One problem for the 'conservative' side has been the shifting configuration of the holy-vs-unholy spectrum. People want to be with the holy than with the unholy. It's like people move to warmth than to cold and damp. People move toward the light than toward the dark.
There's a reason why most people gravitated to God and church than dark magic and satanism. One was holy, the other unholy, even evil. People want to feel justified than damned.
So, the question is, which side is holier?
During the Cold War, the Right had holiness points as the defender of US as God's country and Land of the Free against communist slavery. But post-communism, that glow quickly faded, and the conservative attempt to find another Unholy Enemy fizzled out. After 9/11, the 'clash of civilizations' narrative was pushed by some, but it turned out the West couldn't vilify Islam like it could communism. While all of communism could be condemned, the ONLY way the West could interfere in the Muslim World was by extolling Islam. After all, if Islam itself was declared the enemy, all Muslims would unite against the West, which would have no Muslim allies in the invasion of certain Muslim nations(hated by Jews). Thus, the West had to assure the Muslims that its beef was not with Islam or Muslims per se but with terrorists who 'misused' Islam. Also, unlike the Soviet Union, the Muslim World turned out to be weak. US easily destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and much of Syria.
So, what became the holiest after the end of the Cold War? There was virtual unanimity on the holiness of MLK & Magic Negores, Jews & Holocaust Worship, and then holy homos as well. Now, few things are intrinsically holy or heroic. Much of it depends on the control of narrative, the spin, the dissemination of myth. After all, Jesus was a heretic who deserved to die according to Jews. It was the heretical Christians who made Him out to be the Messiah, and this Narrative was later enforced by the Roman Empire. In National Socialist Germany, Horst Wessel was a saint-hero. To anti-Nazis, he was a worthless creep. A god in the communist world could be the devil in the anti-communist world. The Powers-that-be usually decide what is holy and unholy. The consecration of homos and even trannies goes to show that, for most people who are sheeple, their notion of holiness is decided for them by the Power with control of hype & media and carrots & sticks. The unholy who dare question Bruce Jenner as Caitlin Jenner are purged.
In the 60s, MLK was a polarizing figure. He was revered by many but not all, and it was acceptable to be critical of him. Even into the 70s, one could be critical of him. But by the 80s, even conservatives and National Review had nothing but praise and pretended he was a 'conservative'. During the Reagan decade, conservatives could denounce Mandela as a terrorist and lend support to South Africa as ally against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. By the 70s, Jews had become more or less sacrosanct, but blacks had yet to become 'magical', and homos were far far away. Even Liberals routinely made fun of homos in movies, TV shows, and standup comedy.
Also, many people still put God, Jesus, and Country above Jews, blacks, and homos. God, Jesus, and Country were holier than anything else.
But over the years, it's hardly unholy to mock God, Jesus, and Christianity. No one gets purged for making fun of God, Jesus, or Christians. For many Americans in the Current Year, Christianity should ideally serve the cults of homos and Negroes than persuade humanity serve God and Jesus. This is really the product of the sanctification of Jews. Once Jews were elevated as the Holy Holocaust People, the new christ-messiahs of the West who died for the sins of white folks, the trajectory became 'Give Jews whatever they want... because they are holy'. So, whatever Jews wanted got favored, what Jews didn't want got disfavored. I mean, how can you say NO to god or god-people? The murmur among politicians, pundits, and business class was "How do Jews feel about it?" If word got out that Jews were for mass-legalization of gambling, even 'conservatives' stopped opposing the vice, especially as donations came their way from casinos. If Jews were against free speech, then no one dared to oppose 'hate speech' restrictions(and no one dared to note that Zionism could be construed as hate speech against Palestinians and Iranians). If Jews were for globo-homo, no one dared oppose the push for 'gay marriage'. With hardly any conservative elite to push back against such trends, the masses were left without a voice. After all, when your spokesman is a coward and refuses to speak on your behalf, the only sound heard is from the other side. Jews waged war on American Conservatism, but the biggest sound from the 'right' was 'We love Israel' and 'We must defend Jews from the Democrats'(even though Jews totally dominate the Democratic Party).
Now, there are cases where people will move toward the unholy despite the risks of being tainted with 'evil'. One of the biggest reasons has been material interests. For example, if the holy 'woke' power genuinely decided to push for outright communism, then powerful capitalists will side with the unholy to defend their material wealth. If one has to choose between the holy & loss of wealth and the unholy & keeping of wealth, most will go for the latter. MLK and Globo-Homo may be holy in our age, but if the side that was most 'woke' demanded an end to capitalism, most capitalists would side with the 'unholy' bunch of 'racists' and others.
But all things being equal — the holy side being just as pro-wealth as the unholy side — , the rich and powerful will move to the holy side. Why not be rich and holy than rich and unholy?
Now, who decides what is holy and unholy? Those with the power over images, ideas, and narratives. And of course, they're Jews who also fulsomely reward the goy cucks and viciously punish those who don't. Take Bill Buckley. He had the choice of siding with Joseph Sobran and speaking truth to Jewish Power or sucking up to Jewish Power. He did the latter, and he was showered with praise as the 'good conservative', i.e. Jews are holy, and 'goodness' is a measure of how much one sucks up to Jews and shines their shoes.
In the past, the GOP had two advantages vis-a-vis the Democrats. Society wasn't so politically correct and did not look upon Jews, blacks, and homo as holies. Also, as the Democratic Party was closely associated with corrupt unions(the bane of Big Labor in yrs to come) and tarnished as being soft on communism, many Americans voted for the GOP as the party of private property and enterprise. So, even capitalists who were socially liberal or anti-conservative might vote for the GOP for economic or material interests. Or personal ones as free enterprise was seen as a matter of personal choice. Indeed, much of the financial support for GOP in the 80s came from California entrepreneurial class of go-getters who felt hampered by Democrats. So, even as the Democrats were gaining more in holiness points(as Jewish Power was elevating Jews, Negroes, and Homo as the special people), many Americans stuck with the increasingly unholy GOP for material reasons: Less taxes, less regulation, more wealth in your pocket.
But Bill Clinton comes along and stabs Big Labor in the back and the Democratic Party opens its arms to the economic policies of the GOP. Then, the Democrats got the combination of holiness aura and material advantage. With the Democratic Party as a clone of GOP on economic matters, the GOP lost its last appeal to the rich and powerful. It was just left with the worsening taint of unholiness as it was deemed less enthusiastic about Jews, blacks, and homos. Of course, GOP went out of its way to praise Jews to high heaven, claim MLK as a 'conservative', and even warm up to homos. But the perception was that holy Jews still felt more at home in the Democratic Party, blacks saw GOP as 'racist', and homos regarded GOP as 'homophobic'. In the 70s, a TV show like DUKES OF HAZZARD could proudly display the Confederate Flag. Now, it's risque to say "It's Okay to be White", authorities do nothing to arrest thugs who tear down white monuments, and even after blacks loot and burn down cities, the only thing Donald Trump has to say is "George Floyd is a saint." Back in 1968, the Democratic Mayor Daley ordered men to "shoot to maim, shoot to kill", and even Democrats were shocked and appalled by radical leftists and black thugs. Also, Daley told MLK to go to hell for insulting Chicago. But as blacks are now holy, any amount of black lunacy can be sanctified with BLM catechisms against the Devil of 'systemic racism', a meme pushed by vile and vicious Jewish Power. Today, whiteness itself has become unholy, what with Chick Fil-A(now Dick-Fill-Ass) CEO washing Negro feet even as blacks use their feet to stomp innocent whites.
If there is a person seen as good and a person seen as bad, people will favor the 'good person', that is unless the 'good person' denies people more wealth whereas the 'bad person' promises more wealth. But once the 'good person' is okay with your wealth-gain, you will surely favor him over the 'bad person'. It's like during the Prohibition. One bought alcohol from gangsters because they were the only ones selling it. It wasn't because one liked or respected gangsters. But once alcohol was made legal and legit again, everyone got it from legit outlets and abandoned the gangsters.
This is why the 'culture war' was so important. It was actually a neo-religious war to decide which side is holy and which side is unholy. The biggest failure of the Right was letting Jews get away with everything. With mounting Jewish Power, Jews got to decide what is holy and unholy. As Jews were hostile to whites, it was a dark foreboding for the white race.
There should have been a push-back against Jewish Power, a counter-narrative. And a sane and intelligent one. Paradoxically, the most effective way to be anti-Jewish(power) is to reject 'antisemitism'. It's like the best way to counter religious dogma is not to be anti-religious. Radical atheists turn people off because they are utterly unhinged in their hatred and intolerance of religion. Far more effective way to counter theocratic tendencies is to admit religion has its place in history, society, and culture BUT call for ideological pluralism where all voices are heard, secular and religious. Likewise, the best way to counter Jewish Power is to drop 'antisemitism', which properly defined, should be "blaming Jews for EVERYTHING BAD" or "emphasizing only the BAD things about Jews without acknowledging their contributions to humanity". The biggest harm to countering Jewish Power has come from Neo-Nazi types, and this is why ADL goes out of its way to exaggerate the 'prevalence' of Nazis hiding behind every corner. Bill Buckley was right to reject this kind of 'antisemitism', but he failed to conceive of a way of critiquing Jewish Power in the way that Jewish Power was critiquing Wasp Power and Christianity.
Also, one doesn't need to deny the Shoah or Holocaust. Even with proper revisions, it's foolish to deny that many Jews perished in World War II, mainly due to German atrocities.
Still, a context can be provided as to why it happened. It's like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if one believes they were insane unnecessary overkills, the fact is Japan was crushed because it played with fire in invading and terrorizing other nations. Even if anti-Japanese hatred become unhinged, the Japanese did much to invite the hatred.
Likewise, Jewish Power was immense in the 20th century, and it's no fantasy to say Jews used networks to financially exploit nations and/or to spread radical movements that, prior to WWII, had already killed millions of people. That does not justify the Holocaust, but it at least makes us understand why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred. Hatred can often become unhinged and insane, but why does the hate exist in the first place? After the Great Famine, can anyone blame Ukrainians for hating Jews who played such a big role in communism?
Indeed, even without being anti-Jewish(power), one could change the political discourse by focusing attention on what may be the BIGGEST (stealth)revolution since the end of World War II. The end of the Cold War and the rise of China pale next to the Jews replacing Wasps as the ruling elites of the US. This is so BIG, so CONSEQUENTIAL, and so PROFOUNDLY impacting on the entire world, but there has hardly been any book or discussion of it. This ethno-power-revolution was real and happened in what became the Lone Superpower. It meant a break with an Earlier America. It meant new directions in culture, foreign policy, and values. One cannot understand the rise of 'systemic racism' hysteria, globo-homo, wars in the Middle East, and anti-Russian hysteria without it. They are all predicated on "Is it good for Jewish Supremacist Power?" Jews vilify 'white racism' and 'white privilege' to prevent non-whites and idiot-whites from noticing that it's the Jews who got supremacist power in the US.
Jews are nervous about people discussing the Ethno-Elite-Revolution of Jews replacing Anglo-Americans as top dogs. Even when Joe Biden fulsomely praised the Jewish domination of media/entertainment for spreading globo-homo and 'gay marriage', Jews were hush-hush and 'just move along' about it. This means that even Positive and Flattering commentary on the Jewish takeover of the US is threatening to Jewish Power. At the very least, it will spread consciousness that JEWS control America, thereby the West. That way, people will be more alert as to why certain trends are favored, certain events happen. The Jewish Hand is behind it, whether one deems it as good or bad. Even in praise, the notion of dominant Jewish Power means that Jews should come under the most scrutiny and criticism as that is how power should work in a free society: Most attention directed at the current King of the Hill.
The Jewish Takeover of Power in the US, in praise or condemnation, needs to be a major subject of history, discussion, polemics, and criticism. At the very least, people will know who is the real Boss in the US. It's like, whether one loved or hated the Irish, it was good to know that big cities were dominated by the Irish Machine. US is the most powerful nation, and it was controlled by Anglo-Americans for most of its history, and then Jews took over. Why isn't this story as big as the Bolshevik Revolution, National Socialist takeover of Germany, Mao's revolution & then Deng's 'counter-revolution', and the fall of the Soviet Union? In a way, it is an even bigger story because of the status of the US as the Lone Superpower.
Furthermore, when Anglo-Americans lost out to Jews, it didn't mean the end of their power but its subservience to Jewish ends. Many Northern-European-Americans still have lots of wealth and high-positions. Many work in key fields of engineering, retail, and agriculture. They are still numerically large and very capable. But all their work and effort, all their taxes and donations, are going to serve Jewish Power. Indeed, what makes Jewish Power so dangerous is not because of Jewish Power alone. Even with all their wealth and influence, Jews lack the numbers to run and manage the empire. Jewish Supremacist Power depends on the subservience of the most capable population in the world, the Northern-Europeans in both Europe and America. What is European economy without UK, Germany, and Nordic nations? What is the US(and Canadian) economy if not for Northern Europeans(who achieved so much more than Southern-European types who came to dominate Latin America)? So, when Anglo-American Power lost to Jews, it didn't so much come to an end but end up attaching itself to the Jewish locomotive. Jews didn't kill it but tamed it and made it obey.
As to why Jews or BUGS(busy urban globalist semites) gained so much power vis-a-vis Wasps, it surely has to do with a combination of IQ, personality, Big Think propensity, Covenant-mentality, history of networking via finance, control of image/idols, and 'inner-majority' strategy.
Jews do have higher IQ than whites. But they also have pushier personality, which is why Episcopalians lost out even though they have comparable IQs. Also, contra the empirical-pragmatic style of Anglo thought, Jews go for prophetic big-think thought, i.e. 'smaller thoughts' become subsumed into their larger web of Big Think, which is appealing to many people because they want some formula to explain it all. Also, Covenant-mentality allowed for stronger sense of identity among Jews — how else do a people maintain their own identity despite 2000 yrs of exile? Indeed, Jews were paradoxically more fluid and Zelig-ish in identity precisely because they were so strong in core identity. Jews could try out different identity-poses wherever they went because they were so confident and firm in their core identity. When people with a weak core identity try out another identity, they easily become that other identity. In contrast, a people with strong core identity need not fear 'assimilating' into other identities because they know their inner core identity will remain within. Also, Jewish mastery of finance meant that their wealth was fluid. Unlike land or material property, it could be moved all over the world(and instantly since the rise of electronic communication). And of course, Jewish control of media meant Jews got to decide which image is holy or unholy. Jews = holy holocaust, blacks = sacred slavery, whites = KKK + Nazis.
But another reason for Jewish triumph over Wasps was the factor of 'inner-majority' power. There is 'outer majority' and 'inner majority'. Demographically, there are many more white Christian gentiles than Jews. Whites are the outer-majority to the Jews as the outer-minority. But people don't operate as a whole. It's not like all whites think, feel, and work together. People work as individuals or small groups. So, when it comes to the inner-workings of society, one thinks and acts as an individual or an intense group, or 'intensity'. This means that even a people who are an 'outer-minority' can function as a 'inner-majority'.
Suppose one people(A) have 100 people and another people(B) have only 5. Now, People A are clearly the outer-majority over People B. 100 to 5, it's so obvious. But suppose everyone in People A operates as an individual whereas everyone in people B operates as an intense group or an intensity. So, when it comes to inner-workings of power, it's always an individual of People A vs five members(or intensives) of People B. Thus, even though People A are the demographic majority over People B, it's the People B who operate as the power-majority over People A.
In combat terms, imagine one army of 100 men and another army of 5 men. Naturally, one would think the 100 would easily defeat the puny 5. But suppose the 100 men army are made up of individuals who never work with other men. They prefer to fight alone. In contrast, the 5 men army always fight together. So, even though it outwardly seems a case of 100 vs 5, it is inwardly really a series of 1 vs 5. In every confrontation, it's ONE among the 100 going against the FIVE of the 5. So, in each confrontation, the Five beat the One. And over time, the unit of Five slays all 100, one by one.
The problem with Anglos was they were far less tribal than the Jews. Still, when the US was gloriously race-ist, there was some sense of unity among the whites, elites and masses. But once 'racism' was turned into the biggest sin among white folks, white elites dared not call for white unity. American Conservatism became a matter of 'individual rights' and 'individual liberty'. But that meant each white person was on his own in a battle against Jews who were always united in identity and agenda. Jews even circled the wagons in solidarity with Jewish communists being targeted in the so-called McCarthy Era, but you see no white unity even as Jewish Power blacklists, purges, and destroys any white voice it doesn't like. Monstrous Hag Jennifer Rubin calls for purge of Trumpers, but the GOP will still extol her as a 'fellow conservative'.
FAKE NEWS, FAKE ELECTION - Brother Nathanael
No comments:
Post a Comment