an industry of manipulation. And Bernie Madoff is no dummy, but he used his considerable intelligence to rob and rip off so many people--especially with the protection of his Jewish friends and enablers, that is until they had to throw him under the bus in order to save the bigger Jewish sharks on Wall Street.

Anyway, while there is genuine intelligence in search of genuine truth, the perception of intelligence isn't the same as the reality of intelligence. Untrue and unintelligent things can be perceived as being intelligent by the trickery of association and hype. This is a problem across the political spectrum. Among Christian conservatives, many are fooled by Creationism because of the 'intelligent'-looking 'scientific' package it comes in. Of course, most smart people are not impressed by any of this, but if you're a dumb conservative Christian, a Creationist 'science' display or book may impress you as being 'intelligent' and factually true.

But, the bigger problem of intellicism--the perception of something as being intelligent by association or hype--exists among liberals. If most smart conservatives are embarrassed by stuff like Creationism on their side and don't take that stuff seriously, many smart liberals are genuinely taken in by intellicism on the Left. Consider the bogus science of Stephen J. Gould. Though the man was a fraud, his association with Harvard, the hype by the Jewish-controlled media, and the fawning attention he's received from respectable people made his fraudulent ideas seem very 'intelligent'.
Another liberal who has gained tremendously from intellicism is Malcolm Gladwell, whose ideas are mostly embarrassingly bogus. But, he's been associated with fashionably sophisticated magazines like New Yorker, and he's been feted and honored by intelligent elites in NY and elsewhere. Therefore, even many smart liberals who ought to know better think Gladwell's ideas are full of brilliance and insight when, in fact, most of them are wishful fantasies of a fraudster.

Another problem of intellicism is the notion that liberal = intelligent. In fact, even if your average white liberal may be smarter than your average white conservative, the fact remains that most liberals aren't very smart. But they think they are smart simply because they are 'liberal'.
And since the not-so-smart liberals notice that very smart liberals support stuff like 'gay marriage' and 'open borders', they think espousing/embracing such issues and policies are truly intelligent and make them 'more intelligent by association'. But, this is really unthinking intellicism. Most liberals--who aren't very smart--came to embrace stuff like 'gay marriage' NOT BECAUSE they gave it much thought but because they came to believe it is the 'intelligent' thing to do. After all, the intelligent liberal elites seem to be pushing it.  How can such intelligent people be wrong? Thus, 'intelligence by association'.

As for James Watson's remark about black Africans, it doesn't matter if it's true or not in the liberal community. The fact is MOST intelligent people denounced him(for whatever reason), and therefore, his views came to be deemed as 'dumb and stupid', even though Watson has been among the most intelligent and more honest scientists in the world. As long as so many intelligent people denounced him, your average would-be-intelligent-but-not-so-intelligent liberal is bound to dismiss Watson's views as 'dumb and worthless' without any thought or investigation.

Liberals have this cachet of being 'intelligent', and this is why the liberal agenda has been such an easy sell to so many young people who want to feel insta-intelligent, or instelligent. Since real thought, real courage, and real integrity aren't easy to come by, they rely on intellicism and mindlessly agree with what the 'intelligent establishment' say. It's so much easier to be 'intelligent' that way.

The Problem with "Affirmative Action" and Jewish/White Liberals.

Though white people are more likely to oppose 'affirmative action' than non-white groups--for obvious reasons--, it's also true that many affluent white and Jewish liberals support the program. This may seem counter-intuitive since 'affirmative action' is meant to combat 'white privilege'. So, why would the most privileged members of the white and Jewish community support something that would hurt them? One gets the sense that affluent/privileged white and Jewish liberals are so good-of-heart and compassionate, so selfless and well-meaning, that they are willing to undermine their own privilege, power, and interests to help out non-whites. And indeed, powerful and privileged white and Jewish liberals often couch their arguments in those terms. They berate white conservatives for being heartless and uncaring whereas they themselves are supposed to be so 'inclusive' and concerned for the plight of 'underprivileged' minorities.

But if one looks at the picture more closely, the dirty secret as to why affluent white and (especially)Jewish liberals support 'affirmative action' is because the program sacrifices middle class, lower-middle class, working class, and poor whites in favor of powerful and privileged whites, especially Jewish liberals and neocons(which is why neocons also don't want to mess with the program).

Among non-white groups, 'affirmative action' tends to favor the lower classes over the upper classes, but among whites, the system is geared so that less privileged whites have to pay the burden of 'white guilt' and 'white privilege' while affluent whites and Jews(especially liberal ones in urban areas) with all their money, connections, favoritism, and politically correct status symbols are cruised into top positions.
This is especially true in regard to Jews as long as they are categorized as 'whites'. Since Jewish IQ is, on average, considerably higher than that of other peoples, they are affected less by 'affirmative action'. The main victims of 'affirmative action' are whites who do better than blacks but worse than Jews. So, if a poor white person gets a score of 100 while a rich Jew gets a  score of 110 and a black person gets a score of 90, the Jew(on meritocracy) and black(with 'affirmative action') will be admitted while the poor white will be excluded. But the Jew, in supporting 'affirmative action' will take the credit for his big-heartedness though it was the poor white who had to pay the price of 'white privilege'. And if the poor white complains, the Jews who control the media will label him as 'racist', 'greedy', 'odious', and 'noxious'.

It seems 'affirmative action' is here to stay. Thus, there's little hope of getting rid of it. All we can hope for is to change it so that it will be 'fairer' to less privileged whites. And in order to this, class must be a factor in 'affirmative action' so that poor whites, working class whites, lower middle class whites, and middle class whites will be favored over privileged Jewish and white liberals in urban areas. Only then will affluent white and Jewish liberals feel the bite of 'affirmative action' and have second thoughts about it.

Also, it should be obvious to all whites that Jews are really their #1 enemy.  Just about every policy or program that is bad for whites can be traced back to Jews. And Jewish takeover of the GOP has been bad, indeed it's been a fatal alliance that prevents white conservatives from honestly discussing Jewish power lest they offend their 'Jewish friends'(whose only reason for their 'conservatism' is to win conservative support for Wall Street Jews and Israeli Zionists).

The problem is that white conservatives have been anti-'affirmative action' for so long that they can't conceive of working it for their own interests. They simply want to get rid of it. That would be nice, but if you can't get rid of something, you have to work with it to your advantage. It's like if you're blind in one eye, and that blindness is permanent, you must learn to work with one eye than hopelessly dream of getting sight back in that eye. If 'affirmative action' is here to stay--and it seems that way--, whites must re-engineer it to favor poor, working class, lower middle class, and middle class whites over privileged white and Jewish liberals.  Since Jews are the most privileged and over-represented people in elite positions, it's time white gentiles demanded that 'affirmative action' be made fair to boost more white gentiles to top positions.

For more insights into this issue, check the op-ed by Jim Webb in the Wall Street Journal.

And

Patrick Slattery's article in the Occidental Observer.

Is Domitius Corbulo Right about Ethnocentrism Being 'Normal and Rational'?

A critique of OCCIDENTAL OBSERVER's article "Ethnocentrism Is Normal and Rational"
by Domitius Corbulo

"Ethnocentrism is normal and rational"

This is a rather specious argument. What the study shows is that 'ethnocentrism' is normal and IRRATIONAL, i.e. irrationalism is the natural mode of living organisms.  And why should this be surprising?  Humans evolved from lower forms of life, and life has existed since its very inception in a dog-eat-dog world(even before dogs evolved).
Animals cannot survive in the wild if they have to THINK and REASON about what to do; they simply don't have the reaction time. They must do it by instinct, often in a fight-or-flight way.
A prey can be killed by a predator in an instant. One wrong step or move can mean death. So, animals have to live by scents, sounds, sights, movements, and the feel of things. Thinking and reasoning are luxuries. If a deer saw a cougar and began to philosophize about what to do, it would be dinner. For the deer to survive, it must spot the danger and instantly flee without thinking.

Of course, animals do 'calculate' and 'gauge' things, especially unfamiliar things, but they do so with a great deal of anxiety and trepidation--'irrational' feelings.
What this shows is that irrationality isn't the same thing as being 'crazy' or 'demented'. It can mean instinct over intellect, and instinct for spotting danger(especially among unfamiliar things) is natural among organisms. This is why most species of animals cannot form into large groups. Wolf packs distrust other wolf packs. Lion prides war with other lion prides.  One ant colony will fight another ant colony, even if they are of the same species.

The natural mode of man has been tribalism. This is why, for most of human existence, there were no nations or empires. Instead, there were countless warring tribes divided along blood lines. The natural state of Europe wasn't nationalism but family-tribalism, something like the Hatfields vs the McCoys. For most of European history, countless white tribes fought other white tribes.
African societies are still like this, which is why blacks cannot form functional nations in Africa. Each African nation is divide along tribal lines, and some nations have 1000s of tribes.

Europeans were able to create larger societies by transcending the narrow confines of tribalism and kin-ism. And indeed, Northern European nations achieved this more than Southern ones like Italy(especially Southern Italy) and Greece, which is why Southern Europe has had more problems of social distrust; dishonest and clannish Greeks or Italians will still favor their own family-tribe over others against ostensibly commonly held principles.

But too much of a good thing is a bad thing. While it was good for Great Britain and Germany to form larger nation-states with social consciousness that transcended narrow familial-tribal-clannish loyalties, things began to fall apart when this principle was applied to all of humanity. Every idea has a useful limit, and too much of something is never a good thing. It's like it's a good idea to add salt to cooking, but that doesn't mean you should pour in as much salt as possible.

The main thrust of this article seems to be, "since mankind is naturally meant to be 'racist', 'racism' is a good, normal, and rational thing."  It's a weak argument. Something isn't good simply because it's natural. After all, man is naturally meant to be lazy. So, should we be lazy? Man is naturally meant to be vulgar and crude. So, should we be vulgar and crude?  Naturally, many men are born to be would-be-rapists. It's the natural way for men to roam and go on the 'cunt-hunt'. But that doesn't mean men should go around raping. And it could be shown that men are natural thieves. Why not? All animals--gorillas, lions, hyenas, bears, wolves, etc--are.  They steal as much as they can. Animals steal all the time, and the natural mode of man is also to take and steal as much as he can. But if we all acted naturally, civilization would fall apart and we would return to barbarism. Blacks are the most natural people in the world--sexually, criminally, emotionally, musically, etc--, but they create the most unlivable communities.

Of course, we must not deny nature. Instead, we must harness and channel natural animal energies toward constructive goals. So, if the natural tendency of man is to 'grab as much as he can', we must teach young people to study and work hard instead of stealing stuff. If the natural tendency of man is to find women to hump, we must teach males the ritual of courtship and good manners instead of having them act like rapists and thugs.

Speaking of rationalism, we need to use rationally gathered facts and rational arguments to defend white interests. Rationally speaking, the two main threats to whites come from Jews(who are smarter and more aggressive) and blacks(who are stronger and more aggressive).
Jews are feisty and vengeful, witty and intellectual. They work together to undermine white majority power. And blacks are muscular, tough, and fast. And they are filled with macho rage and look down on white males as 'faggoty white boys'. And blacks lust after white women, and white women are increasingly turned on by jungle fever because it is the natural mode of women(of all races) to be impressed and seduced by more macho males with bigger muscles, taller heights, tougher voices, and bigger sexual organs.
It is also natural for smart people to be attracted to smarter people, and this explains why so many smart white people are impressed and worshipful of smarter Jews who dominate culture, ideas, academia, and media.
Thus, there isn't a single form of nature, but many kinds. Some are for us, some are against us.

The Hispanic Vote: Can Republicans Compete with the Illegalism of Democrats?

Some commentators say that the GOP must appeal to the Hispanic(and black) votes in order to win future elections. The problem is the only way to appeal to Hispanics is via Illegalism. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is anti-Hispanic. GOP welcomes Hispanics and wants Hispanics to succeed in America. GOP doesn't call for discrimination against Hispanics of any kind. Under rules of legality, GOP is a pro-Hispanic party.

What commentators mean when they say the GOP must appeal to Hispanics is it must be done on Illegalist terms. In other words, GOP mustn't only be equally welcome to Hispanics but must favor (even illegal)Hispanics over the legal white constituents who support the GOP; the GOP must favor illegal aliens over legal citizens and favor 'affirmative action' for Hispanics over non-Hispanic whites who are the mainstay of the GOP.
In a nutshell, it's not enough for the GOP to offer equality of law and opportunity to Hispanics; instead, Hispanics must be treated to extralegal privileges--such as 'amnesty' and 'affirmative action' over whites.  So, even though more than 70% of Hispanics go with Democrats, the GOP must offer better terms to Hispanics than to its loyal white supporters. (Extralegal privileges used to be the tool of European imperialists in non-white lands. Today, it is the tool employed by Jewish Supremacists to favor non-whites over whites in majority white lands.)

Democrats use terms like 'inclusion' and 'diversity', but their means of winning Hispanic vote has been through sheer favoritism and bribery. Hispanics are offered favors and things that should be illegal under the American Constitution. Illegal aliens are called 'undocumented immigrants' and showered with all sorts of benefits--though many of them don't even pay taxes. In other words, Democrats buy Hispanic votes. Worse, these votes are bought largely with white money. Whites pay bulk of the taxes, but liberals control most of the governments and bureaucracies--and courts--, and so Democrats get to decide how white tax-payer money is used. And it is used to bribe Hispanics to vote for Democrats.

No less importantly, the GOP cannot compete with Democrats even in the bribery game because the Democrats will always offer more. If GOP goes for amnesty, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration, Democrats will up the ante with amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration + even more benefits. GOP can only hope to win over Hispanics if it can offer MORE goodies and freebies to Hispanics, but Democrats will always offer more free stuff to Hispanics(and to blacks).
And if the GOP goes whole hog and tries to match the Democrats on everything, it might as well be the Democratic Party.

Ideally, the GOP should appeal to Hispanics according to principles and not with payoffs. The principle should be EQUALITY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. But, as it stands, America has gotten into the habit of winning over minority votes with bribes and special favors, something that began in the 60s with the Civil Rights Movement. Originally meant help blacks, it is now used to win minority votes across the board. Though the Nixon administration may have supported 'affirmative action' program for Hispanics in order to pit 'browns' against blacks to fight for welfare spoils, what it ended up doing is creating an alliance of blacks and 'browns'.

Anyway, as long as Illegalism is the mode of politics in winning minority votes, the GOP cannot win.