Notes on Pat Buchanan's WHO OWNS THE FUTURE? DEMS OR GOP? Demo-Psychology(or Democology) is just as Important as 'Demography is Destiny' — Jewish use of Covid Hysteria to unseat Donald Trump — Right's Aversion to Critique & Creativity in its failure in the Culture War — Cult of Identity is worse than Cult of Personality

https://buchanan.org/blog/who-owns-the-future-dems-or-gop-142351

Pat Buchanan still writes as if he's part of the Establishment when the likes of him have been purged ages ago into irrelevancy(which is unfortunate). Buchanan's faith, Catholicism, is going globo-homo with the Poop-Pope. Whether Washington D.C. or the Vatican, most of the 'Western' World seems to be bending over to Jewish Power, of which Homo-mania is a proxy.

Though he carried burdens unrivaled by a president since Herbert Hoover — a plague that has killed 230,000 Americans in eight months and crashed the economy to depths not seen since the ’30s – Donald J. Trump amassed 72 million votes, the largest total in Republican Party history.

When the Establishment was running the bogus Russian Collusion Story, Buchanan entertained the notion that it might be true. It was complete bunk. And now, he's parroting numbers of a 'plague' that killed how many? 230,000! ROTFL. Covid-19 hysteria is nonsense. There would have been no lockdowns if Obama or Hillary were president. This was a calculated move against the Trump economy and the rise of national populism spilling out into the streets. And Jewish Power is demented enough to go to such lengths to get what it wants. (Remember Madeleine Albright who said it's worth killing 500,000 Arab children to implement Zionist policy in the Middle East.) How many died of Covid-19 alone? Barely 10,000. What is the death rate of Covid-19 among those under 70? Close to zilch. Most Covid deaths are 'with the disease' than 'of the disease'. Anyone who died with Covid in their system was marked as 'died OF Covid', which is bogus. It's all very ironic. These progs say Trump is 'hitler', but if any movement used medical 'science' to promote its ideology, it was National Socialism. It explains why Greg Johnson was so enthused about the Covid Hysteria. It was about the Alien Other invading the purity of the Human Body.

All the medical hysteria, from both the 'right' and 'left', were ludicrous. It was either "Covid is Chicom disease invading the US" or "Covid is Pearl Harbor all over again" OR "Hitler Trump is using Covid to kill millions or he doesn't care". In truth, it was a virus that could easily have been handled(even after it escaped from the lab, or was it bat soup?) as most people are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms. The only necessity was better treatment of the old and sick. (By the way, what happened to the flu?)
As for Trump, he forgot the Jewish Way. If you want to duel with Jewish Power, you must anticipate and preempt their moves. When this Covid thing was breaking out in China, Trump should have realized that the Power could use this against him. He should have seen what was coming and made moves to appear as a true statesman. Announce that, despite tensions with China, he will cooperate with Xi to deal with this problem. He could have seemed like a world leader. Instead, his eyes were off the ball. He thought Wall Street and Zionists were okay with him because of all he did for big finance and Israel, but the Jews(even those close to him) were plotting to take him down. They hardly advised him on Covid, and of course, the Democrats were saying Covid is no problem and not much to worry about even while preparing to ambush him. When Covid finally did become an issue in the US, Trump got bad advice from the likes of Tucker Carlson who urged 'China Bad' agenda. But it undermined Trump's image as a statesman, world leader. It brought out the worst in him as he went into school yard bully mode giving middle finger to the Middle Kingdom. He made the same mistake in 2016. Trump was right to address the Illegal Alien issue, but did he have to speak of Mexicans as 'rapists' and the like? He could have carried many more Hispanics without such rhetoric.

The narratives on Covid are pretty hilarious. On the one hand, it's generally understood that it came from China. And yet, Jews and Progs hardly blame China or note that it is a foreign disease that 'ravaged' America and the West. They play on fears of 'medical xenophobia' without blaming the foreign entity and only denounce the national authority that supposedly failed to defend the realm. But this is like blaming only the Byzantines and not the Turks for the fall of Constantine. Sure, the Byzantines failed to defend the Order, but the attackers were still Turks. So, we have a strange case of hysteria about a foreign disease where ALL THE BLAME is dumped on the domestic ruler.
But the Trump side also has a blind spot, but then it's understandable given the Jew Taboo. Trump dumped on China but insufficiently addressed the Fifth Column in the US that allowed the germ to spread. Trump did name some Democrats, but he didn't mention Jewish Power that has control of media, medical community, and whore politicians. There is no doubt that Jewish Power underplayed Covid's potential impact on the US UNTIL it spread sufficiently and could be used against Trump. (Still, what a funny disease. It's a real killer... except when people want to protest, riot, loot, and celebrate basketball championships. Don't attend church but gather at St. Floyd communions.)

Progs blamed Trump but not the foreign element; Trump blamed the foreign element but not the fifth column, Jewish Power. Covid and BLM were gambit moves by Jews to bring down Trump. It is so obvious.

Democrats gained ground in the Republican heartland as well... Demography is still destiny.

'Demography is destiny' is true enough but, to borrow a phrase from John Lukacs, 'not true enough'. After all, Jews are 2% of the US but control the country. Jews are even smaller in number in Europe but dominant in many nations. How could a demographic minority have so much power? Blacks are 13% of the US population but sacred idols and holy objects. Homos and trannies are a small portion of the population, but they are revered, celebrated, idolized, and adulated. In Latin America, the brown folks have outnumbered white or light-skinned folks for centuries, but the white and light-skinned folks still rule over the Tacoans.

Also, the fact that so many whites vote for the Democratic Party in the whiter states and white suburbs would indicate that, at least among whites, it's not just a matter of demography. After all, plenty of whites WELCOME the fact of their future minority-hood. Such people now exist all over Europe as well. Many Irish can't wait for Ireland to become new India-Africa. German morons hold up signs saying 'Wilkommen Muslimen und Afrikanen; Wir Sucken und wanten Cucken". How is it that Europeans, once so solidly white, are welcoming the Great Replacement? And Japan is now going the same way as its elites are globo-homo traitors who promote Jungaru Fibah on the nation.

So, we need to go beyond 'demography is destiny'. We need to look into 'democology', or maybe it should be called 'psychography'. It is about mental colonization or psychological infiltration that paves the way for demographic replacement. After all, the Great Replacement is far easier to realize IF the target population has been psychologically altered to not only welcome it but to perceive opposition to it as evil and wicked.
How are a people 'democologically' altered to favor their own demographic demise? One way is to buy off the elites. In any order, most people don't want to deal with politics and matters of power. They just want to focus on the personal life, like the characters in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. They just want to 'live'. So, it is really up to the elites to decide and implement the policy and agenda of the Order. But the sort of people who rise up the political ladder tend to be vain, craven, and deceitful. Also, those who succeed in business tend to care mostly about profits and status. So, political elites care about themselves than the good of the Order. And the rich will gravitate to whatever happens to be fashionable and 'acceptable'. As the US has the most money and power, political and business elites around the world seek to be in good graces with American Power, which is now controlled by Jews. So, elites around the world can easily be bought off or browbeaten into serving the Empire than protecting their own order. When Rome was supreme, the subject elites preferred to be in good graces with Roman Might than do anything for their own kind. It's no wonder so many Jews in the streets were discontent with Jewish elites who collaborated with the Romans. When it came to crushing the Zealots, the Jewish elites usually sided with the Romans. They got 'theirs'. Still, more than most peoples, the Jews were resistant because of their Covenant Mentality.

Consider our world. Most white elites have been bought off. They are whores whose careers depend on donations from Jewish groups. Rich Jews can dole out money freely, not least because it's deemed 'antisemitic' to scrutinize how Jewish money and power are used. In contrast, rich whites, even conservative ones, must be exceedingly careful about whom they give their money to. Sheldon Adelson and Michael Bloomberg can freely give tons of money to AIPAC, ADL, or some other Jewish Supremacist Zionist group. Rich Jews can fund anti-white groups like SPLC and Antifa. Many hundreds of millions poured into such organizations are almost never criticized. But suppose a rich white guy gives Jared Taylor a check for $100. He will be denounced by all the media as a 'white supremacist' and 'nazi'. This was why many rich whites who admired Pat Buchanan dared not donate to his campaigns in the 1990s. They were afraid the Jewish-run media would condemn them, and they and their children would be smeared as 'racists' and 'xenophobes'.
In the current West, you can donate all the money you want to insane BLM, globo-homo degeneracy, and Zionism(as if Jews need more money in that regard), but you better not donate any cause that is for traditional marriage. Even Chick Fil-A that gained the loyalty of so many conservative consumers for its stance on spiritual/moral values finally caved to Jewish Power and became Dic*-Fil-Ass in order to expand into big cities controlled by Jews. This is why politicians are often useless and why business elites turn out to be spineless opportunists. The core of 'politicism' is careerism, and the core of 'commercism' is profits. So, while some politicians and businessmen may have strong convictions, the very essence of their primary stations in life militates against true conviction in favor of career or profits(or reputation which is related to both). It is why Gail Wynand in THE FOUNTAINHEAD finally wilts under pressure. As a businessman, he can only go so far in defense of his conviction.

This is why any stable and resilient Order needs another set of people to uphold the conviction that maintains its survival and preservation. A set of people who aren't primarily motivated by personal careerism or individual profit. The state can play this role, as was the case in Ataturk's Turkey and is the case in Putin's Russia, but the state, as a domain of politics, eventually becomes a den of craven careerists. Also, there is only so much a statesman(even a great one) can say and do. Vladimir Putin has been good for Russia(considering the alternatives), but there's a lot of things he can't say because of the nature of politics — it's like Michael Corleone isn't someone you go to for the truth. As for businessmen, in Russia or elsewhere, they are always looking over their shoulders to see which way the wind blows. In contrast, Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke his mind.

Anyway, we need to address 'democology' as well as demography. If 'demography is destiny' holds true, then white European nations should have been pro-white. At one time, UK was almost all white-British. Now, 60% of Londoners are non-British. And there are tons of blacks as well. How did this happen? Why did an overwhelmingly white Britain welcome this if 'demography is destiny'? It's because psychological colonization of British minds paved the road for the physical colonization of British territory. Politicians proved to be poor defenders of the Order. As whores of the moneyed class, most dared not go the path of Enoch Powell. (Powell himself failed with the hysterical rhetoric about 'rivers of blood'. A more rational argument would have served him better. It especially failed to gain traction because British tend to allergic to overt emotionalism.) As for Margaret Thatcher's brand of conservatism, the emphasis on commerce failed just like Reagan's. While the Right needed to be anti-communist and counter-balance big labor, it failed to realize that Labor is inherently more nationalist compare to Big Business. Workers are more rooted to the nation than businessmen are. While there have been mass migrations of workers around the world, money outpaces labor. Indeed, labor moved around to follow the money.

By making conservatism synonymous with moneyed success, both Reagan and Thatcher undermined nationalism by favoring class(or plain cash) over identity, roots, and blood. By their logic, the Right should cozy up more to rich Hindus and wealthy Jews than to the white middle class and working class. This would have worked out half-way decently if the newly ascendant yuppies were grateful and became 'conservative'. But yuppies didn't merely want to be associated with wealth and privilege. They wanted 'meaning' and 'status'. But in their eyes, conservatism was all about soulless materialist greed(among the nouveau riche), stuffy snobbery(among crusty traditionalists), mindless religious dogma, or, worst of all, 'racism'(followed by 'antisemitism', 'xenophobia', and 'homophobia').
Now, if the Right had defended nationalism and spoke the truth about racial differences and the problems of Jewish Power, things might have been different. But, the so-called 'mainstream right' was agreed that there's nothing worse than 'racism' and 'antisemitism'. And to prove it's not 'xenophobic', it too chanted the nonsense 'Diversity is our strength'. As the 'right' came to agree with the 'left' on all the moral issues — 'racism' bad!! — , its only advantage in the eyes of the successful was that it was pro-rich. So, when the 'new left' became pro-rich too under Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, the eventual collapse of the 'right' was inevitable. The 'right' used to have the money-advantage, and the 'left' used to have the moral-advantage. So, when the 'left' became pro-money as well, the 'right' had nothing left with which to woo over the rich and successful.
When class politics was a thing, social morality favored the have-lesses over the have-mores. The left bestowed moral advantage not only to women and minorities but to working class men of the majority. But once class became passe in the new discourse, the 'left' focused solely on identity whereby the minority(especially if Jewish or black) became sacrosanct against the majority. This had a huge impact on social moral discourse in both US and Europe. Traditionally, especially since the Great Depression and World War II era(in which so many working class men died), the political and economic elites were morally disadvantaged vis-a-vis the working masses. Radical leftism was premised on dictatorship of the proletariat, and even so-called 'radical right' movements such as Fascism and National Socialism gained mass support. FDR won four terms with votes from workers and agrarian folks. So, much of the social discussion in the US and EU revolved around what the elites can and should do for the good of the national working class.
But class politics was bound to be problematic in the Capitalist West. Under communism, most people had no choice but to be proles. In traditional society, class was almost like caste. Born into a certain class, you were likely to do what your father and grandfather did. But in the capitalist West, especially with booming wealth following WWII, so many children of working class parents became middle class, upper middle class, or even rich. Working class parents wanted their children to rise to higher classes, and as such was possible, working class identity waned even among proles. Indeed, the growing perception was that, if your family remained working class, it must be a bunch of losers because OTHER FAMILIES produced kids who became doctors, computer engineers, and successful businessmen.
So, unlike race which remains fixed, class became too fluid and unstable for a morally charged identity, especially as the West became free enough so that any individual, whatever his origins, could rise considerably higher through education and effort. The rise of youth and drug culture degraded whatever had been dignified about Prole Culture. Children of working class in the US turned to heavy metal culture. In the UK, many turned to ugly demented punk culture. And their values turned 'black'. And then, there was the double whammy of mass non-white immigration and 'free trade'. This meant tons of non-whites could enter the West while many factory jobs could be shipped overseas.
And as the elites controlled the narrative and discourse, the social moral themes went from the Noble Worker to Magical Diversity. Almost overnight, the sacrosanct theme of 'diversity' gave the social-moral advantage to the have-mores over the have-lesses. Wall Street crooks and Silicon Valley sharks could elevate themselves as social-moral superiors on account of their support of Diversity and, of course, Globo-Homo. But such attitudes aren't found only among the rich and successful but the status-conscious. Even college graduates with low-level jobs pick up signals of what is fashionable or neo-sacred and what isn't. Even white middle class suburbanites look to whatever's happening in the hottest parts of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco as worthy of emulation. Or, they think they're smarter or 'more sophisticated' for listening to NPR, reading the New York Times or the New Yorker.

While Buchanan is right about demographics, he hasn't sufficiently addressed the problem of 'democology'. And when he did address related issues, such as the Culture War, he failed to understand why the Right was bound to lose in the Modern World. Buchanan and Catholic Conservatives are priestly and dogmatic. What is priesthood but unimaginative keepers of dogma? As such, a priesthood-driven order is static. It's like a museum of ad nauseum, or even a mausoleum. Catholic Church became a museum religion of priests. In contrast, Jews kept alive the prophetic power that inspires the imagination. Would-be Jewish prophetic types could be peddling craziness, but they generated excitement and captured the imagination in arts, academia, and public square. In the Modern World, people want the New, the Visionary. It can be hokum-visionary, like James Cameron's idiotic AVATAR, but consider its mass success. How could Conservatives win the culture war? Catholic Church became a museum. Its most activist sector was the gaytholics.

Also, when so many more people are attending college and look to the arts/culture as a substitute for religion, how could 'Conservatives' compete when they lack the culture of critique and creativity? Critical Theory, despite a promising start, has become idiotic over the years, BUT its very conceit of critique wins over so many people who think they are smart or sophisticated. Most people aren't capable of independent thought; they are content merely to feel as part of the club; and that is exactly what Critical Theory offered to 'educated'/indoctrinated college folks. It makes them feel they are 'smart' and 'edgy'. In contrast, Conservatives didn't even have a faux-thinking culture with which to entice young and the educated. The Bill Buckley types had an attitude of blind reverence to the past. They were educated but lacked criticality. At most, they counter-critiqued the culture of critique and, as such, was a reactionary than a pro-active force. (They batted but never pitched in a game in which the odds favor the pitcher.) Buckley once said all the great works of art and ideas had already been created, and modern man could only appreciate this largess. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but it's not the kind of attitude to generate excitement and passion on his side. Even large-ass-ism wins the culture war against largessism.
Related to criticality is creativity. Though not the same thing, they activate and stimulate each other. Artists invite critics, and critics inspire new generation of people toward arts and creativity. Criticism is more rational whereas creativity is more mysterious, and yet one energizes the other, and in some cases, especially in France, the path to film-making is through film-criticism. Appreciation of literature has been kept alive by critics and teachers(who use critical material in the discussion of works of art). Andrei Tarkovsky is one of the greatest conservative artists of the second half of the 20th century, but I'll bet most critical appreciation of his works comes from Liberals than Conservatives.

Buckley and others like him were intelligent and well-educated but not particularly curious or critical. If Buckley engaged with the arts and culture at all, it was out of snobbery or political/ideological reasons. As for Rush Limbaugh and populist America, their interests range from top 40 hits to monster mash trucks. They are more into muscle culture than mind culture. They tend to see arts/culture as 'faggy'.
Now, if white folks were the toughest in sports, this might not be so bad. Consider: Jews and liberal dorks dominate arts/culture, but white conservative jocks and toughies dominate sports and manhood. But, White Conservatives can't even have that because muscle-and-manhood fields are dominated by blacks. So, Jewish Liberals, homos, and white collaberals dominate the arts/culture while black Democrats & supremacists dominate sports, manhood-stud departments. What does that leave for white conservatives? Role of cuckservatives who cheer on Negro athletes who hump white girls. There is WWE and action movies that feature tough white guys, but WWE is fake sports and action movies are now filled with Negroes and Diversity. Original STAR WARS had white heroes. The latest STAR WARS had a batch of Negroes, white ho's, bunch of homos and diversity dominating the galaxy.

Now, one reason why Conservatives lack criticality and creativity is due to their aversion to deviancy. While this tendency is generally good(as most deviant types are screwy), it has a way of overlooking, alienating, and suppressing strangeness that is the real source of creativity(and criticality). According to David Mikics, Stanley Kubrick was an avid reader of Franz Kafka, and they were both major weirdos. And yet, that is from where creativity flows.

The thing is Liberal centers of power are more welcoming and encouraging of the weirdos. Then, no wonder that so many talents in conservative communities end up in Liberal areas. Given that homos are generally more critical and creative than the usual public, they also flock to Liberal areas. And as Jews have been the perennial minority group in the West, they also developed and sharpened a critical and adversarial attitude.
Of course, this has downsides as well. Liberal areas can attract too many weirdos. While some weirdos are genuinely talented and make a difference, most weirdos are a rather sorry lot and cause more problems. They tend to be anti-social, neurotic, vain, self-indulgent, excessive in certain traits, and/or even sociopathic or pathological. For every Pee Wee Herman and Andy Warhol who gain success, there are many others who are mired in social dysfunction, not least because only a few can succeed in arts/culture. MULHOLLAND DR. is revealing about the losers in Hollywood. When a normal person fails to live up to his dreams, he finds another normal and constructive function in life. But when a weirdo fails in his/her dreams, he/she often turns even nuttier. Who knows, if Kubrick failed as a film-maker, he might have become a pornographer. If Tarantino had failed in film, maybe he might have turned to drug-dealing. Conservatism is more like the 50s, Liberalism is more like the 60s.

Now, there was the hope of strangeness-acceptance in the Modern Right in the late 19th century and early 20th century with figures like Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Celine, Oswald Spengler, T.S. Eliot, and the like. Also, back then, race-ism was rife among the Left as well, Jack London was a socialist but also a tremendous race-ist. But National Socialism turned rightist culture into a cartoon, and then the demise of Nazi Germany meant anything passionate, visionary, controversial, or 'pathological' on the Right would be associated with mass murder. Henceforth, the Right could only be stuffily traditional, dogmatically religious(snipped of Christian 'antisemitism'), obsess over money, or emphasize 'my individualism'. There was hardly any room left for strangeness that could serve as fertile soil for creativity. It is no wonder so many artists became 'liberals' and 'leftists' even though crypto-rightist tendencies are still found in works.

There is also the factor of black domination in sports and music. White youths growing up with total reverence of the black soul(as usually related to music) and black body(as the vessels of heroes). No wonder so many in UK and Ireland can't say NO to more African immigration. You can't say NO to magical black soul and heroic black body — why, it's be sacrilege against the memory of MLK, Mandela, and Muhammad Ali. The role of youth in American Culture is both rebellious and subservient. Pop Culture encourages the cult of rebellion, but because young people are so ignorant, naive, and shallow, they can easily be manipulated into swallowing whatever is shoved down their throats. So, even as the youth are predictably conformist and servile to the Power, they think they are being rebellious because the New Normal is presented as 'edgy', 'cool', and 'more evolved'.

Mainstream Conservative Culture is non-existent. What of the 'Alt-Right'? All too often, the 'radical right' approach to culture isn't much different from the PC kind. It's essentially PC dogmatism in reverse. If PC tends to praise or condemn works for their political content, so do those on the 'radical right'. This is why David Duke is utterly useless as a culture critic. If it's Jewish, it must be bad or worthless. Others will praise a work because it has pro-white content, which is about as dumb as the National Review extolling some movie for its 'conservative' message. Now, it's perfectly understandable to hate any work for its politics, but true cultural appreciation must give credit where it's due, e.g. Sergei Eisenstein was a commie propagandist but one of the greatest film-makers. Or, one may cheer Mel Gibson's PASSION for pissing off the Jews, but let's not pretend it's a great work of art. There is aesthetics beyond ideology though the two are not entirely separable.

One would think that with all the PC, censorship, immaturity, retardation, and 'woke' mania laying waste to the best of Liberal Culture, the Conservative side would take the opportunity to offer an alternative in ideas and expression. But nope. How could the Right take advantage of such crisis when it lacks the culture of critique and creativity? Even when Liberals aren't thinking, they at least pretend to 'think', which fools a lot of people, themselves included. But Conservatives seem allergic to the very idea of Thought. 'Highbrow' National Review failed to present a new school of ideas. Lowbrow Rush Limbaugh encouraged ditto-head-ism among millions. At best, Mark Levin came up with witticisms such as Al-Not-So-Sharpton and Washington-Compost.
How can you win the Culture War when you got no culture of critique? Buchanan hoped that Catholicism would be enough, but any institution is only as good as the people in it. And over the years, Catholic Church ended up with more homos, more cucks, more gimps, and more 'social justice' types. Also, is Christianity really 'conservative'? It's 'conservative' in the way that communism became 'conservative' in the Soviet Union: the New Orthodoxy. But Jesus and St. Paul, the founders of the Faith, were Jewish heretics who rebelled against Jewish Conservatism. Likewise, how can Americanism ever be truly 'conservative' when its founding myth is rebellion against the Mother Country and giving the middle finger to the King in the name of creating a new order?

Anyway, the reason why so many whites are 'woke' even after BLM lunacy — and why Trump pandered to blacks and white 'wokesters' — is because of 'democological' mental-colonization that has taken place all across the West. How else do we explain massive BLM lunacies in Europe as well? These people don't mass-protest the Great Replacement but come out in huge numbers in support of some worthless Negro trash who got hisself killed in Minneapolis. Granted, many used the Floyd issue as an excuse to protest Trump as the poster-boy of nationalism, but still, such white passion for a Negro. Back in 1968 when blacks rioted, even sympathetic white liberals were appalled. Mayor Richard Daley ordered his men to 'shoot to maim, shoot to kill'. LBJ sent the US military into cities to suppress the violence. While Democrats were more sympathetic of black rage and anti-war protesters, they weren't encouraging people to loot and burn down cities. Fast Forward to 2020, and the Jewish Power and Collaberals urged people to protest and riot and use violence. The city governments released Antifa thugs who attacked the police. The 'left' and blacks threaten white suburbs. And yet, so many white people voted for Biden against Trump on account that the latter is a 'racist' even though Trump pandered to blacks. Since then and now, so many whites have been mentally colonized by the media and academia, both of which are entirely controlled by Jews and their anti-white allies. Through much of the 70s and 80s, big cities and black areas were reliably Democratic while the rest, including the suburbs, were Republican. This was why Nixon and Reagan won such huge landslides. But since then, the changes haven't been merely demographic but 'psycho-graphic'. Jungle fever has spread to the suburbs. Women with purple hair and tattoos now serve as librarians. Also, there used to be a separation between ideology and institutions/entertainment. But now, globo-homo idolatry is even featured in comic books that kids read for fun. And library websites and displays push globo-homo and BLM. There are no more neutral spaces. It's as if every nook and cranny of life must be Shlomo-Afro-homo-ized. Campbell soup commercial push 'gay dads', and mantras of diversity-inclusion-equity crop up everywhere. (But, of course, nothing about Palestinians.)
And just when this mental-colonization was being reversed with the growth of the online square, the Jews and collaberals pulled all the stops to shut down free speech on the internet(and cuckservatives have done NOTHING to counter this). Why are so many young whites in the South cheering on the destruction of Confederate statues and their own heritage? They've been mentally colonized to hate their own kind. Of course, even as they denounce the legacy of Jim Crow in the South, they are fully supportive of Jim Crowitz in the West Bank. In a way, Southern cuckery is easy to understand. Southern Culture was always more deferential to power, and so, when the New Power is globalist and anti-white, Southern Cucks cluck-cluck to the New Dogma.

No one did anything about the rising Cult of Identity, namely that of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. The Cult of Personality around Stalin, Hitler, and Mao said the Great Man could never do wrong. He was always right, even when wrong. So, if Stalin said A, he was right. If he reversed himself and said B, he was still right. Why? Because what mattered was not what he said but that HE said it. He was like god, he was always right, and so whatever he said must be right. No wonder Mao was right when he said US is an eternal enemy, and he was right again when he met with Nixon. That's how cult of personality works.
What we have in the West is worse than the Cult of Personality, which dies along with the person in question. Stalin's cult of personality died with him. In contrast, the Cult of Identity is meant to last forever. The Tri-Supremacist Cults of Identity in the West revolve around the special holiness of Jews, blacks, and homos. So, it doesn't matter that certain Jews die. As long as there are Jews around, we must all kneel down and praise/serve the holy Jew. Same with Negroes. Even after so many years after the Civil Rights Movement, we are supposed to believe George Floyd is some kind of saint-angel even though he was a worthless scumbag. The Cult of Identity advantages or 'privileges' virtually all members of one group over all members of another group. So, a black guy can be a thug and looter, but he glows with the aura of BLM while his non-black victims mean nothing. As for whites, their passion matters ONLY IN service to the Tri-Supremacist Other of blacks, homos, and Jews. No wonder then so many whites join the BLM movement as such is the ONLY way they can express anything like passion. Happy passion in praise of homos, Tragic passion in service to Negroes.
But then, White Conservatives aren't much different from Antifa in their adherence to the current Cult of Identity. While more critical of BLM and less enthused of homos, White Conservatives can't conceive of a Bad Jew. They are totally invested in Cult of Identity of Zionism. No matter what Jews do to Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, and etc., the holy Jews are always right and their victims don't amount to a plate of beans. White Conservatives who despair of the globalist use of BLM violence in the US should look in the mirror and ask why they themselves supported Zionist use of Quasi-Nazis to smash Ukraine and Isis-Alqaeda types to smash Syria. Unless something is done to rid the West of the Cult of Identity(of Jews, blacks, and homos), there can be no real progress.

Republicans are going to have to grow their share of the white vote and their share of the Hispanic, Black and Asian vote or their future will begin to look like California today, where the Grand Old Party does not hold a single statewide office.

There is a simple way to do this. It takes only three words: Palestinian Lives Matter or PLM. Spread the truth that Jews are the ruling elites of America. Acknowledge America's 'guilt' in the Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians. Call for a memorial to the victims of Nakba Pogroms. Denounce Apartheid in the West Bank. There is little reason why browns and yellows should be anti-white. Most browns and yellows get along just fine with whites. So, why did they turn so anti-white? Economically, browns tend to be in the lower half while yellows are in the upper half. And yet, both are overwhelmingly Democratic when the 'progressive' rhetoric has become viciously anti-white. (In some ways, they could be taking cues from whites, i.e. if whites hate themselves and equate virtue with anti-whiteness, why shouldn't yellows and browns join whites in hating whiteness?) One reason for brown/yellow support of the Democratic Party is surely immigration, but even that is now tied to anti-white-ism, i.e. it is 'moral progress' to destroy white majority wherever it exists because whites dominating any nation is 'racist' and 'white supremacist'. Who came up with such a nutty idea? Jews.
Now, with browns and white Hispanics, there is the factor of resentment. White Hispanics are envious of Anglo achievement, and so, they want Gringo America to be brought down. Also, Mexicans have this revanchist notion of 'Reconquista'. As Mexicans can't beat gringos on the individual level in any endeavor, they've chose to rely on sheer numbers to gain power. And most people in Latin America share such resentments, and Jews exploit this fact against white America. As for Asians, they are a pathetic bunch of yellow dogs so anxious to fit in among the elites. As the elites are dominated by Jews and white cucks, yellows just go along like a bunch of teacher's pets. So, if globo-homo and BLM are the new holies among Jews and white cucks, yellows just bark along.

Still, on the personal level, most browns don't hate whites and would prefer to work with whites than deal with blacks. And yellows just go with the power. So, there is no reason for browns and yellows to hate whites UNLESS they are encouraged to. And what's doing that? Jewish Power. Now, whites can turn Jewish Logic against the Jews. If Jews say the peoples of color should resent and hate whites because of 'white privilege', whites should educate all Americans on which group has the most wealth, privilege, and power. Indeed, whites don't even have to do this in any 'antisemitic' way. Even if whites just objectively and dryly spell out who has the most power and most wealth, they will put into motion the natural tendency of the masses to grow most critical of whoever's on top. So, even if whites don't say, "Jews got the most power and they are a bunch of a**holes" but merely say, "Jews got the most power", it will naturally set into motion a new kind of discourse that will increasingly fixate on Jewish power, Jewish privilege, and then eventually the abuses of Jewish Supremacism.

Now, blacks are more problematic. Most blacks gained power in the Democratic Machine. As black elites are invested in the Democratic Machine as the source of their personal gain, they care more about the Party than about the race. So, even though black elites know that more mass immigration will squeeze out blacks in many areas, they don't care AS LONG AS it advantages the Democratic Party in which their personal power and wealth are invested. Black pride and identity function mainly as an idea. In truth, most blacks regard other blacks as 'dat no good nasty-ass mothafuc*in ni**a'. In other words, they don't trust each other and don't bother to help one another due to this lack of trust. That is why black politics is always ragging about 'white racism' so that white people will be burdened with fixing all the problems that blacks theyselves not be willing to fix.
That said, as long as Jews are inflaming black anti-white hatred, why not return the favor and air all the dirty laundry about Jewish exploitation of blackness, as well as giant Jewish role in slavery in Brazil? And to make things worse for Jews, point out how Jewish merchants sold guns and ammos to cowboys who killed the Indians. Yes, Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust'.

What Jewish Power did in 2020 is so vile, inexcusable, and disgusting that any self-respecting white who still sucks up to Jewish Power needs to hang himself. Such a person is lower than a cuck; he's a cuckroach. That Buchanan is unwilling to mention Jewish Power in his entire column shows how cowered and craven he is when it comes to the real power.

There are other presently insoluble problems for the GOP.
Democrats are the party of government and Republicans the party of the private sector.

This again? No, many white working class folks who lost their jobs now rely on the government. All those addicted to opioids rely on the government as well. Many rural Americans rely on the military for jobs.
And the biggest private sectors, Wall Street and Big Tech, are totally with the Democrats. The richest and fanciest parts of the city, the glittering jewels of capitalism, are almost all Democratic.
Las Vegas still gives to the GOP but ONLY to keep the GOP sucking up to Israel. The ONLY reason why the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer give to the GOP is for more money for themselves and more power to Israel. GOP is in a bind because it used to be the party of big money. But now that big money has gone with the Democrats, the GOP doesn't know what to do. It should logically move towards the working class, but old habits die hard. A party that sucked up to Wall Street all these years has no clue as to what to say to the working class. When Buchanan gave his pro-prole speech at the GOP convention in 1992, there was much befuddlement among the crowd. These 'free trade' enthusiasts were clueless about workers losing their jobs in small towns.

Indeed, one of the biggest losing ideas among American Conservatives has been anti-statism. Maybe long ago, the state wasn't that big and there was more local governance. But in rising Modern America, the state was bound to get bigger and bigger. So, if conservatives became 'anti-statist', the effect was not a smaller state but the growing state being taken over by 'liberals' and blacks. Washington D.C. is what? 96% Democratic? With Big Money being with the Democrats and with the diminishing of the working class and middle class, American Conservatism should encourage more of its folks to seek jobs and positions in statist institutions. What else is there? But now, Democrats have both Big Business and Big Bureaucracy. They got both Wall Street and the Department of Education. Conservatives were told that business and government were opposites, even enemies. Well, guess what? Wall Street and Big Tech cozy up to the Big State and collude against all of us. Great going, Conservatives.

State = Power. If you reject statism, other side will take it. It's like guns. If you refuse to own guns, the other side will have all the guns. Anti-statism was one of the biggest mess-ups of American Conservatism. And the notion that 'small government = conservatism' is almost uniquely an American argument. Traditionally, conservative forces always sought to control the state. If Putin and Russian nationalists give up control of the state, the nation will be totally ruled by capitalist oligarchs who can easily go globalist. Statism in China, despite all its corruption, is what holds the nation together and prevents total takeover by the moneyed class who are the same everywhere. Better to have China ruled by a nationalist like Xi than be dominated by globalist-capitalists.

The top 1% of the population in income pays more taxes than the bottom 90%.

And the top 1% owns most of the wealth. And when they mess up, they get super-bailouts. Also, the government just prints and prints more money than relying solely on taxes. Much of it goes to fund the government, but much of it also goes to fund Wall Street and corporations into buying back their own stocks. At any rate, most American Conservatives are not in the top 1%. The top 1% are with the Democrats. They push for the Great Replacement. They support BLM. They spread globo-homo degeneracy. So, F*** the top 1%. I say bring back New Deal era taxation rates. I say round up the likes of Jeff Bezos and Jack Dorsey and tar and feather them. Let's take all their money.

If Democrats can kill the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, if they can add four new senators from Puerto Rico and D.C., and if they can pack the electorate by turning millions of migrants, legal and illegal, into U.S. citizens and regular voters, then you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Again. Just three words: Palestinian Lives Matter. Diversity need not be anti-white. After all, the main attraction of non-whites moving to white-majority nations is to be with white people. Anti-white ideology is pushed by Jews. So, return the favor. Side with Palestinians. Whites should ally with non-white goyim against Zionists who oppress and murder Palestinians. And if Jews scream with rage at whites, whites can say, "But we are only siding with brown Arabs against you rich privileged white Jews."

The real question is, do whites have the courage and sense to speak those three words: Palestinian Lives Matter. And how much is a Palestinian Flag on Ebay or Amazon? Wave that flag in support of PLM and then gleefully watch Jewish Power shi* its pants.

Also, one-party rule may not be a bad thing. In a one-party state, people choose on the basis of issues and topics than on 'tribal' party affiliation. Suppose US were to turn one-party and suppose all Republicans became Democrats. The rivalry would no longer be the tiresome mudslinging between 'Dummicrats' vs 'Repuglicans' and instead become based more on particular issues. Indeed, the existence of the GOP has been a great boon to Jews. Even in California, the very presence of the GOP allows Jews and rich Democrats to keep playing the game. As long as Republicans exist, Jews can manipulate non-whites and white cucks to vote for the Democrats because, oh my, the alternative would be the 'white supremacist' and 'nazi' Republicans. But without the GOP, people will be more focused on the issues. Also, whites, instead of knee-jerkedly voting for the White Party(that has proven useless) can forge alliances with non-whites against the Elite Power Bloc of Jews and Collaberals.

FAUST & FASCISM by Cultured Thug

Desecration of White Heritage is essentially due to Jewish-Tribal factors than Demographic Changes or Ideological Fervor

Some say Confederate and other White Monuments are being removed or desecrated across America because of demographic changes: As the US becomes less white, white monuments are targeted by non-whites. To an extent, maybe.

But consider the following examples that call into question the correlation between demographic change and iconoclasm.

Mao’s revolutionary army united China and kicked out all foreigners in the name of regaining national autonomy. So, under Mao, China was once again China for Chinese. And yet, these very Chinese went about destroying so much of their own national art, texts, architecture, monuments, and treasures. The Cultural Revolution was maybe the biggest orgy of cultural destruction in the 20th century. It was about Chinese culture destroyed by the Chinese.

Also, consider the Anglo-American remembrance of Indian Cultures. American Indians were killed off by disease or guns and pushed westward, finally into dreary Reservations. And yet, Anglo-Americans went about building monuments to these vanquished peoples when the dust settled. These were memorials to Indians erected by white folks who replaced them. So, even as demography favored white settlers over Indian savages, white folks honored the memory of Indians by erecting monuments, naming towns after Indians, and etc.

So, it’s not just about demographics but a state of mind that determines whether cultural markers are erected, preserved, or desecrated.

Anglo-Americans could be ruthless warriors, but they also had a culture of magnanimity, recognition and respect for worthy foes. David Yeagley expounded on this aspect of the White Man. It is possibly rooted in the honor code of the warrior and the Christian virtues of grace and forgiveness(or repentance).

But such mindset seems to be missing among most non-white groups. Too many Jews feel contempt for gentile cultures and want them utterly defiled and desecrated. Blacks only respect ugabuga gangsta thuggery of ‘muh power’ and have no regard for values and culture beyond ‘muh dic*’, ‘muh booty’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh badassness’. Muslims can be simple-minded iconoclasts(even though, to their credit, they didn’t destroy all the pagan and infidel heritage in arts and achievements… that is, until the US let loose the hounds of ISIS on secular Arab regimes). And Asians are yellow dog teachers pets who can easily be led into Red Guard mode.

As for whites... they are now deracinated cucks. The lack of fiery resistance on the part of whites(even in the Deep South) to the toppling of Southern Monuments is downright shocking. Such craven cowardice or, worse, total apathy and indifference to the eradication of their own heritage and remembrance of past heroism and tragedy is pathetic indeed.
But then, the globalized ‘muh burger and fries’ culture of the new US has severed the historical and ancestral roots of most Americans. Non-white mass invaders attack whiteness, but they too are severed from their own identities, roots, and heritages. Both whites and non-whites are merging into vapid deracination where most people mainly identify with pop culture. Their only culture is videogames and Negro-dominated sports and rap music.
Granted, most non-whites don't come to America with hatred for whites. That hatred is implanted by Jewish media and academia that saturate entertainment and education with images of Evil Whitey as scapegoat for all problems though, to be sure, non-whites can be villains too as long as they are not Jews, blacks, or homos.

The main anti-white animus is the product of Jewish control of media. In that sense, the main reason for the recent spate of anti-white desecrations are neither primarily demographic or ideological. After all, most blacks in the South didn’t much care about Confederate flags or monuments until recently. The symbols and monuments became an issue with increasing Jewish and ‘neo-carpet-beggar’ takeover of the South. It has accompanied the rise of ‘new conservatives’ such as Nikki Haley who take their cues from Jews. Also, the new Southern White elites are either financial stooges of Jews or were educated in Jewish-dominated elite schools. As such, they lack the soul and spine to call out on the Culture War against the South that is being Afro-ized and ‘Immigrantized’.

A place can change demographically but still let the monuments be. Or if a radical ideology takes hold, it seeks to wipe out everything that is deemed falsely idolatrous. The current Culture War we are seeing in the US isn’t primarily due to demographic or ideological factors. Most Mass Invaders(aka non-white immigrants) who come to the US don’t come with anti-white hatred, nor do they have any wish to knock down statues. Rather, their kids are taught to hate whites and white symbols in schools. They are taught by teachers whose worldview has been shaped by trickle-down anti-white hatred of Jewish elites.

Also, we know the core animating factor isn’t ideological because the targets are usually limited to whatever Jews don’t like. After all, if the New Values are about ‘anti-racism’, why are Emma Lazarus and Immigration celebrated when More Immigration meant more 'racist' ‘genocide’ against American Indians? Also, why don’t Jews fess up to the fact that their immigration patterns have always been White Preferist or White Favorist? In other words, even as Jews bitch about ‘genocide’ and ‘slavery’, they always trailed and followed whites who led the way in creating new civilizations and opportunities, at times even through genocide and slavery. But notice that Jews get ‘passover’ treatment from the ideological fervor despite the fact that Jews played a prominent role in financing Western expansion, slave trade, and imperialism.
True ideology doesn’t work that way as it calls for consistency. Under Bolshevik communism, both Christianity and Judaism were suppressed. And in ideological Red China, even Chinese ‘reactionaries’ came under attack. No one was spared because he was a fellow Chinese.

In contrast, the Culture War in the US always exempts Jews-as-targets. So, even though 'racist' Apartheid South Africa was targeted for sanctions, Israel was allowed to do as it pleases despite its greater violence against Arabs and development of nuclear weapons(which it even shared with Apartheid South Africa). Even though Joe McCarthy was reviled by Jews for violation of Constitutional Rights, Jews play loose with the law to shut down and effectively censor anyone they don’t like, e.g. Alt Right at Charlottesville and on the internet.
And even as so many Confederate monuments have been removed or destroyed, the ones of Benjamin Judah remain untouched because they are of a Jewish man. So, even though demographic changes and ideological fervor play a part in the desecration of white history, they are not the main impetus behind the violence.
It is Jewish tribal manipulation of hatred in order to administer lashings on white identity and consciousness so that white pride and prestige will be broken to the point where whites feel they have choice but to just surrender to the supremacist will of Jews. To be sure, the most effective way of breaking white will and unity(most crucially of white men and white women) is Jungle Fever and ACOWW(or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs), but it also helps to smash Southern symbols of White Resistance against the Biological Slavery under Blacks. After all, even though whites did force blacks into social slavery and used racial discrimination, the Confederacy and Jim Crow were also acts of white resistance against the Thug-Advantage of stronger, tougher, and more aggressive blacks. In other words, black-and-white relations were never simply black-and-white but held many grey areas.

What Does It Mean to Win a Culture War? (And why homosexuals should be called ‘inversexuals’)

Topics: Culture War, 'gay marriage', millennials, Conservatives, Jew-Homo Cabal or Jomo Cabal, True meaning of marriage, Jews, Holocaust, Anglo-Americans, Ukraine, Russia, Cultural Revolution, China, Vanity of Homosexuals, French Revolution, French aristocracy, Israel, Conservative Cowardice, Inverse-sexuals or inversexuals.

Lately, we’ve been hearing a lot about how the homos won the ‘culture war’. Consider the vast expansion of Americans who are for ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same sex marriage’ or whatever it may be called tomorrow. Granted there are still many Americans, especially in certain regions, that continue to resolutely oppose it, but the homo issue has becoming the rallying cry for powerful Liberals who are led, funded, and guided by Jews, the most powerful people in the world.
In the past decade, the homo side has gone from victory to victory whereas the anti-homo-agenda side has gone from defeat from defeat, almost as pathetic as the French troops before the Nazi assault or the KMT before the communist advance in the Chinese Civil War. A foreboding sense of doom hangs over the conservative side, and craven opportunist cowards like Ross Douthat are begging for terms of surrender, as if the losing side gets to decide such terms. (Douthat, who vowed to stand firm and denounce the imaginary Cullens of TWILIGHT for turning Bella Swan into a vampire, is all-too-willing to bend over to the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal on ‘gay marriage’. Just like Conservatives like McCain and Romney bark loudly at China, Russia, and Iran but whimper obediently before Jewish power, Douthat’s courage only fires up against fictional creatures but turns to perfidy before Jews and homos.) Basically, there are three kinds of Conservatives/conservatives on the issue of ‘gay marriage’. There are those who are avidly for it, arguing that it’s actually the victory of conservatism since homos are embracing conservative values of matrimony and since the cause is favored by the rich and privilege. American Conservatism fawns over the rich and seeks to win their approval. Then, there are Conservatives who don’t like it but have decided there’s nothing that can be done about it, especially as digging into the true nature of homo power will inevitably lead to discussion of Jewish power, and of course, that is a big taboo in American politics. So, like Charles Murray, they’ve decided to throw in the towel and support ‘gay marriage’ in the manner of "if you can’t beat em, join em." Finally, there are conservatives who oppose it but give up the fight without surrendering to the other side. Even though they still oppose ‘gay marriage’ in principle, they’ve decided there’s nothing that can be done about it. According to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, the war has been lost, so we might as well move on. But if that’s their attitude, why do they oppose abortion rights? Why not say abortion became the law of the land, that’s that, and it’s not worth fighting for anymore? Indeed, why did conservatives oppose any of the Big Government policies since the New Deal? Why did Reagan try to roll back government? Why not just throw in the towel and say there’s nothing more to be done? Why do Limbaugh and his ilk still rail at Obamacare? Why not just declare defeat? Of course, the real reason why the likes of Limbaugh and O’Reilly have decided to give up the fight on ‘gay marriage’ is because there are too many fancy homos among the rich and elite crowd. Vain and egotistical, they want to hobnob with the glitterati, and it just so happens that refusing a key demand of the neo-aristocratic class of homos(who are backed by the all-powerful Jews) just won’t do anymore if you want to belong to the inner circle of the rich and privileged. As for the masses of Conservatives who are braindead sheeple idiots, they too are being won over to ‘gay marriage’ or surrendering without a fight(even as they continue to oppose it). The people who took pride in defeating the mighty Soviet Union in the Cold War cannot even stand up to a bunch of homos. What a shame.

Liberals say they won the debate, but we know there never was any debate, especially an honest one. Through use of media and entertainment, Liberals attacked, mocked, and shamed anyone who opposed ‘gay marriage’ as akin to Westboro Church. When a beauty pageant said she didn’t support ‘gay marriage’, the Jew-homo or Jomo Cabal media dug into her past and exposed every embarrassing detail of her life. Individuals known for critical view of homosexuality have been silenced, banned, fired, demoted, or blacklisted from jobs in both government and private sector. Businesses that support traditional family have been banned from cities. Courts have enforced laws that force ‘gay marriage’ upon regions that continue to oppose it. Schools teach children that anyone who finds homosexuality weird or perverse is sick in the head with a ‘phobia’. Cities have given permits allowing homos to have massive parades. In such a climate of fear & intimidation and mania & hysteria, how could there have been an honest debate about ‘gay marriage’?

To be sure, the conservative side deserves a lot of blame. Being anti-intellectual, conservatives have abandoned the academia for decades. Being uninquisitive and uncurious, conservatives produce few journalists. Being uncreative, conservatives are generally absent in arts and popular culture that have profound impact on social values and public opinion. Being anti-government, conservatives are vastly under-represented in government bureaucracies. Being anti-rationalist, conservatives prefer tradition and spiritual explanations over science and reasoned debate. Therefore, the loudest voices against ‘gay marriage’ on the right have been religious folks who invoke the Bible. The Good Book may be a source of wisdom, but the US Constitution is a secular document, and American laws must be based on clear meanings and legal consistency.

Without any mention of religion or tradition, a sane, sensible, rational, and logical argument could have been made for the defense of true marriage. All words are exclusionary and discriminatory. No word can mean everything except maybe ‘everything’. Though all of us have some medical knowledge, the word ‘doctor’ refers to those with special training to be doctors. Though all of us have some legal knowledge, ‘lawyer’ refers to those with degrees in law and who practice the profession of law. Though all of us have taught something to others, ‘teacher’ and ‘professor’ refer to those who’ve gained credentials in their fields. No one expects a totally ‘inclusive’ meaning of ‘doctor’ or ‘teacher’.
Same should apply to ‘marriage’. Marriage is not everything and it’s not just anything. Though the term ‘marriage’ can be used metaphorically or analogically — as in ‘marriage made in hell’ or ‘marriage of convenience’ — , in the literal sense it has had specific biological and moral basis, meaning, and purpose. Indeed, marriage is meaningful because it is exclusionary and restrictive. Supposing marriage is just about love, then if a thirteen-year-old boy and a twelve-year-old girl fall in love in high-school and demand to be recognized as ‘married’, they should be regarded as such. One doesn’t have to be 18 to fall in love, after all. And plenty of kids under 18 have had sex. Or, suppose a popular athlete has girls clinging to him from all sides. He says he loves them all, and they say they love him. If marriage is only about bonds formed by love/lust, why not declare them all as married if they so wish? Why does marriage have to involve rituals, laws, documents, and etc.? Why not truly ‘democratize’ the meaning of ‘marriage’ and designate any relation where love plays a role as ‘marriage’? What can be more ‘inclusive’? That way, we can have Platonic marriages too. So, if two straight male friends love one another as friends, we might well say they’re married as friends. Indeed, why differentiate marriage from friendship? If marriage is just about bonds of love, we might as well say all friends are married by bonds of affection. And if a man and a dog feel love for another, we might as well say they’re married too. And people shouldn’t even need to ask to be married to be married. If marriage is defined ultra-inclusively as bonds of love, then any man and any dog that love one another are married regardless of whether they think they are or aren’t.

Surely, even homos would reject such all-inclusive definition of marriage. Surely, even homos know that not all bonds of affection equal marriage. Not any couple nor any group of teens who feel mutual love can be said to be married. There are rules to marriage. Age requirements, vows of commitment, rituals, and/or legal processes. So, marriage isn’t just about bonds of affection or love. And it’s not just about any kind of love. A grandmother and a granddaughter love one another in the familial sense, but it would be ridiculous for them to be married in the name of bonds of family affection. Marriage is about love related to sexuality. And it’s not just about lust-of-the-moment but sexual-desire-in-relation-to-long-term-commitment. If one defines ‘marriage’ as a legal union of adults who feel sexual love for one another, then there is no need to allow only ‘gay marriage’. By law, there should also be ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same-family marriage. There should also be polygamy or ‘multiple-partner marriage’. After all, an adult son can love his mother, an adult daughter can love her father, an adult brother can love his adult sister, an adult son can love his adult grandmother, a homo brother or sister can love his/her homo brother/sister. If the homo lobby insists that the US Constitution allows any group of adults who feel love for another should be allowed to marry, why does the current mania/hysteria only privilege homos to change marriage rules while such privileges are not availed to incestuous couples or polygamous ones? Since there are so many jokes about sister/brother sex in the South, you’d think ‘incest marriage’ or ‘same family marriage’ should be a priority there before ‘gay marriage’. And since Utah is Mormon country, you’d think polygamy or multiple-partner marriage should be favored there over ‘gay marriage’. And yet, all we hear is ‘gay marriage’, ‘gay marriage’, and ‘gay marriage’. And yet, most people who wildly and crazily demand ‘gay marriage’ would reject and oppose ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy? Why? If we follow their definition of marriage, such alternative marriages are no less valid than ‘gay marriage’ is? Besides, incest is far more common and natural in the animal kingdom than homosexuality is. And polygamy has been the feature of human cultures since the beginning of time. If diversity and tolerance of other cultures are essential virtues in the 21st century, why should the West deny people of different cultural backgrounds the right to marry incestuously or polygamously? This rank hypocrisy could have been pointed out by the Conservative side, but there’s been total silence. And why? Because the game has been fixed long time ago. As Conservative elites are whores of Jews and rich elites, and since Jews and rich elites decided to favor the homos with neo-aristocratic flair, Conservative elites have hatched a plan behind the scenes to slowly ease the Conservative masses toward accepting ‘gay marriage’. So, publications like the National Review and others will raise a few heckles here and there, but they are all caving in, step by step. It’s been a rigged game for a long time.
It’s like how American Conservatism did nothing to raise funds for the Communist Memorial in the Mall. As the Cold War defined the second half of the 20th century and as many American immigrants suffered under communism, a well-publicized fund-raising for a memorial to honor the victims of communism would have received lots of donations. But how come no one heard about it? Why didn’t the media promote it? Why didn’t super-rich Jews donate to it? Why didn’t super-rich conservatives donate to it? Why did it collect just enough nickels and dimes to set up that dinky little statue? Jews donated nothing to it because they don’t want communist victims to compete with the Holocaust narrative that would have Jewish victims of the Holocaust hog all the victim-glory. Also, Jews had played a decisive role in communist mass killing and espionage, and Jews surely didn’t want any museum to detail any of that sordid history. As Jews control the media, they did nothing to raise consciousness about a communist memorial. As for rich conservatives, they knew that donating generously to the communist memorial would put their names on the Jews’ enemies list, meaning that they would be targeted by IRS, courts, media, and myriad government bureaucracies, all of which are controlled by Jewish tentacles. So, they gave little or nothing. And publications like National Review just shrugged their shoulders and said, oh well, not enough funds came in and that was that. But the fact is even the National Review did nothing to promote awareness of it. Too busy serving the Jewish Neo-cons(of Trotskyite background), Bill Buckley and Co. decided to bury the whole idea of the communist memorial.

In contrast to the communist memorial, look at the scale of the Holocaust Memorial. Three to five million Jews died in the Holocaust whereas communism devoured at least 70 million lives — though estimates go as high as 100 million — , but Jewish lives matter more than gentile lives in American politics and power. Americans are so ignorant of history that they buy the BS spread by Jewish media that the current crisis in Ukraine is a replay of WWII and the Cold War with Putin as the new Hitler or Stalin or both rolled into one. Anyone who knows anything about the region — and its connections to American Jews of Russian/Ukrainian ancestry — knows that Jews played a decisive role in Soviet Communism and in the death-by-forced-famine of millions of Ukrainians. Dirty globalist Jews are merely using Ukraine as a bridge to gain control over all of Russia and Siberia. Jewish view of Russians is as contemptuous as that held by Hitler. Both Jews and Hitler see all that vast territory and feel that a bunch of drunken untermensch Russians don’t deserve to have it. The superior race — Germans or Jews — should gain ownership. Jewish Witzkrieg is more insidious than the German Blitzkrieg. At least the German war machine left no doubt as to the true agenda of the National Socialists. In contrast, Jewish supremacists speak of ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’, and etc. but they’re really trying to gain power over Russia for Jewish domination. Anyone who doesn’t see this is an ignoramus fool, but then over 90% of Americans fall into that category as they’re addicted to Miley Cyrus, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher, and trash on MTV.
With conservatives being so slavish to Jews who piss on them, is it any wonder that the homo agenda — favored and funded by Jews — would have made such huge gains? It’s each to score a touchdown when the defense isn’t doing its job, indeed not even picking up the fumbles. Some say this is the victory of the left, but the reason why rich Jews and their Conservative toadies push the homo agenda is because it undermines the real left. When American progressivism’s idea of sacred justice is pandering to a neo-aristocratic bunch of pansies who are closely aligned with Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and top corporations, what does it say about today’s so-called ‘leftism’? As Jews get richer and more privileged, they’d rather associate holy victim-hood with fancy-pants homos than with working class whites, left-behind blacks, or swelling numbers of Hispanics in the service industries. And of course, dirt-bag Conservatives will eventually come around to supporting anything that is favored by Wall Street and Big Business. Conservative politicians and pundits are no less craven than their counterparts on the Liberal side. Their primary concern is maintaining their status and privileges, and therefore, their idea of ‘conservatism’ isn’t based on any principles or what real conservatives want but on an understanding of what will be favored and tolerated by the Jews. It’s about conserving one’s status than conserving power, principles, and truth for the entire people. As long as the likes of John McCain, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Chris Christie get theirs, they don’t care about anything else. Look how Limbaugh shilled out millions to have Elton John play at his wedding. The fat hippo piece of turd lives in a world of status and privilege, and the idea that he speaks for white patriots is a joke. THAT is why he declared the ‘gay marriage’ issue to be already lost and useless. His main priority is to dilly-dally with the rich and famous. He made his money from masses of dumb Conservatives, but the last thing he wants to do is hang around them. He wants to hang around the globo-neo-aristocrats. The fat pig will play at patriotic demagoguery by yapping about the ‘Chicoms’ but then praise Walmart to the heavens for expanding ‘free trade’ and globalism. Apparently, his avid listeners are too dumb to connect the dots and realize the Walmart wouldn’t have been possible without the evil ‘Chicoms’. Limbaugh is also into ‘new cold war’ mode, railing against Russia and Putin even though Russia is now a conservative country. With Jews being the most powerfully Liberal people in America, you’d think Limbaugh would rip into them as ‘Jewcoms’, but don’t bet on it. When it comes to Jewish power, he’s just a running dog like the rest of them.

Anyway, in a sane and sensible society, there would have been ample means and opportunity to push back the homo tide, especially as homos make up less than 2% of the population. But ours is not a sane nor sensible society. People are not raised to think, be rational, and truthful. They are brainwashed from cradle to grave to submit and obey the sacred truisms of political correctness. They are made to worship Jews and homos. If white, they’re instilled with irrational ‘white guilt’. They are bombarded with hedonism and orgasm-ism that makes them vulnerable to sensory manipulation perpetrated through the mass media. You will have noticed that everything in the so-called mass media are constructed, calibrated, designed, and executed not only to convey information but to work on your emotions. The production values and means of TV news aren’t much different from those employed in TV commercials. Both are fancy, glitzy, and polished, what with personable personalities chattering to the camera as if they’re your neighbors and friends. Talk Shows make you feel like you’re sharing a living room with the host and his/her guests. Reporters talk less like professionals than chums and popular kids in school. Substance matters less than style. The movie BROADCAST NEWS — like QUIZ SHOW — blamed rising superficiality on vapid Wasps who were depicted as all looks and no brains, but this new form of mind-control was perfected by Jews who’ve long controlled the news media and advertising — as well as many psychology departments in elite universities. Thus, ‘juvenilia’ and infantilism are pervasive in our culture.
An idiot like Ross Douthat designates the current young generation — known as millennials though ‘minions’ would be more like it — as individualistic, but he couldn’t have missed the mark by a wider margin. The current crop of minions are incapable of thinking alone, forming truly individual selves, and guarding their individualities. Their mode of thinking, perceiving, and feeling should really be called ‘selfism’ and ‘interconnectualism’. While millennial minions or millennions yammer much about freedom and liberty, they’re obsessed with stupid things like drugs and sex. Their idea of political/moral progress is waving the ‘rainbow flag’ and barking that it’s evil to oppose ‘gay marriage’. They have no clue that for ‘marriage equality’ to be viable, ‘incest marriage’ and polygamy should be allowed too. But that would require connecting the dots, using reason and logic, abilities that are no longer promoted in schools. They cannot figure out for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Though raised to revere Nelson Mandela for having resisted South African Apartheid, they feel zero sympathy for Palestinians who still live under Zionist occupation. They weep over 12 YEARS A SLAVE but know nothing(and would feel nothing even if they knew) about thousands of whites who’d been raped, beaten, tortured, and/or murdered in South Africa since the end of Apartheid. They see nothing wrong with eating pork and aiding/abetting the hogocaust even as they wail against the killing of whales. They are babyish idiots whose thoughts need to be thought for them by others, just like babies in primitive cultures need their mothers to chew the food before putting it into their mouths.
To be sure, most people in earlier generations never thought for themselves either, but millennions are especially brainless and clueless as they’ve been raised under the complete influence of PC. Worse — and downright pitifully — , they don’t even know that they are mind-bots because they’ve been sold on the cult of ‘radicalism’ and ‘rebellion’. Indeed, this is the genius stroke of late Liberalism. Conservative or traditional elites always sought to maintain control over the young ones by emphasizing order, obedience, discipline, sacrifice, dedication, and reverence. Therefore, young people tended to rebel — especially where the culture of youth rebellion took hold. But Liberal elites tell the young ones that their consciousness is being raised, that they’re being taught to be ‘radical’ and ‘subversive’, that they’re being prepared to ‘deconstruct’ the narratives of authority, and etc. Young ones are not only raised to be running dogs barking on command but to confuse their barks as cries of freedom. Whether it’s Hollywood, MTV, the Harvard Humanities Department, the Democratic Party, or some fancy club in NY, it’s the same shtick about how they’re all into ‘subversion’ and ‘radicalism’. Never mind that such labels are little more than brands favored by the rich and privileged vainly playing the ‘radical chic’ card. So, we have all these would-be-intellectual millennions who never had an original thought in their lives mindlessly and slavishly agreeing that, yes, Andy Warhol was a genius and that JEANNE DIELMAN is one of the greatest films of all time. (And among the idiot trashy millennions, I’m sure they think Miley Cyrus is an icon of ‘liberation’ and ‘empowerment’.) Without thought, they oppose whaling while munching on bacon, the meat of an animal as smart as any whale. Without thought, they champion ‘gay marriage’ in the name of ‘marriage equality’ while having no thought to push for ‘incest marriage’ or polygamy that should qualify no less than ‘gay marriage’ following the logic of ‘marriage equality’. Like mindless tards, they are sold on the idea that the rainbow has something to do with two guys ramming each other in the ass in fecal penetrative acts or with people having their perfectly healthy sex organs cut off to be replaced by fake ones.
This isn’t individualism. Millennions are full of conceit about themselves. They have an inflated sense of self but no sense of individuality. And it isn’t helped by social networking and smart phones that interconnect everyone with everyone 24/7. When the internet first appeared, it was a boon for individualism since everyone could access the kind of information and products he or she needed. It opened up grand vistas while maintaining the integrity of separateness and self-identity — except for fools who wasted their times in chatrooms. But with social networking and smartphones, countless millennions are interconnected at all times. Thus, their identities are interconnectual than individual. They’re always mindful that others are watching them, hearing them, approving them, disapproving them. So, despite all the conceit of freedom and choice, millennions are the biggest conformists in American history. Only a culture of mindless conformism could have spread something as ridiculous as ‘gay marriage’ at such alarming speed (Though PERKS OF BEING A WALL FLOWER takes place in the 70s, its lead male character is a perfect millennion prototype. Spineless, gutless, value-free, shallow, and vapid. The only driving force in his life is to win approval from the ‘special’ or ‘beautiful’ people. Perhaps, the development of such bland and gutless normality that craves abnormality for excitement and thrills owes to the excessive triumph of normality following WWII. There was a time when being normal meant having to work on the farm, drive cattle, shoot guns, and work like a man. Being normal meant being tough stuff. But in the post-war world of affluence, normality came to be associated with excessive leisure time, peace, and safety — especially in the suburbs — , and so, the normal life became boring. Being normal in the Wild West meant cutting down trees, working on the farm, using guns to kill dangerous animals, and defending oneself from bandits and Indians. But in the comfortable normality of the postwar era, being normal meant lying on the couch and watching TV Westerns. Such dull normality was bound to seek thrills somewhere, even if they were in the corrupting realm of abnormality.) Only a thoughtless hunger for ‘radical’ approval could have convinced so many idiots on the Sight and Sound Poll to select JEANNE DIELMAN as one of the greatest films of all time. Or taking the likes of Kanye West and Lady Gaga seriously. Mindlessness has been the hallmark of every generation as an aspect of the human condition, but mindlessness now travels to every corner of the world and into every neuron of every idiot at the speed of light via electronic gadgets that serve as virtual extensions of mind and body. Also, with the breakdown of family, community, and tradition, even kids who grow up in small towns have no sense of roots — unlike Loretta Lynn with the family and community from which she sprang, Martin Scorese with his profound sense of Italianness, and Woody Allen with his Jewish milieu. Though traditionalism and communalism may be at odds with individualism, they also shield the individual from the conformist pressures of mass culture and mass hysteria/mania. Indeed, most of life isn’t so much about individualism vs communalism as one form of communalism vs another form of communalism. How many individuals really think on their own, conceive their own ideas, create their own values, arrive at their own truths? Even most thinkers borrow from other thinkers or espouse a well-established -ism. Even the champions of Nietzsche lean on him as a crutch because they themselves are so lacking in selfhood. Indeed, when a person breaks out of his community and embraces so-called ‘individualism’, he is essentially positioning himself or herself to conform to the norms of another community. That experience of switching communities lends the illusion of individualism, but it’s only a bridge between one communal-conformism and another. It’s like moving from one town to another town makes one feel free(like when the mother and son travel to a new place in the film ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE), but the fact is one must settle down once more, find work, and get back to the daily grind. So, one really goes from one life of routine and drudgery to another.
In the past, the conflict between traditional communities(which still exerted considerable power) and modern modes of existence(with its greater choices) allowed for greater individuality as one felt the pull of both and had to form a sense of self in relation to and in resistance to both. Thus, Scorsese navigated between cultural loyalty to Little Italy and cosmopolitan libertine-ism of the movie industry. So, people like Federico Fellini and Woody Allen never forgot the places/communities whence they came even as they explored new freedoms as artists and celebrities. Today, with the ebbing away of tradition and the fading away of the family, there’s only mass culture, pop culture, and political correctness as the determinants of one’s identity and place in the world(and they are all controlled by Jews who use them to maximize their control over all of us). Even parents who stay together tend to be permissive or are desperate to win approval from their kids as being ‘cool’. They don’t want to seem ‘conservative’ but ‘hip’ and ‘progressive’. So, if ‘gay marriage’ is the hot item, many parents are eager to show that they’re ‘with it’ too since all the cool, rich, and popular people seem to be waving the ‘gay flag’. The fact that so many generation X-ers also cave into ‘gay marriage’ suggests that the loss of individuality was well under way in the 80s when coolness and conformism were fused into a new formula that lent the impression of freedom while encouraging adherence to the system and availing silly diversions as release valves for life’s frustrations. Alex Keaton the spineless and glib Conservative was the progenitor of the mindless and smug Liberal. Shallowness and lack of deep commitment define both types. (The fusion of the cult of ‘change’ and privilege of status resulted in something that might be called ‘status pro’. Traditionally, privilege was associated with the status quo, i.e. the rich and powerful opposed change since it might threaten their dominant position in society. Thus, wealth came to be associated with social conservatism, even though many rich people privately led lifestyles that were anything but traditional or socially conservative. Today, status is associated with ‘change’ or pro-gress, not least because so much new wealth and privilege have been created by high-tech in Silicon Valley and ‘creative finance’ on Wall Street. To be sure, since the rise of the bourgeoisie, great wealth was closely associated with innovation and technology, but the traditional bourgeoisie lacked cultural and social self-confidence and therefore modeled their style and manners on the well-established ways of the aristocrats, even going so far as to purchase aristocratic titles. Thus, even the fabulously rich families of the Gilded Age in 19th century America sought respectability by putting on aristocratic airs and imitating haute Europeans. Also, as Anglos dominated the upper classes in traditional America, they felt a certain affinity with the British upper classes despite the fact that America was founded on principles of political equality. But as the traditional aristocrats faded away into nothingness — rather dramatically after the debacle of World War I — and as the bourgeoisie gained greater confidence in their own power and status independent of aristocratic norms and opinion, the rich and powerful were less bound to notions of ‘status quo’. And yet, there were reasons why the Anglo-American rich continued to cling to cultural traditionalism. As Jews were gaining wealth and power rapidly, Jewish privilege came to be associated with ‘change’, ‘subversion’, and ‘urbanism’. To counter the Jewish challenge, Anglo-American privilege became increasingly linked to ‘status quo’, rural-ism — at least in rhetoric and style, as with the Bush family in Texas or the image of Reagan as a small town boy or as cowboy on a horse — , quasi-aristocratic greenery of golf clubs, and traditional values. But since the end of the Cold War, the victory of ‘status pro’ over ‘status quo’ has been near-total. Since power and privilege are now so closely associated with rapid changes in science and technology, the corollary effect in culture and values has been the conceit of positive ‘progress’ through social radicalism. So, we not only have the mania for ‘gay marriage’ but for trans-gender lunacy. It’s as if social activists feel the need to engineer society as rapidly as engineers working on computers and smart phones. One might say this is proof of the total victory of the power of ‘progress’ over traditional notions of power rooted in the aristocracy, and yet, what we have is a new kind of aristocratism, a neo-aristocratism that favors the alliance of Jewish geeks and homo freaks. It’s about a self-enclosed world of unprecedented power and privilege. Indeed, the globo-Jomo elites feel toward us as Mel Brooks as French Monarch toward his subjects in A HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART I.) Shallowness can be passionate to be sure. Think of the passion surrounding the Summer of Love with people singing the Beatles’ "All You Need Is Love". Think of the Nazi clowns who set up bonfires and burned books. Think of Red Guards who went ape-shit, chanted from the Little Red Book, and laid much of China to waste. But how deep were those passions? How long could they be sustained? There’s passion surrounding the ‘gay marriage’ issue, but how deep is it? When convictions and allegiances are deep, people cling to them even when the prevailing winds of power and media blow against them. So, even when Poland came under communism and religion was persecuted, many Poles remained faithful to Catholicism. So, even when so many young people were acting the hippie fool in the 60s, others remained sober and serious about their deeper commitments to family, tradition, and nation. Fashions can turn into passions, but shallow emotions eventually blow away. The deep ones rooted in genuine meaning and morality remain. The only reason why the ‘gay marriage’ issue is filled with so much passion is because the mass media, federal government, public education, entertainment, and the courts(all of which are controlled by hideous Jews) are fanning it, spreading it, and enforcing it. Like communism, it needs massive institutional support and vast networking to keep it aflame. When idiots are bombarded day in and day out with images of angelic homos and ‘evil homophobic’ villains, of course they are going to fall for the hype just like so many minions did under communism and Nazism. This is why Jews are so committed to bombarding us day in and day out with all this propaganda. They know that without such massive and hysterical support, the entire homo agenda has no legs to stand on. Innately and intrinsically, we feel ideas, values, and matters to be meaningful, true, and sacred. ‘Gay marriage’ is NOT one of them. It’s the sort of nonsense that has to be hyped endlessly to have any currency. (And since it cannot be justified on its own terms, it has to be associated with ‘equality’, ‘tolerance’, ‘rainbow’, ‘family’, the ‘new normal’, a perverted form of Christianity; it has to be associated with the Holocaust, mentioned alongside Jim Crow, and etc. Thus, if you oppose ‘gay marriage’, you’re like a Nazi or a radical Muslim. You’re no different from supporters of slavery in the South. It’s the same old Jewish trick of using fronts or suggesting ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’ through association. Notice how Jews push Zio-Jewish supremacist policies all over the world but mask their organizations and programs with words like ‘democracy’, ‘progress’, ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’, and etc. Even organizations with explicitly stated Jewish interests prefer to use acronyms like AIPAC or ADL. The recent troubles in Ukraine were instigated by Jewish agents, but notice how the Jewish-run-and-funded organizations behind them go by names like ‘Foreign Policy Initiative’ when their real purpose is expansion of Jewish supremacism. All such organizations should really be called JSF or Jewish Supremacist Front.) And the reason why Jews and homos want to write homo privileges into law is because that is the ONLY way to secure it for the long run. As all this homo-worship is a fashion, people will eventually grow tired of it — just like they got tired of hippies and psychedelia. But if ‘gay’ privilege is written into law, even after people tire of it and see it for the trash it is, homos(along with Jews) will enjoy a special place in America as the only sexual deviants who got to change marriage laws, a privilege denied to polygamists and incest-sexuals/family-sexuals/insular-sexuals. So, even though cracking ‘gay’ jokes is now considered a ‘homophobic hate crime’, one can still use ‘incestophobic’ words like ‘motherfuc*ker’, and stand-up comics can say jokes like, "How do you castrate a hillbilly? Kick his sister in the jaw." But try cracking a joke like, "What do you call two gay Irishmen? Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald."

At any rate, what does it mean to ‘win the culture war’? Jews and homos would like for us to believe that their position won our for all time, but are culture wars won permanently? There was a time when it seemed as though communists had permanently won the culture war against the Russian Church in the USSR. Churches were being closed while children were being drumbeat into communist orthodoxy. Total victory of Marxism-Leninism seemed at hand. But communism is gone whereas the Church remains(though perhaps one could argue that both have failed in a late modern world that has little use for grand systems of truth. Both Lenin’s Tomb and the Russian Orthodox Church live on as relics. One advantage that spiritual religion has over a materialist-based-secular-religion like Marxism-Leninism is that spiritual religions don’t have to justify itself with material evidence whereas the material religions do. Spiritual religions are defeat-proof, which was the genius of Judaism. Even in defeat, the shame is limited to man, not to God in Heaven. Marxism-Leninism could only succeed by creating a prosperous world of plenty and justice, which it failed to do. But suppose communism had succeeded in delivering the goods. The ideas and images associated with communism might still have great appeal today. In this sense, the failure of communism had more to do with the ideas’ failure to deliver than with the ideas themselves. In contrast, religions don’t have to deliver the goods since they’re cosmic and transcendental than historical and humanist in nature. God owes us nothing, and if the devout end up badly despite their faith, they can always blame themselves than God or see the defeat as a sign of new hope from God, which is why Muslims, even after getting clobbered over and over by the West, never lose faith in Allah. But communism, having no use for God, promised the people that the best-and-brightest leaders and technocrats would guide workers in creating paradise on earth. When something like communism fails, there isn’t much in the way of a safety valve. The ‘great leaders’ just seem more and more hollow and their promises sound like so much empty rhetoric. In contrast, even when God seems ‘wrong’, there’s always the sense of deeper mystery, as Job came to realize. The utter failure of Cuba and North Korea led to ever more desperate attempts to deify the ‘great leader’, but we know they don’t have lasting value in the scales of history). And what of China in the 1960s? Mao waged what was possibly the biggest culture war that ever was. He had literally millions of Chinese youths waging war on the ‘bourgeoisie’ — even though they no longer existed in China — , ‘capitalist roaders’, and whatever was deemed as part of ‘old culture’. The culture war or revolution unleashed by Mao was so violent and powerful that all the ‘class enemies’ appeared to have been swept away forever. But, where is China today and who reads the LITTLE RED BOOK or cares about the tenets of the Cultural Revolution anymore? In the 1970s and 1980s, radical feminism that sprouted out of the 60s seemed to be gaining a lock on American culture, with so much critique of how capitalist-patriarchy oppresses, exploits, and dehumanizes women. It was so powerful that growing numbers of women seemed to be coming together under its influence. As it happened, however, feminism’s neo-puritanical attack on popular culture was a threat to the industry(dominated by Liberal Jews). Besides, as Stalinist-style dour lesbians took over the movement, it grew ever more drab and dreary, and by the late 80s, a new kind of feminism was developing around Camille Paglia and madonna. The radical feminists who appeared to be gaining so much power were, within a few yrs, soundly defeated by ‘slut feminism’ that was especially favored by homo men(who had little use for drab neo-Stalinist feminism of the N.O.W. gang, especially as it came under the leadership of Patricia Ireland). The ERA or Equal Rights Amendment movement didn’t get very far in the late 70s and early 80s. So, these were all social and ideological fashions, and of course, ‘slut feminism’ and the current homomania are also fashions and pass away after people tire of saying ‘vagina, vagina, vagina’ so many times. Once the hysteria wears off, people will eventually see it for what it is. It’s like after the Mardi Gras in New Orleans or Carnival in Rio De Janeiro, people hung over from the excessive glitz of the previous night realize it’s the same crap city with all the same problems. In time, people will get tired of homomania and its cheesy association of homosexuality with the rainbow. However, once all this homo garbage is written into law, it will be inscribed into the culture even after people realize what rot it really was. (This is why Jews and homos are so eager to push legalization of ‘gay marriage’ now before the hangover comes into effect. It’s like the strategy of some sly women looking to hook rich hubbies. They are little more than slutty gold-digging hussies who shake their boobs and sway their hips. They use make-up, perfume, Ann-Margaret antics, and ‘boing’-inducing seductiveness to allure rich men. Some might use the facade of sophistication and ‘culture’ like Cate Blanchett’s character in BLUE JASMINE. Rich men get all excited and want to get it on, but they don’t necessarily wanna sign the paper and walk down the aisle. Doing so would mean that they are stuck with the worthless hussy or ‘husstler’ even after they realize she’s nothing but a gold-digging whore. This is why such women work extra hard to make the man sign the paper in the heat of passion. Same mentality is behind the homo agenda. Homos wanna make all of America accept the legal paper of ‘gay marriage’ when homomania is at its height, because, once people wake up and smell the coffee, they’ll realize the idea of ‘same sex marriage’ is a total perversion of the true meaning of marriage and the real sexuality between men and women. Jewish sluts and homo hussies are pressuring us to sign the paper and be wed to them so that we’ll be stuck with them by law even after we realize they’re nothing but a bunch of hideous geeks and venal freaks. It’s like Isabel Archer was a fool to fall for the Jew-homo or Jomo-like phony in A PORTRAIT OF A LADY. Marriage sealed her fate.)
While homos were created through natural processes — natural defects exist as do natural norms — and while homos need to be appreciated for their special contribution to arts, culture, and ideas, the ‘sexual’ nature of homosexuality simply doesn’t merit the recognition of marriage that has deep meaning only when it recognizes and fuses the true nature of sexuality with the moral commitment of men and women as parents to take responsibility for the children they create. While marriage is certainly more than about creating new life, it has genuine value only when it revolves around that principle. Otherwise, we might as well have Platonic friend-marriages between two straight guys or between two straight women. While homos do feel ‘sexual’ feelings for one another, it is gross and unhealthy among homo men — fecal penetration is never any good, but as the penis cannot have sex with another penis, homo men pretend that the fecal anus is a ‘male vagina’ — , and it is silly and ridiculous among homo women. The sane thing is to allow homos the freedom to do their homo thing, and for us to leave them alone and for them to leave us alone. But pansy-boy fruitkins, being naturally bitchy, vain, arrogant, narcissistic, and exhibitionist, don’t want to just to their own thing in their own world. They wanna parade around with ‘pride’ — as if fecal penetration among men is a matter of poo-ride or as if cutting off one’s penis to become a woman or carving out one’s vagina(and being fitted with a fake penis)to become a man is something marvelous — , sneer at us with aristocratic flair, look down on us as peasant serfs who must honor and praise them.
Though dishonesty is part of the human condition, homos tend to be especially(and even by nature)dishonest. Homosexuality is a trick/accident of nature that made for a ‘dishonest’ form of sexuality. Homo men are born with male sex organs but with female mentalities. Homo men are born with female sex organs but with male mentalities. They are the biological lies of nature. Among male homos and among lesbians, there are two modes of sexual leanings. Some homo men feel tutti-fruity effeminate and want to be taken like a woman by a man. But other homo men are homo for the exact opposite reason. They are so narcissistically ultra-macho that they prefer the company of other ultra-macho men than of women who are seen as soft and weak. Thus, homosexuality is a form of natural dishonesty, the product of nature having failed to ‘make up its mind’. And homo psychology in real life reflect this confusion, which, in some cases, leads to remarkable creativity and expressiveness since the very nature of art is to cheat reality with illusions. Due to the nature of homosexuality, many homos are prone to lie, cheat, connive, backstab, and pull all sorts of dirty tricks — like the fruitkin in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. They were born to conspire or connive, like the homo black guy in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION. Or consider Richard Kennedy, the British fairy who fell down the stairs and smashed his own face but has the gall to blame ‘homophobic’ thugs’. Would you trust a face like this?

Richard Kennedy - a lying British fruitkin

Indeed, consider the high percentage of homos who were serial killers and other degenerates. Of course, not all or even most homos are lying, cheating degenerates. Many are good workers, and one could argue that a certain amount of feminine traits in certain kinds of homo men make them better at working and negotiating with other people — as opposed to macho straight guys who tend to see everything as a pissing contest. Homos may connive and play dirty, but they are likely to do with greater patience and finesse that comes with their froopy-doo consciousness. Homos, with the naturally aristocratic flairs and weird ‘sexual’ obsessions, also tend to lack moral conscience. They care more about style than substance. They are more about the appearance of things than for their inner worth. It’s no wonder that Judaism, the most moralistic and substantive of ancient cultures, was most anti-homosexual, whereas the Greek culture, with its emphasis on beauty, tended to tolerate homosexuality. While style has value, it should never be mistaken for substance. Style can be substance in art, but it’s not the substance of life. Life is created through biological laws and sustained with moral rules. An artist can draw a horse in many styles, but only a male horse and a female horse can produce a another real horse, and only a horseman can raise it properly to perform horse duties. Homos created many great sculptures and paintings of men and women, but only the union of men and women could produce new life, and new lives should be raised with love and care by the parents who produced them. Thus, the very substance of life should not be confused with the style of expression. Most genuinely moral people understand this. (To be sure, many people who support ‘gay marriage’ are good people, but being good isn’t enough to be on the side of truth. Most Creationists are good decent folks who say howdy and help their neighbors in times of trouble, but that doesn’t make Creationism true. Most people who support ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t want to harm others; they are decent neighbors and believe themselves to be supporting ‘gay marriage’ out of positive reasons such as ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’. What such people misunderstand is that minor positives can misleadingly serve what is essentially bad or evil. After all, 80% of Americans who supported the Iraq War did so out of ‘good reasons’ of patriotism, fighting terrorism, removing a tyrant, liberating the people of Iraq, and destroying WMD. But they — including myself to some extent — failed to understand that all those good things were merely serving the venal agenda of Jewish-Zionist Supremacists.) Let marriage be for men and women who are aligned with the biological laws of life and respectful of the moral rules of parenting. Let homos do their own thing with their homo ‘sex’. As homo ‘sex’ cannot produce life, the only way homos can create something is through styles of art, and that’s one thing they can take pride in.
As it turns out, the vain and self-centered homo nature often cannot accept the laws of biology or rules of morality. In their preening narcissism, they think the entire institution of marriage should serve them than vice versa. If homos really care about marriage, they will recognize it for what it is. (It’s like if Mao had truly respected economics, he would have left economics to those who understood it. And if Hitler respected the military, he would have respected the decision of military officers. But both Mao and Hitler thought of themselves as the centers of the universe, as if economics and the military should serve their megalomaniacal know-it-all whims. Homos are like that with marriage.) If homos truly understood the meaning of marriage and valued it — as Camille Paglia does — , they will see it as a civilizational value. They will understand that even homos — indeed every homo that ever existed — were produced not through homosexuality but through real sexuality between men and women. Many straight people don’t get married, but they still respect the institution of marriage as existing for a biological and moral purpose. Indeed, many straight people don’t marry because they don’t think they are qualified to get married and play responsible roles as spouse and parent. If they were to get married, they want to do it right. That is showing respect for marriage. There’s a sense that marriage is bigger than any of us, just like all of time is bigger than any hour, week, month, year, decade, or century. Marriage should be supported not only by the married but by the unmarried because civilization carries on through the creation of new lives who are loved and taken care of by parents who decided to produce them.
But homos are too selfish, vain, and narcissistic to accept that marriage is bigger than them and exists for a purpose bigger than any homo whim or demand. Homos think they are the center of the universe and everything must be changed to cater to them. So, marriage must be unmoored from its deep and profound meanings just to please homos; it must consign itself to appease the shallow and vapid mentality of homos. Homos have little or no sense of something being bigger than they are. Everything is a toy that must be reshaped to give them pleasure. World must be their oyster, their snail.
Homos would have never pulled off such a cultural putsch, but they were advantaged with the backing and protection of the most powerful people in the world, the Jews. Homos aren’t trustworthy, neither when they’re in the closet nor when they’re on the pedestal. In both cases, homos are living a kind of a lie. In the past, homos who were forced to remain in the closet pretended to be straight and channeled their repressed energies through conspiracy, subversion, and infiltration. They were like natural-born CIA-KGB officers since they had to hide something essential about themselves from the public eye.

Nutty Fruitkin threatens Costner in NO WAY OUT(aka NO GAY OUT)

Many got married and lied to their spouses and children as to the true nature of their sexuality.
Since then, given that homos have been allowed to come out of the closet, you’d think homos today would be open-minded and easy-going. But as homos have been ‘welcomed’, ‘celebrated’, and put upon a pedestal, they now force us to believe that homosexual fecal penetration is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex between men and women. We are made to believe that there’s nothing wrong or sick about a man having his penis cut off or a woman having her breasts sliced off in order to be physically transformed into the opposite sex. Thus, one lie has been replaced by another lie. If in the past, homos were forced to lie about their true sexual nature, today, WE are forced to lie to ourselves that homosexuality is the biological and moral equivalent of real sexuality between men and women that produces life and serves truly reproductive functions. Homos weren’t merely content to come out of the closet. They became hellbent on vilifying all those who refused to celebrate homosexuality and continued to be critical of homosexuality; such people were declared mentally ill with ‘homophobia’ and deserving to be tarred-and-feathered and pushed into the PC closet. And this was enabled with the support of Jews who control the politicians, media, law courts, Hollywood, US government.

The Jomo Cabal

Real sex, even for the sake of pleasure than reproduction, is a reproductive act because sexual pleasure exists because organisms evolved to reproduce. Thus, even when birth control is used and no new life is produced from the sexual act, the drives and desires behind sex are rooted in reproduction. Therefore, when we are forced to espouse and spout the notion that homo ‘sex’ is equally valid — as if the fecal anus is like a ‘male vagina’ — , we are living a lie. The only way to be honest about homosexuality is to say it’s a naturally occurring defect — as there are natural norms, there are natural defects or abnormalities, such as being born deaf, blind, prone to diabetes or developing breast cancer, etc. — , and therefore, homos should be allowed to reject normal sexuality and do their homo stuff and not be persecuted for it. That way, both homos and straight folks can be honest about themselves. But as things stand today, we are forced — by law, culture, schools, businesses, and etc. — to believe that homosexuality is just as naturally normal, healthy, and meaningful as real sexuality. And those who disagree must go into the closet and keep their views of homosexuality to themselves as they will be persecuted, prosecuted, discriminated against, and blacklisted by the system rigged by Jewish oligarchs.
Rejecting the notion of ‘gay marriage’ is not to punish homos — no more than rejecting the teaching of Creationism in public schools argued in favor of ‘science equality’ is to ‘hate’ Christian Fundamentalists — but to say homosexuality doesn’t qualify for recognition by the institution of marriage that, in order for it to be meaningful, must be a fusion of biology and morality. The notion that a man and a woman using their complementary sexual organs to have and enjoy sex and possibly to produce children is no better and no more meaningful than two homo men sticking each other in the fecal holes with their penises is patently absurd to anyone with sense. A penis cannot have sex with a penis. A vagina cannot have sex with a vagina. So, a homo penis pretends that a fecal tunnel of another man is a ‘male vagina’. So a lesbian vagina can at best ‘kiss’ another lesbian vagina in ridiculous grinding motion; hole cannot enter a hole. Homo men and women should enjoy such acts if such give them pleasure, but why must we be forced to recognize the equality between sexual abnormality/deviancy and true sexuality that uses complementary sexual organs and produces life? (If homos were open-minded and decent, they would understand this, but being snotty, sneering, vapid, vain, bitchy, and narcissistic, homos regard any denial of their demands as ‘hateful’ and ‘anti-gay’. That’s like a child demanding a toy, and if it’s denied, throwing tantrums that her parents are anti-child and anti-toy. Of course, hideously pushy Jews act this way too. If we don’t support Israel 100% or praise Jews 24/7, we are said to be ‘antisemitic’ and ‘hateful’. It’s no wonder that white gentile politicians are rolling over like dogs and barking at Russia to please Jews. If not, they’ll be accused of being ‘anti-American’, which has become synonymous with ‘anti-Jewish’ as Jews now control just about all aspects of domestic and foreign policies to serve Jewish interests.) Not only does real sex produce normal men and women, but it also produces homos. Even homos depend on real sex for their very existence. No organism was ever produced by homo ‘sex’. And yet, we are forced to believe in the fiction of equality of true sexuality and homosexuality or inverse sexuality(or inversexuality). If homos had insisted on the freedom to be homo while also accepting their difference from biological and social norms, it could have been great for both sides. Both sides could have lived with truth and honesty. But two factors derailed such possibility. One is the fact that homos, by nature, tend to be haughty, arrogant, narcissistic, petulant, sneering, and aristocratic-like. Consider the fruitkin in THE LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN.

Homos and ‘aristocratics’ have something in common because both exhibit the combination of masculine and feminine traits. Aristocrats were men of higher status and finer manners who set themselves apart from the unwashed masses. Since masculinity is associated with roughness and femininity with fineness, aristocratic men were raised to affect effeminate styles of dress and manners. Even though the aristocracy developed out of the rough-and-tough warrior caste, their wealth and privilege made them collectors of fancy things and patrons of artists and designers, many of whom were whoopsy-doopsy fruitkins. Thus, the European aristocratic style increasingly became ‘gayer’ and ‘gayer’.

If the rise of America, the French Revolution and Napoleonic nationalism, and the progression of capitalism had one positive outcome, it was that the fruity aristocratic style gave way to a more robust, vigorous, honest, and masculine way of honor and dignity. The ‘gayish’ aristocrats had turned honor and dignity into a matter of tutti-fruity style as if one’s superiority depended on how effeminately one’s face was powdered, how daintily one’s pistol was held, or how ‘faggishly’ one’s hip was postured at a costume ball. This is why, even in our homomaniacal age, most people don’t want to see another version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS. Them fellas look too fruity. In contrast, manhood in America was defined not by froopy-doopy style but can-do spirit of hardworking men. And the French Revolution finally crushed the pain-in-the-ass aristocrats with their fancy ‘gayish’ manners even though the many of the Revolutionaries had something ‘gayish’ about them as well. It was Napoleon and his mass nationalism that really established a new kind of man in the French Civilization, one that was robust and hardy.
To be sure, there were many great glories associated with French aristocratic traditions. Indeed, the great irony of the eventual defeat of Napoleon was that it was accomplished by European monarchs and aristocrats who had been French-ized and were fighting to restore classical French culture. Even the far-away Russian monarchs and aristocrats were Franco-phone Franco-philes who were better versed in French literature and French ways than in their own cultures. Given that France had for so long been associated with its monarchical and aristocratic hierarchy/glory, the French Revolution and rise of French nationalism seemed to be anti-French. From this perspective, the French were fighting to spread anti-Frenchness all across Europe, and the rest of Europe was fighting to restore Frenchness in France. And with the failure of Napoleon, French aristocratism was restored in France even though the genie of the Revolutionary spirit and momentum could never again be put back in the bottle. The French since the Revolution have had an ambivalent relation with their aristocratic heritage. Too much of French glory, tradition, culture, and greatness cannot be appreciated apart from its monarchical and aristocratic traditions. It was a grand magnificent cake prepared for kings. And yet, the modern masses of the modern world called for bread, and the cult of ‘reason’ waged war on France-as-a-fancy-cakery in the name of France-as-mass-bakery. (Needless to say, homos today are making a huge fuss about ‘wedding cakes’.) Therefore, the French Revolution was about the grand cake worthy for kings vs bread for the masses. Though Marie Antoinette was mocked for the words, "let them eat cake" — something historians doubt she said, or if she said it, has been misunderstood — , the words proved prophetic because the French historical compromise decided on ‘cake for the masses’. The French simply couldn’t do away with their past monarchic/aristocratic glory, but they also had to appeal to the masses in the spirit inherited from the Revolution. Therefore, the French state has been trying to universalize the cake as available to everyone. So, after WWII, the French social-democratic system offered free admission to highbrow plays to the workers. A workers’ paradise where workers eat cake. Not surprisingly, universal cake-hood has proven to be extremely costly to French society, which is why its economy has been running out of dough.

Today, inversexuals are especially a pain in the ass because their innate haughty aristocratics is supported by — and imitative of — Jewish power that is no less neurotic, arrogant, hypocritical, and nasty. As people with sense may have noticed, Jews demand special privileges and honors for themselves. We all know that power in whatever form is hypocritical by nature. Great power and grand principles simply cannot be joined at the hip. The more power/wealth/privilege one accumulates, the more one has to play loose with principles to keep them. And to gain even more, one has to play the ‘game of power’, which is more about cunning and strategy than principles and consistency. Just look at Jewish behavior pertaining to the Middle East and Ukraine.
Given the hypocrisy at the core of all great powers, Jews shrewdly tore into Wasp power, Christian power, Russian power, white power, and European power in order to expose their big hypocrisies and shame them as phonies. Of course, Jews were right in pointing this out as the great gentile powers were indeed very hypocritical. But then, there hasn’t been a hypocritical civilization; and greater the civilization, greater its hypocrisy.
And this has been no less true of Jews than of other great peoples. Jewish history is filled with spiritual, moral, political, and cultural hypocrisies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Given this fact, one would think that whenever a Jew points to a hypocrisy among gentiles, the gentiles would have return the favor(by pointing to Jewish hypocrisies), and indeed, this had been par for the course case prior to WWII. But due to the Holocaust, Jews crafted a clever narrative that associated the exposé of Jewish hypocrisy with ‘antisemitism’ which then was associated with the Holocaust. So, if Jews expose Wasp, German, Russian, Muslim, Iranian, Catholic, or Protestant hypocrisies, that’s speaking truth to power. But if gentiles point to Jewish hypocrisies, that’s an ‘antisemitic canard’ since any critical view of Jews is deviously associated by Jews(who control the media and academia)with the Holocaust. Thus, Jewish hypocrisies cannot be spelled out even as Jews never stop pointing to Wasp and gentile hypocrisies. Jews say, ‘Wasps claimed this and this but really did that and that’, but if Wasps said, ‘Jews claim this and this, but do that and that’, they would be slammed as ‘anti-Semites’ spreading false canards about Jews — as if, indeed, Jewish history and power have always been synonymous with principles, honor, trust, goodness, virtue, and decency. Jews think and feel this way, and with inversexuals taking their cues from Jews, they’re becoming no less painful and insufferable. Both sides judge others but tell the others to be non-judgmental toward Jews and inversexuals. As Jews control the politicians, media, and academia, they can get away with such rank hypocrisy.

Anyway, what does it mean to ‘win a culture war’? Jews and inversexuals think they won some epochal war between light and darkness, between good and evil, because they hoodwinked countless dumb, insipid, shallow, vapid, inane, and/or decadent Americans and Europeans into recognizing inversexuality as the biological and moral equivalent of true sexuality. They think they’re on the right side of history because sizable majorities in many Western nations now worship inversexuals. (It’s interesting how the argument for ‘gay rights’ began on minoritarian principles, i.e. just because the majority opposes it doesn’t mean that the majority is right. Today, what with so many Americans and Europeans having been duped into worshiping the homo, we hear the majoritarian argument for ‘gay marriage’. How can it be wrong when the majority are for it? Since the majority that is pro-‘gay marriage’ is so right, if you belong in the minority that still oppose it, you must be declared the ‘new abnormal’ and banned from public life. So, just like the issue of ‘free speech rights’, there are no principles involved in the promotion of ‘gay marriage’. When Jewish leftists were hounded by anti-communists in the 1950s, Jews were on the side of freedom of speech and against blacklisting people on ideological grounds or for espousing offensive views. Jews pretended to be oh-so-principled. Today, with Jews controlling the elite institutions, they want American laws to conform to European ones that forbid criticism of Jewish power and Jewish role in history. When the vast majority opposed ‘gay marriage’, Jews and inversexuals said the minority must be protected from the majority. But now that so many dumb Americans have been sold on ‘gay marriage’ and foam at the mouth over it — indeed, as one of the top 5 moral causes of all time — , Jews and inversexuals say that all of us must obey the majority since the majority is on the right side of history. Needless to say, most Conservatives are either craven cowards and majority-worshiping tards, which is why, one by one, they are lining up to bend over to the homo agenda or refusing to resist and fight back even as they continue to oppose ‘gay marriage’ in principle. If Conservatives are such pussies who cannot even do culture battle with homos, how do they expect to win any future conflicts? If Conservatives are truly serious, they need to go to the source of homo power. Homos draw their strength from alliance with Jews. It’s like Rudolf Hess was nothing about Hitler. It’s like Chiang Chang was nothing without the backing of Mao during the Cultural Revolution. It’s like Beria was vulnerable without Stalin’s support. It’s like George Harrison would have been nothing if not for Lennon and McCartney who really made the Beatles. Inversexuals would fall apart without the support of Jews, just like Tataglia was nothing without Barzini in THE GODFATHER and the Rosato Brothers in THE GODFATHER PART II relied on Hyman Roth.

Therefore, conservatives need to focus on Jewish power. Just as Jews browbeat gentile power by pointing out its moral hypocrisies, gentiles must go at Jews with the same kind of drive and determination. Jewish hypocrisies must be picked off one by one. As Jews are the most powerful people in the world, their power also happens to be the most hypocritical. Just look at Jewish role in finance, academia, foreign policy, media, entertainment, sports franchise, porn, politics, and etc. It’s an orgy of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy upon hypocrisy. But as we’ve been led to worship Jews as the angels of Holocaustianity, we lack a rational, factual, skeptical, and critical approach to Jewish power. We have Anne-Frank-as-Virgin-Mary stuck in our minds. When you worship someone, something, or some people, your mental faculties go out the window. It’s like God is full of contradictions, but the contradictions could not be addressed by the faithful since He was supposed to be perfect and it would have been blasphemous to doubt His infinite wisdom. Since Jews are not merely admired but downright worshiped, most gentiles in the West do not think rationally or critically about Jews. They just kneel at the altar of Jewishness and beg forgiveness even when Jews did them wrong. So, Jewish hypocrisies are not exposed. So, Jews, the most powerful and richest people in the world, still carry on like they’re poor helpless victims who need our love, compassion, and money to survive.
Jews say they need Israel for survival after the Holocaust, but then, Jews also say Israel is in a precarious position because it’s surrounded by evil Muslims who wanna carry out another Holocaust. Just think about the absurdity of such argument. Jews need a homeland of their own to escape from another possible holocaust in the future, and yet, they insist on maintaining their homeland in a region raging with hostile Muslims. Does that make any sense? Couldn’t all those rich Jews after WWII have persuaded the great powers to carve out a little piece of territory in some part of Africa, Australia, Canada, US, or USSR that was virtually empty of people? And if America loves Jews so much, couldn’t a piece of America been given to Jews? If not back then, why not now? Wouldn’t the Jewish state be safer as part of American territory than in a land teeming with hostile Muslims? But don’t expect any sense when discussing Jewish issues. Jews are always right, we are always wrong(unless agreeing with Jews). We can only be right by consenting to Jewish justifications and demands at every turn.(If Jews insist on the necessity of Israel in order to avoid future holocausts in gentile lands, what does it imply? That Jews don’t trust Americans, Australians, and Canadians? If Jews want their homeland among hostile Muslims who number in the hundreds of millions, it must mean they feel safer next to Muslims than next to Americans, Canadians, and Australians. It must mean Jews trust whites in America, Australia, and Canada less than they trust hostile Muslim neighbors. And yet, Americans, Canadians, and Australians — who are distrusted by Jews — praise and worship Jews.)

Jewish Geographical Logic of Self-Preservation

When we take a wider view of history, winning a ‘culture war’ doesn’t mean much. The ‘wrong’ side can win, or the ‘right’ side can win. But either way, nothing is for certain and forever because there’s always the chance of people seeing the light or falling into darkness. For many centuries, the Chinese thought foot-binding was a sign of the superiority of Chinese culture. So, foot-binders won the culture war and prevailed over vast expanses of time and space of Chinese history. But where is foot-binding now? During Roman times, gladiatorial entertainment were part of bread-and-circuses. The brutalists in Rome seemed to have won the culture war in the name of blood sport on a massive scale. But what became of Rome? There was a time when communist culture seemed to be the only game in town in Russia, Eastern Bloc nations, and China. Where is it now? Slavery once made sense to so many people in the American South. Serfdom made sense to the Russians until the 19th century. One could argue that the advancement of the homo agenda is part of the larger cultural-moral tidal wave favoring greater equality, liberty, tolerance, and ‘inclusion’; and indeed, to the extent that society came to acknowledge that inversexuals are born that way and should be left alone, it was a moral, social, and cultural advancement.
But that is not the core of the current radical homo agenda, for the homo community, backed up by Jews, demand that inversexuality be recognized as being of equal biological, moral, and social value as true sexuality between men and women. While homo demands made for greater freedom for all until the 80s, they’ve since grown corrupt and power-mad in association of Jewish power and, as such, insist that we bend over to their every whim. Homos now act like aristocrats who feel they have a right to push us around. And homosexuals, just like Jews, even as they snub and push us around, expect us to see them as poor helpless victims deserving of our sympathy. Homos have no sense of value or decency outside their so-called LGBT narcissism. They think marriage exists to serve homos just like Jews think gentiles exist to serve Jews. They think straight people exist to make life easy for homos. Homos think they are the center of the world. When homos insisted on being recognized for being born different, most people came to agree because the evidence was overwhelming. And even though most sane people have a natural aversion to what homo men do, they were willing to let homos be free to do their thing. But that was never enough for the selfish, self-centered, and self-aggrandizing quasi-aristocratic homos who demand that we honor, welcome, and celebrate homosexuality. Inversexuals are now so arrogant and deluded that they say something like "I Wasn't Born This Way. I Choose to Be Gay." In their demented minds, homosexuality is so wonderful that it’d be great for men to CHOOSE to be ‘gay’.

Now, what kind of a naturally normal man would CHOOSE to suck another’s penis? Or finger his anus? Or bend over and spread his ass cheeks so that his fecal hole can be pummeled by another guy? What naturally normal guy who feels no weird lust for another man would want to CHOOSE to bugger another guy in the fecal hole and have his penis smeared with feces? We might as well ask "what’s wrong with a straight guy CHOOSING to be a tranny?" So, a naturally normal guy should one day choose to have his penis cut off and be pumped full of artificial hormones so he can become like a woman.
So, homos first insisted that homos and trannies are the way they are because they were born that way, and that they can’t help it. And it’s wrong for us to expect them to CHOOSE to be straight. Next, the homos said being homosexual is just as biologically and morally valid as being true-sexual. So, even though homo-sex cannot produce life, homos should be allowed to adopt children as ‘same-sex parents’. Butt now, some fruitkins are beginning to say straight people should CHOOSE to be homo. (The New Republic is now totally in cahoots with Wall Street, Hollywood, and other elite super-privileged institutions in redefining leftism as a movement that primarily praises and celebrates homosexuals and ‘gay marriage’. It’s giddy with joy that the rise of ‘gay marriage’ was aided and abetted by super-corporate America and its media/advertising wings of crony capitalism with close links to corrupt lobbies in Washington D.C. With ‘leftism’ like this, who needs aristocratism?) What sane person would CHOOSE to be ‘gay’? It’s like choosing to be deaf or blind. Can someone imagine a normal guy waking up one morning and thinking, "Gee, I think I will trying sucking dicks today. Then, I’ll ask my buddy to ram me in the ass." Of course, what the fruitkin author of the article really wants is for straight people to put to the likes of him in the name of ‘experimentalism’. Since homos are less than 2% of the population, most people are out of reach of homo-lust. Even most guys who support ‘gay marriage’ will not kiss another guy, let alone be rammed in the ass by him. So, homos want straight people to be ‘open-minded’ and ‘open-anused’ and maybe try out the ‘gay thing’. It’s like how the Negro homo in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION smooth-talks a white Liberal dweeb into trying homo-sex, and the dumb white-ass succumbs to the Negro’s cum.

Paradoxically, hipster-bohemian-ism can turn people into earnest/square dupes, especially if they’re from a small town or the suburbs. A young person or a rube who may be so eager to accepted as ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ in the big city that he will go — or bend over — to any lengths to be accepted as part of the crowd. So, the white sucker in SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION, being a wanna-be-hipster-bohemian, was even willing to bend over and be rammed in the ass by a jive-ass Negro homo because that might be ‘cool’. It’s no wonder that so many suburban people flock to cities during the ‘gay pride parade’. Though they consider themselves to be ‘hip’ and ‘cool’, they are really earnestly conformist in their willingness to prove that they are ‘hip’ and ‘cool’.
This was what Bob Dylan understood. Though he grew up in a small town among ‘rubes’, he was sharper, wiser, and shrewder than even the ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ city-slicker folks who grew up in the big city. In NY, he played everyone and saw right through them. But most ‘rubes’ who wanna prove their bohemian credentials, upon reaching the big city, fall into earnestly embracing every vice and lice to prove that they are so cool as opposed to square. It’s no wonder that so many small-town people who go to places like NY or Hollywood ended up badly. They earnestly think being ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ means sleeping with everyone, indulging all kinds of drugs, and using lots of cuss words. Look at Iris(Jodie Foster) in TAXI DRIVER. She is corrupt but still ‘innocently’ naive and earnest. Strange men may be ‘balling’ her in the ass, but she thinks of herself as a ‘cool’ person with a stake in the city when she’s just used as a piece of meat. She thinks Sport(Harvey Keitel)cares about her. It’s like that song, "Poor Side of Town" by Johnny Rivers. A girl thought she was so ‘cool’ and special by going with some rich city slicker, but she was really just a toy.


The current mania for homos and trannies is the product of an alignment of many social, cultural, political, and economic forces and trends. There is the Jewish control of elite institutions. There is the convergence between Liberalism and neo-liberal economic policies that were achieved under Bill Clinton. There’s the Jewish abandonment of classic leftism based on class, the working poor, labor unions, and serious intellectuals(as opposed to mere cultural fashionistas). Especially as Wall Street went from Wasp GOP control to Jasp(Jewish Ashkenazi supremacist propagators)Democratic control, the new ‘progressivism’ tends to be elite-friendly, and what is more elite-friendly than the homo community with its fetish for fancy-pansy things? Homos love to work in fashion, design, arts, culture, and entertainment. They love to do the hair of rich women. They love to shmooze up to the rich. As male homos have an effeminate side, they have a fondness for the finer things in life.
As homos were seen as ‘oppressed’ outsiders, one might think they would have forged an alliance with the unwashed masses who were also, at least according to traditional leftism, oppressed and ‘exploited’ by the rich and privileged elites. But no such alliance formed for mutually hostile reasons. The unwashed masses — especially among blacks and non-whites — tended to see fruitkins as ridiculous ‘faggoty-ass motherfuc*ers’. And fancy-pants homos looked down on the unwashed masses as dirty, uncouth, vulgar, trashy, boring, and knuckleheaded. Similarly, Jews failed to form a meaningful alliance with masses of poor-or-working-class gentiles who tended to be more tribal and psychologically conservative(and wary of outsiders), as well as anti-intellectual. So naturally, both Jews and homos moved up the social ladder than marched alongside working class/poor folks of the world. And once they gained entry into the elite world, they forged alliances with other elites among the gentile or straight community. And as Jews control the media, they can shape hearts and minds anyway they want. Whoever owns a TV or goes to the movies is handing over his or her eyes and ears to the Jews. We think, "I saw this" or "I saw that", as if each of us makes an active decision of freedom. But in effect, it’s not so much "I saw this or that" than "Jews showed me this." While we do choose what movies and TV shows to see, the truth is almost of all of them are written, produced, and/or directed by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals. Therefore, we are pretty much surrendering our hearts and minds to be massaged, manipulated, and owned by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals. It’s no wonder that so many dumb young Americans are sold on the notion that inversexuals are angels, more decent than decent, cleaner than clean, more normal than normal. Utterly uprooted from family, tradition, community, and roots, they are sensually and intellectually owned by Jews, homos, and/or Liberals who own, run, and control the media and academia. And a lot of Conservatives are bending over too. Not only do Conservatives feel a morality deficit in accordance to Political Correctness, but they have a ‘coolness deficit’ since most music stars, movie stars, celebrities, writers, and artists are Liberal. So, Conservatives tend to turn to Libertarianism that at least has the likes of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Or, Conservatives try to associate themselves with words like ‘radical’, ‘anarchist’, ‘Nietzschean’, ‘Dark Enlightenment’, or some such hokum to sound ‘cutting edge’. (Sensible people look to neo-fascism.) Since ‘gay’ is now ‘cool’, many Conservatives jump on the bandwagon(or fruitbasket)since they don’t want to appear ‘lame’ or ‘square’. But then, given that the Conservative Mind is essentially conformist and obedient, most Conservatives will cravenly accept the new order and embrace it as the ‘new conservative’. Just look how Conservatives kneel before MLK cult and suck up to Jews. One day, most Conservatives will bend over to the homo agenda. Given this fact about Conservatives, it’s doubtful that the Cold War was won by American Conservatives. How could a people who are so craven before a cabal of homos have stood up to the mighty USSR? After all, Richard Nixon sought to win praise from Liberals and Jews by betraying Taiwan and making peace with arch-communist Mao.
Perhaps, the strong anti-communist stance of Reagan and American Conservatives in the 1980s was paradoxically a sign of Conservative cowardice than courage, i.e. American Conservatives were willing to get tough with the USSR as compensation for their total cowardice when it came to Jews, Liberals, blacks, feminists, and homos. Since American Conservatives wetted their pants whenever they were accused of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, or whatever-else-ism, they kept retreating and losing the social-and-political battles at home. Even Nixon’s social policies were ultra-Liberal that included expansion of ‘affirmative action’ to Hispanics and forced busing of white students into Jafro-Jive neighborhoods. Since American Conservatives were utter cowards when it came to fighting the domestic conflicts, they could only be tough against foreign enemies. So, the bulk of American Conservative machismo in the 1980s was expended against the USSR while Liberal social and cultural policies continued to gain dominance in American society.

And we see the same pattern today. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are total cowards when it comes to domestic issues — and always caving into and serving their Jewish-and-homo masters — , bitch and bark madly when it comes to Russia and Vladimir Putin. It’s like, since dogs cannot bark at their masters, they bark at strangers and other dogs(at least those against whom barking is tolerated by the masters — after all, when did McCain or Graham ever bark about the Israeli bombing of Gaza that killed over a thousand women and children?) For this reason, we need to the reconsider the possible myth of Reagan as a courageous Cold Warrior. Conservatives remember Reagan as a strong and solid leader, but Reagan’s toughness against the USSR may have been merely compensation for his total weakness against Jews, Negroes, homos, and feminists — and illegal aliens whom he amnestied in the millions.
Furthermore, opposing the USSR by the late 70s and 80s was only doing the bidding of the Jews. With Jews having been disillusioned with the communization of Indochina and with Jews being ‘persecuted’ in the USSR, even most Liberal Jews had lost most of their fondness for the grand Soviet experiment that had once stirred up passions in the Jewish-American community. (Incidentally, Jews remind us of how the ‘affirmative action’ policies favoring Russians over Jews in the USSR were ‘discriminatory’ and ‘oppressive’, but the very same Jews insist that Jews, blacks, and Hispanics should gain via ‘affirmative action’ at the expense of white gentiles in America. Jews are defacto beneficiaries of ‘affirmative action’ since they count as ‘whites’, which means that white gentiles than Jews are sacrificed by ‘affirmative action’ to favor less qualified blacks and Hispanics.) Jews used American Conservatives to finish off the USSR and Iraq(in the Gulf War), and then used Clinton and New Democrats to finish off American Conservatism. But then, it is true that American Conservatism has long been pretty useless. It’s become the meeting place of stupidity and ignorance, pigheadedness and arch-prejudice, cravenness and cowardice, greed and snobbery, vulgarity and infantilism, thickskulledness and stagnation, and blandness and dullness. Whatever positive qualities Pat Buchanan has, his orthodox views on homos as ‘sodomites’, his arch-Catholic positions in a politically secular nation, and his demagogic style did much to alienate a lot of people — even if such had entertainment value on TV. Then, there are Conservatives who lack curiosity and feel a kneejerk hostility against anyone or anything that is different. Hating is understandable when justified by facts and truth. It’s reasonable to dislike Negroes because they are stronger and more aggressive, therefore a threat to the well-being of the white race. It’s sensible to distrust Jews since they’re smarter & cunning and use their power to undermine and subvert the interests of the majority. It’s natural to be wary of Gypsies or Roma since many of them are thieving louts. But many Conservatives sneer at things and peoples simply because they’re ‘strange’ and different. Though I’m not a fan of Muslims, what is the chance of Sharia Law taking over America? And yet, dumb Conservatives totally overlook the much greater danger of Jewish power and fixate endlessly on some idiotic nonsense about Obama being a stealth Muslim scheming to push Sharia Law on all of us. Many Conservatives crave this need to hate the Other, and today, the Other is Russians and Putin(who is said to be the new Hitler).

Because of this ‘we must blow them up real good’ mentality, Conservatives are the easiest and biggest suckers for Neocon war-drum-beating.
And then, there’s amoral greed that defines much of the Libertarian community around Grover Norquist for whom all of human relations is reduced to nickels and dimes, with everything up for sale or up for grabs. Then, there are the snobs who, like William F. Buckley, turn up their noses at the masses and think themselves so oh-so-fine.
On the other hand, since the masses have to be energized to vote for candidates handpicked by the rich, there is the cynical use of populism by the Conservative elites to fool us into believing that someone like George W. Bush — who was born with a silver spoon up his ass — is ‘one of us’. Or they get a political stripper like Sarah Palin to shake her ass in front of Neocon donors, and sure, she’s supposed to be ‘one of us’ too.
And then, there are lots of Conservatives who aren’t only nice but for whom niceness — and being liked and approved — is like their philosophy and religion. So, when times change, they change with the times in accordance with the ‘new nice’. Since it’s ‘not nice’ to oppose ‘gay marriage’, many of these spineless ‘nice’ Conservatives are bending over to the homo agenda. To be ‘nice’. While we can honor the likes of Pat Buchanan for not bending over to the homos, part of the reason why American Conservatism failed to formulate a reasonable position on the homo issue is because there’s nothing between modes of mean-spirited hostility and spineless ‘niceness’. For Buchanan and his ilk, homos are sodomite scum who should be denounced totally. For Kathleen Parker and her ilk, if supporting ‘gay marriage’ is what being ‘nice’ is all about, oh gee, why not just go along to get along? With such mindless dipshittery on both sides of Conservatism, it’s no wonder that America has become so ridiculous.

At any rate, culture wars are never won forever. It seemed Christianity won for all time, but look at its demise in Europe today. And look at the clown-show American Christianity has become, so much so that it can’t even effectively stand against ‘gay marriage’ and the hideous Jews.
But then, if a great religion steeped in tradition can be rendered meaningless almost overnight, what chance is there of homo worship lasting forever? Once the scales fall from their eyes, people will come to realize what a sham(and a shame) all this ‘gay pride’ cult really is. But as long as Americans’ eyes are covered with mass media cataracts of Jew-worship and homo-worship, they will continue with their stupid ways — until a major socio-economic crisis grips the nation. After all, it took the Great Depression to sober Americans up from the frivolities of the so-called Jazz Age.

The so-called ‘millennials’(aka millennions), having grown up in the age of Clinton, SOUTH PARK, FAMILY GUY, HARRY POTTER, Justin Timberlake, and Kanye West — and in a world of amnesia that is completely disconnected from the roots of white America that is, when mentioned, vilified by venal Jews — , are the shallowest and trashiest generation to have ever existed. At least the 60s generation, despite all the stupid things they did, had to struggle for their freedom(even if they wasted much of it on sex, drugs, Rock, and dumb politics). At least, they were striking into new territory and had to experiment. The ‘millennials’ grew up without struggle as their boomer parents(or boomer grandparents)paved the way for a world of permissive hedonism without guilt or shame. Millennions grew up like the self-satisfied jerks in the foul(albeit funny at times) Seth Rogan movie THIS IS THE END. Thus, there is no element of struggle among the millennions, as everything has been handed to them on a silver platter or iPad. Worse, they’ve been baby-fed on Political Correctness from the cradle, and so, millennials are incapable of thinking individualistically. While earlier generations were hardly free-thinkers, what’s truly galling about millennials’ conformism is the conceit that they are free-thinking individuals on the social libertarian and/or ‘radically progressive’ model. Millennials think if they drink a lot of booze and hook up to have casual sex(like Lena Dunham on GIRLS), they are ‘liberated’ and ‘empowered’. They think if they get together and smoke weed all night — like Harold and Kumar — , they are hip and cool. So much for originality and individuality. Millennions think if they ape their ‘radical professors’ in college and support ‘gay marriage’, they are cutting-edge and subversive in their ‘coolness’ and huggy-wuggy in their compassion, when, in fact, they are nothing but brain-addled minions and running dogs of their control-freak armchair-revolutionary professors and mavens of the elite media. And especially with all this social networking and interconnectuality, millennions tend to all sound like one another. It’s no wonder that ‘gay marriage’ is such a cause celebre among the millennions. It has the vibes of morality without true morality. It has the feel of radicalism while serving the interests of status and privilege. It comes with colors and celebrations that make it all very fun like TELETUBBY, the show they grew up with. It’s like ‘muppet radicalism’. And it feels ‘liberating’ since homos are not only coming out of the closet but publicly making a spectacle of themselves as proud fecal penetrators or penis-or-breast-cutters. In a world where the porn-ization of culture is seen as ‘empowering’, the ‘gay’ cause is a perfect partner-in-crime. The sham paradise of shamelessness where female politicians giggle with glee over their ‘transgression’ of having said ‘vagina’. So, this is the culture war that the so-called ‘left’ won. And they are proud of the fact that they won it with the help with the shallowest, trashiest, dumbest, most obedient, most conformist, most infantile, and most smug/glib/dweeby generation that ever existed? Granted, millennials cannot be blamed since they didn’t create the world they were born into. And in that sense, they need to be pitied.

In the long view of history, what we’ve witnessed is a culture battle, not a culture war. Something so silly as ‘gay marriage’ cannot be part of any long-term victory. It is a moral and biological lie, and lies begat and encourage other lies, and eventually all those lies lead to downfall. Is it any wonder that the proponents of ‘same sex marriage’ also push the notion of ‘undocumented immigrants’? Is it any wonder that the main controllers of current PC are the venal, hideous, and nasty Jews whose supremacism is unquenchable in its craziness, even stirring up trouble in Ukraine in order to use it as a bridge in the Jewish conquest of Russia? But how far can lies go? As long as social and economic conditions are bearable, many people will just go along to enjoy what they have. But lies and falsehoods undermine social and moral order in the long run. As the very meaning of marriage and family come under assault, as hedonism becomes the religion of the age, as braindead political correctness is confused with individuality and courage of truth, and as Jews gain ever greater power while playacting the eternal-victim, something has to give eventually. And until that time, the primary objective of all true conservatives, all true liberals(in the positive sense of being open-minded and free-thinking), all true race-ists(those who believe in the truth of races and racial differences), and all true patriots should be towards understanding that Jews have been the main force behind the destruction of Europe and white America. And then, the true culture war can finally begin. In the West today — and possibly in the entire world — , the only culture war that really matters is whether a people want to own their own destinies or allow Jews to hijack them for their own self-aggrandizement.