Social Credit system sucks anywhere, but it is of course worse in the US than in China. Not because it's more stringent in the US but because of its coding and character. China is ruled by a national(ist) government; therefore, the social controls are meant to boost national security and patriotism. In contrast, the US is ruled by Jewish globalist supremacists; therefore, social controls are meant to shame the white majority into cucking to Jewish Supremacist Power. Even though the Communist Party has a bloody history in China(especially under Mao), the silver lining was a political system was put into place that was entirely independent of foreign interference. For all its epic failures, the founding principles of CCP were idealism and nationalism.
Tyranny isn't good, but tyranny in service of patriotism is still better than tyranny in service of treason. As the US is ruled by Jewish globalists, it is now increasingly resorting to tyrannical social controls to make whites commit mass treason against their own race. (White elites go along with Jewish Power out of craven opportunism and/or 'spiritual' possession, the result of PC education. Not only do they expect big carrots by obeying their Jewish masters but have been conditioned from cradle to believe the greatest evil is 'racism' and 'white supremacism'. Therefore, if White Guilt, White Demise, and White Nakba are necessary to defeat 'racism', so be it. Besides, what does it matter when they, as white elites, get the carrots than the sticks in the game of Defame-Whitey? For most whites, 'spiritual' possession by Jews leads to dispossession of white power, land, and wealth. Jewish Message to whites is "Whites must keep paying and paying to right whatever wrongs invoked by Jews, blacks, and their allies." White soul-debt for 'white guilt' means permanent payouts to Jews, blacks, and etc. Thus, all of the white race has been 'Germanized' as, of course, Germany must pay the Jews forever and ever and ever for what are now called 'epigenetic' reasons.)
This is why democracy devoid of nationalism is bound to fail. A national democracy, such as the one in Israel, is relatively strong and stable. In Israel, both the 'right' and 'left' are patriotic and committed to Jewish Power. Such might be called a 'fascist democracy'. Even though people have the freedom to vote, their minds are united in ethno-patriotism. The true worth of democracy is measured by how well it serves a nation and people. Democracy is supposed to serve the people than the other way around. If democracy serves to defend a nation and its people, it has worth. If it subverts a nation and people, it has failed(no matter how democratic it may be in terms of liberal principles); if Israeli democracy were to abandon its nationalist content in favor of pure liberal principles and bring about the demise of Israel as a Jewish state, it would be a failed democracy as it failed to protect a nation and people. When nation serves democracy than the other way around, the assumption is the nation must favor abstract principles over tangible realities EVEN IF they cause grave harm to the nation. (Such mindset governs mainstream conservatism of the National Review crowd. They don't care if White America is lost as long as the future is about 'muh liberty'. Never mind that a non-white majority America means goodbye to the US Constitution as most non-whites don't care for Free Speech and Gun Rights. And, how amusing that these die-hard adherents to Universal Principles are so supportive of Jewish Nationalism and even Jewish Supremacism in Israel and around the world.) Jews understand this, which is why Israel puts Jewish-Nation-hood above abstract principles of democracy. Democracy there is coded to serve and defend Israel as a Jewish State. And why are Jews chipping away at the US Constitution? Because the First Amendment allows open criticism of any power. Therefore, Jews seek to change the Constitution with 'hate speech' laws whereby they get to label and ban any speech they don't like as 'hate'. Of course, they mean to target speech critical of Jewish Supremacist Power and Israel. Jews support principles only to the extent of self-interest.
In contrast, a liberal democracy de-emphasizes and even disparages any notion of national unity based on blood-and-soil, race, ethnicity, culture, and/or history. Thus, it's primarily about the personal liberties of individuals. But individuals as dispersed members of society don't amount to much. It's like there can be no sun if particles of matter don't come together to form a mass. Liberal democracy, in weakening ethno-nationalism, makes it less likely for the ethno-majority to unite as a real force. They are too busy being individuals. Such dispersal of power without a concentrated core is easy to penetrate and manipulate. It's like an army is useless if soldiers are spread out as individuals and not working as combined force.
This is why Jews and globalists promote 'liberal democracy' all over the world. It is to deny other nations a concentrated core of mass consciousness that allows for the preservation of national sovereignty and political unity. When a nation adopts the formula of 'liberal democracy', it means the leaders no longer invoke blood-and-soil themes to inspire and unite the people. They just talk about 'muh liberty' and 'muh money'. It becomes a game of everyone for himself(or herself). Then, the globalists can easily buy off the elites who operate merely as deracinated and rootless individuals. Easier to buy off opportunistic individuals than genuine leaders of nations. And under liberal democracy, everything becomes privatized and globalized, and that means Jewish/American/global money can buy up all the media and spread Afromania, Globo-Homo, and DIOS(or diversity-is-our-strength, with 'our' being mostly Jewish).
The ideal bulwark against globalist hegemony and Jewish supremacism is a National Democracy or Fascist Democracy. The problem for many nations is it takes time for democracy to develop and come into fruition. Furthermore, if Europe provides any lesson, even nations with deep history of democracy can be taken over by Jewish Globalists, as attested by UK and France.
For many newly minted democracies, the institutions are weak, and that means lots of corruption, as in Russia of the 1990s. Under such circumstances, it is easy for Jewish supremacists and globalists to take over the system. It happened in Ukraine recently. Ukraine is now praised as a 'liberal democracy', and it has globo-homo parades(as tell-tale sign of Jewish domination). But there is no national unity, no national security. Everything is up for sale to the Jews.
In that sense, the autocratic systems in China and Russia(and Iran) are preferable. Not because they are ideal but because they serve as more effective barriers and bulwarks against the hegemonic ambitions of the Lone Superpower, the US that is under Jewish Supremacist Control that seeks to undermine every nationalism EXCEPT that of Israel.
All patriotic White Americans must wake up to the fact that a country run by plutocrats will lead to certain demise for the historical-racial majority. In the past, the US was a de facto national and racial democracy, and that meant white elites cared for the white masses; there was a concentrated core of white unity and Christian power. But as the US turned into a liberal democracy, white power became dispersed and spread out into tiny individual units. Jews pushed for this, all the while tightly concentrating their own power, influence, and authority. Concentrated power will always beat dispersed power. Why do lions feed on wildebeests? If wildebeests all united and fought as one, they could wipe out the lions. But when lions appear, wildebeests disperse and run off in multiple directions. So, a handful of lions ALWAYS kill and devour the wildebeests that number in the hundreds. No wonder then that Jewish Power has been devouring whites. Jews combine into one whereas whites disperse into many directions. Five fingers that combine into a fist will defeat a thousand fingers that function individually.
Rich Jews are concentrated into Jewish Power. Rich whites are dispersed when it comes to white power. If white oligarchs do come together, it is to serve the Jews but NEVER to do anything good for the white race.
This is why Putin and Xi are relatively good guys in the current world. Their political controls limit the power of capitalists, most of whom are soulless materialists and craven status-anxious opportunists. Capitalists remain patriotic only if the Order demands nationalism. Jewish capitalists are tribal-nationalist about Jewishness because the Jewish Community demands it. Also, as Jews control the media and elite institutions, they coded things so that it is perfectly okay, even noble, for them to be proud of Jewishness and serve Jewish interests. In contrast, the coding says that even a sentiment such as "It's Okay to be White" is totally unacceptable and worthy of investigation by the FBI.
So, all those American patriots and 'rightists' who denounce Vladimir Putin as autocrat or Xi Jinping as dictator should really re-examine their own situation. They would be better off if they had an American Putin or a White Xi. If there is no national democracy to protect your people, it's better to have a strongman or even a 'tyrant' than what goes by 'liberal democracy' that almost inevitably leads to lack of unity and then demise of race and nation.
Indeed, if Trump were a true patriot and had the power of Xi or Putin, the US would be in a much better situation. Instead, US is ruled by Jewish-globalist oligarchs who use the likes of Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos as their tools. The coding says Jews are holy for being Jewish whereas whites are unholy for being white. Thus, even the richest white person can be justified only by serving the holy, such as Jews, blacks, and homos, the three groups that have permanent membership in the Sacred Council — other groups must take turns in the council, usually on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?"
This would be less of a problem if most democracies were nationally organized and ordered. But as things stand in a world of the Lone Superpower, to have a democracy means your nation/domain is more exposed to foreign interference by globalists, people like George Soros and Paul Singer. While some rich foreigners just want to do business with your nation/domain, others(especially the supremacist Jews) seek not only financial access but 'spiritual' control with stuff like globo-homo, which is meant to serve as proxy-worship-and-obedience to Jewish Power. If Russians and Chinese merely want to do business with your nation, Jewish Power wants to spread its globo-homo and Holocaustianity tentacles into your domain so as to morally and 'spiritually' manipulate you. And if your people say NO, as Russia did with Globo-Homo, Jewish Power throws fits and pulls all sorts of dirty tricks. When Jews extol 'liberal democracy', they are really telling your nation to undress and put out. Spread the legs for the Jewish Supremacist Portnoic lust and bend over to take it up the arse from globo-homo. Globalism is really the Jewish pornographics of power. Jewish Power as the pimp and goy nations as the prostitutes.
Naturally, a sound nation will push back against such foreign infiltration and meddling. It needs concentration of power in a nationalist context that may have to clamp down on certain liberties that invite infection and takeover by globalist power. It's like Soros operations are banned in some parts of the world. But then, globalist Jews denounce such a nation as 'anti-democratic'. Of course, Jewish Power never mentions that it's their infiltration and corruption of other nations' political processes that necessitates more autocratic measures. Imagine a drug pusher and a parent & child. As the pusher tries to sell drugs to the child, the parent needs to be tougher and restrict his child's freedom to do as he pleases(like indulging in drugs). But then, the pusher accuses the parent of tyrannical control over the child and calls on the child to rebel and seek 'liberation'. The pusher never mentions the fact that the parent must be tough to protect his child from none other than the pusher. If some goy nation sought to infiltrate Israel and turn Jewish kids into druggies and whores, of course, the fascist-democracy of Israel would take tough measures to stop such. But when Jews seek to corrupt other nations, they better spread their legs wide open to the Zionic thrust. Such total hypocrisy.
For a national-democracy or fascist-democracy to succeed, its core constitution must prioritize racial-cultural-territorial integrity above all else. Freedoms are fine AS LONG AS they don't violate or undermine the right of the nation to survive and maintain its integrity. Furthermore, it must severely limit foreign ownership, and its elites must be educated within the domain. If the elites are trained in places like Harvard, they are likely to be shills of the Glob. And it must emphasize themes over leaders. The problem with Italian Fascism and National Socialism was they were essentially premised on Cult of Personality and whims of the Great Leader. The danger of dictatorship. The rule must be Dictatorship of Themes, not of Personalities. This way, no matter who is in power, he must rule in accordance to the National Theme, a particular than a universal principle. The future of Russia and China will be determined by the National Themes inherent in their Constitution. Without the dictatorship of such themes, the whole system may change with new leadership.
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.
Why is 'white liberation' a better term than 'white nationalism'? Fairly or unfairly, people associate 'white nationalism' with aggression and conceit of superiority. It gives the impression that whites got the power and want to show it off by rattling their sabers.
But the West is now under Jewish control like India was under British control, like Algeria and Vietnam were under French control. So, the emphasis must be on the need for whites to free themselves from Jewish Power. The theme of liberation is more appealing and justified than theme of mere power. After all, the great theme of the post WWII era was NATIONAL LIBERATION all across Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America from European Imperialism or American Hegemony. And as the theme of WWII was the 'free world' vs the aggressive imperialism of Germany and Japan, it was difficult for the great powers after the war to justify their rule over others.
So, 'white liberation' is preferable to 'white nationalism', at least for the time being. Now, if skeptics ask, 'liberation from what?', whites can say from Jewish Supremacist Power, which can be amply demonstrated with data and facts. Jews do control the West. Jews not only got money power but made themselves into the new messiah-race. It's one thing to remember the Shoah as a great tragedy but quite another to permanently affix Jewish Identity with that event. Such implies Jews are always a race of 'holocaust victims' no matter what they do. So, even if Jews act like Nazis toward Palestinians, we are supposed to see them as a bunch of poor poor Anne Franks.
Anyway, 'white liberation' will highlight the fact of Jewish Power, an absolute must for real change to take place. (How can there be any reform if the most powerful group is not identified and criticized? Can a cancer victim be properly treated without acknowledging the cancer?) 'White Nationalism' can mean the need for white unity & power. Or it can mean white power as the basis for world domination. Nationalism need not be imperialist but often took an imperialist turn in the past when a nation became very powerful.
In contrast, 'liberation' emphasizes the need for whites to seek emancipation from the current power that dominates the West and the World... which is Jewish Power. (Even 'white national liberation' sounds better than mere 'white nationalism'.) White Politics that only focuses on whites and white power is less likely to be appealing than White Politics that seeks freedom from the actual tyranny that rules the world: Jewish Supremacist Power or JSP.
Also, whites can argue that White Liberation will lead not only to white emancipation from Jewish Evil but will save the world. Why? Because Jewish Supremacist Power would dwindle overnight if white folks chose WGTOW or whites going their own way. If whites refused to serve the Jews, no more Wars for Israel against Arabs and Muslims. No more support for Zionist 'genocide' of Palestinians. No more 'new cold war' with Russia. No more whites acting like dumb dogs who bark and bite whatever their Jewish Masters hate. When whites say NO to Jewish Supremacism, peace will prevail around the world as whites will no longer do the bidding of hateful supremacist-imperialist Zionist Jews. And far less need for 'yellow peril' hysteria about China-China-China to distract Americans from the fact that Jews are the main enemy of the white race and goyim in general. Just ask the Palestinians about the nature of Jewish Power.
Think of 'Israelis' and 'Palestinians' as meta-memes. 'Israelis' would be the winners and tyrants, and 'Palestinians' would be the losers and the tyrannized. It is the dream of many whites to be 'Israelis', fellow winners alongside rich and powerful Jews. Jewish identity/pride united with white identity/pride. But this is a dumb dream. Jews will NEVER accept whites as equals. Even as white praise and acknowledge Jewish identity & pride, Jews will denounce white identity and promote white shame/guilt. Thus, the ONLY way whites can rise in the Jew World Order is by turning race-traitor and cucking as collaberals or cuckservatives. All the Bidens and Romneys of the world. And Jared Taylor the deluded fool isn't much better.
Given that Jews regard whites as 'Palestinians' than fellow 'Israelis', whites should identify with Palestinians, that is unless they enjoy being race-traitor cuck-collaborators. (There are, of course, Palestinian collaborators who get rich while serving Zionists.) While Jews are free to gain power as an identity and group, whites can only gain riches as individuals, ones that cravenly collaborate with Jewish Supremacists. No white man with any self-respect and dignity should choose this path.
Now, the key to the success of White Liberation will be the emphasis on humanism & justice than nihilism & supremacism. (Kurosawa Way than Mishima Way.) The problem with people like Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer is they oppose Jewish Supremacism by associating themselves with forms of White Supremacism. Johnson wrote glowing things about Adolf Hitler who brought upon unprecedented disaster for the white race with his Aryan-Germanic supremacism, and Spencer blabbered endlessly about his vision of a new world-white empire. How stupid is that? You get zero moral points by opposing one form of supremacism in defense of another. It's like denouncing a robber just so you could steal yourself. The only convincing argument is NO ONE should steal — indeed, the dirtiest secret of Jewish Power is that it denounces white supremacism not as a principle against supremacism per se but to make browbeaten whites serve Jewish supremacism, a bait-and-switch; this is the dirty secret that needs to be exposed by the White Liberationist Project.
Unfortunately, David Duke, Greg Johnson, and Richard Spencer all soiled themselves with association with KKK, Neo-Nazism, or Anglo-Imperialism. (Of course, it should be acknowledged that imperialism has long been a part of human history, and it did good as well as bad, spreading ideas and expanding trade routes along with the violence and tyranny. So, to the extent that Western Imperialism united the world and spread modernity all over, it did a lot of good that balances out the bad. However, as the world has been so thoroughly united via technology, there should be no reason for further imperialism and supremacism. And it seemed all the world was agreed, except that American triumphalism and Jewish ascendancy after the Cold War led to a new age of empire, one that has been utterly worthless except as conduits for Zionist madness, Afromania, Globo-Homo and mass deaths across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as mass migration into the West from the Third World.)
David Duke could have done so much more without his KKK association. He will forever be smeared as a former-KKK member. Greg Johnson of late seems to reject Hitlerism in his personal formulation of 'white nationalism', but the Hitler-stain is like the Mark of Cain. Spencer is proof that smarts isn't enough. Lack of character, emotional imbalance, and megalomania(personal and racial) spell disaster.
This is why white liberation or white national liberation should be founded on humanism and justice. Universal Nationalism is justice because it acknowledges that all peoples deserve their rightful portions of history, heritage, and territory. Globalism wages war on this sense of justice EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO ISRAEL — Jewish Exceptionalism as always. According to Jewish-controlled globalism, all the world should support Jewish-Israel's right to exist BUT every goy nation should be remade with mass-migration and mass-miscegenation, especially with the Negro.
Too often, 'white nationalism' has been associated with neo-nazis, skinheads, KKK, and overly paranoid militia movement types. (True, whites have much to worry about, but more guns are not the solution when most of the culture war, idol war, and ideological war are done with the pen, mikes, and cameras than with guns and bullets. Militia movement emphasizes guns than lenses.) 'White Liberation' can be associated with humanism that acknowledges the worth of all races and groups.
And even though White Liberation would mostly be about freedom from Jewish Supremacism, it should also address the need for white independence from black supremacism. The problem with white folks who opposed the Civil Rights Movement was they spoke and acted as if blacks were not good enough for whites. A far more effective argument would have been that blacks are superior in certain attributes, and these make blacks arrogant and aggressive against whites, the weaker and slower race who, upon racial integration, often fall victim to black supremacist thuggery; and white men get jack-johnsoned into wussy cucks as tougher blacks kick their butts, and that means the white race loses its human right to manhood, its right to have its own heroes and idols. And this argument is something that other non-black races may understand as well, as most interracial violence is not only black on white but black on brown, black on Asian, black on Muslim, black on etc. Even black on Jew despite all the money Jews give to blacks to hate on whitey.
White Liberation should also argue against non-white mass-immigration into white lands as a perverse form of non-white white-supremacism. Why would it be non-white white-supremacism? Because mass migration of non-whites from their own nations to white nations implies that non-whites see whites as superior and prefer to live with and under whites than with their own kind. This is bad for whites and non-whites. It's bad for whites as it leads to the Great Replacement and violates the right of white folks to have their own homelands. But it's also bad for non-whites because, instead of using their energies and abilities to improve their own nations, they just run off to white nations to leech off whites as short-cut to success. It's especially bad as it leads to brain drain from non-white world to white world. This is why White Liberation will save the world.
One problem for the 'conservative' side has been the shifting configuration of the holy-vs-unholy spectrum. People want to be with the holy than with the unholy. It's like people move to warmth than to cold and damp. People move toward the light than toward the dark.
There's a reason why most people gravitated to God and church than dark magic and satanism. One was holy, the other unholy, even evil. People want to feel justified than damned.
So, the question is, which side is holier?
During the Cold War, the Right had holiness points as the defender of US as God's country and Land of the Free against communist slavery. But post-communism, that glow quickly faded, and the conservative attempt to find another Unholy Enemy fizzled out. After 9/11, the 'clash of civilizations' narrative was pushed by some, but it turned out the West couldn't vilify Islam like it could communism. While all of communism could be condemned, the ONLY way the West could interfere in the Muslim World was by extolling Islam. After all, if Islam itself was declared the enemy, all Muslims would unite against the West, which would have no Muslim allies in the invasion of certain Muslim nations(hated by Jews). Thus, the West had to assure the Muslims that its beef was not with Islam or Muslims per se but with terrorists who 'misused' Islam. Also, unlike the Soviet Union, the Muslim World turned out to be weak. US easily destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and much of Syria.
So, what became the holiest after the end of the Cold War? There was virtual unanimity on the holiness of MLK & Magic Negores, Jews & Holocaust Worship, and then holy homos as well. Now, few things are intrinsically holy or heroic. Much of it depends on the control of narrative, the spin, the dissemination of myth. After all, Jesus was a heretic who deserved to die according to Jews. It was the heretical Christians who made Him out to be the Messiah, and this Narrative was later enforced by the Roman Empire. In National Socialist Germany, Horst Wessel was a saint-hero. To anti-Nazis, he was a worthless creep. A god in the communist world could be the devil in the anti-communist world. The Powers-that-be usually decide what is holy and unholy. The consecration of homos and even trannies goes to show that, for most people who are sheeple, their notion of holiness is decided for them by the Power with control of hype & media and carrots & sticks. The unholy who dare question Bruce Jenner as Caitlin Jenner are purged.
In the 60s, MLK was a polarizing figure. He was revered by many but not all, and it was acceptable to be critical of him. Even into the 70s, one could be critical of him. But by the 80s, even conservatives and National Review had nothing but praise and pretended he was a 'conservative'. During the Reagan decade, conservatives could denounce Mandela as a terrorist and lend support to South Africa as ally against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. By the 70s, Jews had become more or less sacrosanct, but blacks had yet to become 'magical', and homos were far far away. Even Liberals routinely made fun of homos in movies, TV shows, and standup comedy.
Also, many people still put God, Jesus, and Country above Jews, blacks, and homos. God, Jesus, and Country were holier than anything else.
But over the years, it's hardly unholy to mock God, Jesus, and Christianity. No one gets purged for making fun of God, Jesus, or Christians. For many Americans in the Current Year, Christianity should ideally serve the cults of homos and Negroes than persuade humanity serve God and Jesus. This is really the product of the sanctification of Jews. Once Jews were elevated as the Holy Holocaust People, the new christ-messiahs of the West who died for the sins of white folks, the trajectory became 'Give Jews whatever they want... because they are holy'. So, whatever Jews wanted got favored, what Jews didn't want got disfavored. I mean, how can you say NO to god or god-people? The murmur among politicians, pundits, and business class was "How do Jews feel about it?" If word got out that Jews were for mass-legalization of gambling, even 'conservatives' stopped opposing the vice, especially as donations came their way from casinos. If Jews were against free speech, then no one dared to oppose 'hate speech' restrictions(and no one dared to note that Zionism could be construed as hate speech against Palestinians and Iranians). If Jews were for globo-homo, no one dared oppose the push for 'gay marriage'. With hardly any conservative elite to push back against such trends, the masses were left without a voice. After all, when your spokesman is a coward and refuses to speak on your behalf, the only sound heard is from the other side. Jews waged war on American Conservatism, but the biggest sound from the 'right' was 'We love Israel' and 'We must defend Jews from the Democrats'(even though Jews totally dominate the Democratic Party).
Now, there are cases where people will move toward the unholy despite the risks of being tainted with 'evil'. One of the biggest reasons has been material interests. For example, if the holy 'woke' power genuinely decided to push for outright communism, then powerful capitalists will side with the unholy to defend their material wealth. If one has to choose between the holy & loss of wealth and the unholy & keeping of wealth, most will go for the latter. MLK and Globo-Homo may be holy in our age, but if the side that was most 'woke' demanded an end to capitalism, most capitalists would side with the 'unholy' bunch of 'racists' and others.
But all things being equal — the holy side being just as pro-wealth as the unholy side — , the rich and powerful will move to the holy side. Why not be rich and holy than rich and unholy?
Now, who decides what is holy and unholy? Those with the power over images, ideas, and narratives. And of course, they're Jews who also fulsomely reward the goy cucks and viciously punish those who don't. Take Bill Buckley. He had the choice of siding with Joseph Sobran and speaking truth to Jewish Power or sucking up to Jewish Power. He did the latter, and he was showered with praise as the 'good conservative', i.e. Jews are holy, and 'goodness' is a measure of how much one sucks up to Jews and shines their shoes.
In the past, the GOP had two advantages vis-a-vis the Democrats. Society wasn't so politically correct and did not look upon Jews, blacks, and homo as holies. Also, as the Democratic Party was closely associated with corrupt unions(the bane of Big Labor in yrs to come) and tarnished as being soft on communism, many Americans voted for the GOP as the party of private property and enterprise. So, even capitalists who were socially liberal or anti-conservative might vote for the GOP for economic or material interests. Or personal ones as free enterprise was seen as a matter of personal choice. Indeed, much of the financial support for GOP in the 80s came from California entrepreneurial class of go-getters who felt hampered by Democrats. So, even as the Democrats were gaining more in holiness points(as Jewish Power was elevating Jews, Negroes, and Homo as the special people), many Americans stuck with the increasingly unholy GOP for material reasons: Less taxes, less regulation, more wealth in your pocket.
But Bill Clinton comes along and stabs Big Labor in the back and the Democratic Party opens its arms to the economic policies of the GOP. Then, the Democrats got the combination of holiness aura and material advantage. With the Democratic Party as a clone of GOP on economic matters, the GOP lost its last appeal to the rich and powerful. It was just left with the worsening taint of unholiness as it was deemed less enthusiastic about Jews, blacks, and homos. Of course, GOP went out of its way to praise Jews to high heaven, claim MLK as a 'conservative', and even warm up to homos. But the perception was that holy Jews still felt more at home in the Democratic Party, blacks saw GOP as 'racist', and homos regarded GOP as 'homophobic'. In the 70s, a TV show like DUKES OF HAZZARD could proudly display the Confederate Flag. Now, it's risque to say "It's Okay to be White", authorities do nothing to arrest thugs who tear down white monuments, and even after blacks loot and burn down cities, the only thing Donald Trump has to say is "George Floyd is a saint." Back in 1968, the Democratic Mayor Daley ordered men to "shoot to maim, shoot to kill", and even Democrats were shocked and appalled by radical leftists and black thugs. Also, Daley told MLK to go to hell for insulting Chicago. But as blacks are now holy, any amount of black lunacy can be sanctified with BLM catechisms against the Devil of 'systemic racism', a meme pushed by vile and vicious Jewish Power. Today, whiteness itself has become unholy, what with Chick Fil-A(now Dick-Fill-Ass) CEO washing Negro feet even as blacks use their feet to stomp innocent whites.
If there is a person seen as good and a person seen as bad, people will favor the 'good person', that is unless the 'good person' denies people more wealth whereas the 'bad person' promises more wealth. But once the 'good person' is okay with your wealth-gain, you will surely favor him over the 'bad person'. It's like during the Prohibition. One bought alcohol from gangsters because they were the only ones selling it. It wasn't because one liked or respected gangsters. But once alcohol was made legal and legit again, everyone got it from legit outlets and abandoned the gangsters.
This is why the 'culture war' was so important. It was actually a neo-religious war to decide which side is holy and which side is unholy. The biggest failure of the Right was letting Jews get away with everything. With mounting Jewish Power, Jews got to decide what is holy and unholy. As Jews were hostile to whites, it was a dark foreboding for the white race.
There should have been a push-back against Jewish Power, a counter-narrative. And a sane and intelligent one. Paradoxically, the most effective way to be anti-Jewish(power) is to reject 'antisemitism'. It's like the best way to counter religious dogma is not to be anti-religious. Radical atheists turn people off because they are utterly unhinged in their hatred and intolerance of religion. Far more effective way to counter theocratic tendencies is to admit religion has its place in history, society, and culture BUT call for ideological pluralism where all voices are heard, secular and religious. Likewise, the best way to counter Jewish Power is to drop 'antisemitism', which properly defined, should be "blaming Jews for EVERYTHING BAD" or "emphasizing only the BAD things about Jews without acknowledging their contributions to humanity". The biggest harm to countering Jewish Power has come from Neo-Nazi types, and this is why ADL goes out of its way to exaggerate the 'prevalence' of Nazis hiding behind every corner. Bill Buckley was right to reject this kind of 'antisemitism', but he failed to conceive of a way of critiquing Jewish Power in the way that Jewish Power was critiquing Wasp Power and Christianity.
Also, one doesn't need to deny the Shoah or Holocaust. Even with proper revisions, it's foolish to deny that many Jews perished in World War II, mainly due to German atrocities.
Still, a context can be provided as to why it happened. It's like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if one believes they were insane unnecessary overkills, the fact is Japan was crushed because it played with fire in invading and terrorizing other nations. Even if anti-Japanese hatred become unhinged, the Japanese did much to invite the hatred.
Likewise, Jewish Power was immense in the 20th century, and it's no fantasy to say Jews used networks to financially exploit nations and/or to spread radical movements that, prior to WWII, had already killed millions of people. That does not justify the Holocaust, but it at least makes us understand why there was so much anti-Jewish hatred. Hatred can often become unhinged and insane, but why does the hate exist in the first place? After the Great Famine, can anyone blame Ukrainians for hating Jews who played such a big role in communism?
Indeed, even without being anti-Jewish(power), one could change the political discourse by focusing attention on what may be the BIGGEST (stealth)revolution since the end of World War II. The end of the Cold War and the rise of China pale next to the Jews replacing Wasps as the ruling elites of the US. This is so BIG, so CONSEQUENTIAL, and so PROFOUNDLY impacting on the entire world, but there has hardly been any book or discussion of it. This ethno-power-revolution was real and happened in what became the Lone Superpower. It meant a break with an Earlier America. It meant new directions in culture, foreign policy, and values. One cannot understand the rise of 'systemic racism' hysteria, globo-homo, wars in the Middle East, and anti-Russian hysteria without it. They are all predicated on "Is it good for Jewish Supremacist Power?" Jews vilify 'white racism' and 'white privilege' to prevent non-whites and idiot-whites from noticing that it's the Jews who got supremacist power in the US.
Jews are nervous about people discussing the Ethno-Elite-Revolution of Jews replacing Anglo-Americans as top dogs. Even when Joe Biden fulsomely praised the Jewish domination of media/entertainment for spreading globo-homo and 'gay marriage', Jews were hush-hush and 'just move along' about it. This means that even Positive and Flattering commentary on the Jewish takeover of the US is threatening to Jewish Power. At the very least, it will spread consciousness that JEWS control America, thereby the West. That way, people will be more alert as to why certain trends are favored, certain events happen. The Jewish Hand is behind it, whether one deems it as good or bad. Even in praise, the notion of dominant Jewish Power means that Jews should come under the most scrutiny and criticism as that is how power should work in a free society: Most attention directed at the current King of the Hill.
The Jewish Takeover of Power in the US, in praise or condemnation, needs to be a major subject of history, discussion, polemics, and criticism. At the very least, people will know who is the real Boss in the US. It's like, whether one loved or hated the Irish, it was good to know that big cities were dominated by the Irish Machine. US is the most powerful nation, and it was controlled by Anglo-Americans for most of its history, and then Jews took over. Why isn't this story as big as the Bolshevik Revolution, National Socialist takeover of Germany, Mao's revolution & then Deng's 'counter-revolution', and the fall of the Soviet Union? In a way, it is an even bigger story because of the status of the US as the Lone Superpower.
Furthermore, when Anglo-Americans lost out to Jews, it didn't mean the end of their power but its subservience to Jewish ends. Many Northern-European-Americans still have lots of wealth and high-positions. Many work in key fields of engineering, retail, and agriculture. They are still numerically large and very capable. But all their work and effort, all their taxes and donations, are going to serve Jewish Power. Indeed, what makes Jewish Power so dangerous is not because of Jewish Power alone. Even with all their wealth and influence, Jews lack the numbers to run and manage the empire. Jewish Supremacist Power depends on the subservience of the most capable population in the world, the Northern-Europeans in both Europe and America. What is European economy without UK, Germany, and Nordic nations? What is the US(and Canadian) economy if not for Northern Europeans(who achieved so much more than Southern-European types who came to dominate Latin America)? So, when Anglo-American Power lost to Jews, it didn't so much come to an end but end up attaching itself to the Jewish locomotive. Jews didn't kill it but tamed it and made it obey.
As to why Jews or BUGS(busy urban globalist semites) gained so much power vis-a-vis Wasps, it surely has to do with a combination of IQ, personality, Big Think propensity, Covenant-mentality, history of networking via finance, control of image/idols, and 'inner-majority' strategy.
Jews do have higher IQ than whites. But they also have pushier personality, which is why Episcopalians lost out even though they have comparable IQs. Also, contra the empirical-pragmatic style of Anglo thought, Jews go for prophetic big-think thought, i.e. 'smaller thoughts' become subsumed into their larger web of Big Think, which is appealing to many people because they want some formula to explain it all. Also, Covenant-mentality allowed for stronger sense of identity among Jews — how else do a people maintain their own identity despite 2000 yrs of exile? Indeed, Jews were paradoxically more fluid and Zelig-ish in identity precisely because they were so strong in core identity. Jews could try out different identity-poses wherever they went because they were so confident and firm in their core identity. When people with a weak core identity try out another identity, they easily become that other identity. In contrast, a people with strong core identity need not fear 'assimilating' into other identities because they know their inner core identity will remain within. Also, Jewish mastery of finance meant that their wealth was fluid. Unlike land or material property, it could be moved all over the world(and instantly since the rise of electronic communication). And of course, Jewish control of media meant Jews got to decide which image is holy or unholy. Jews = holy holocaust, blacks = sacred slavery, whites = KKK + Nazis.
But another reason for Jewish triumph over Wasps was the factor of 'inner-majority' power. There is 'outer majority' and 'inner majority'. Demographically, there are many more white Christian gentiles than Jews. Whites are the outer-majority to the Jews as the outer-minority. But people don't operate as a whole. It's not like all whites think, feel, and work together. People work as individuals or small groups. So, when it comes to the inner-workings of society, one thinks and acts as an individual or an intense group, or 'intensity'. This means that even a people who are an 'outer-minority' can function as a 'inner-majority'.
Suppose one people(A) have 100 people and another people(B) have only 5. Now, People A are clearly the outer-majority over People B. 100 to 5, it's so obvious. But suppose everyone in People A operates as an individual whereas everyone in people B operates as an intense group or an intensity. So, when it comes to inner-workings of power, it's always an individual of People A vs five members(or intensives) of People B. Thus, even though People A are the demographic majority over People B, it's the People B who operate as the power-majority over People A.
In combat terms, imagine one army of 100 men and another army of 5 men. Naturally, one would think the 100 would easily defeat the puny 5. But suppose the 100 men army are made up of individuals who never work with other men. They prefer to fight alone. In contrast, the 5 men army always fight together. So, even though it outwardly seems a case of 100 vs 5, it is inwardly really a series of 1 vs 5. In every confrontation, it's ONE among the 100 going against the FIVE of the 5. So, in each confrontation, the Five beat the One. And over time, the unit of Five slays all 100, one by one.
The problem with Anglos was they were far less tribal than the Jews. Still, when the US was gloriously race-ist, there was some sense of unity among the whites, elites and masses. But once 'racism' was turned into the biggest sin among white folks, white elites dared not call for white unity. American Conservatism became a matter of 'individual rights' and 'individual liberty'. But that meant each white person was on his own in a battle against Jews who were always united in identity and agenda. Jews even circled the wagons in solidarity with Jewish communists being targeted in the so-called McCarthy Era, but you see no white unity even as Jewish Power blacklists, purges, and destroys any white voice it doesn't like. Monstrous Hag Jennifer Rubin calls for purge of Trumpers, but the GOP will still extol her as a 'fellow conservative'.
