There's been much talk of the GOP being the party of 'old white men'--though majority of white women voted for Romney, but MSM is committed to feminist spin--and how it lost the 2012 election by failing to win over the Hispanic or brown vote. While the Hispanic vote may be a time-bomb for the GOP--if current demographic trends continue--, the brown vote was not decisive in the 2012 election. Romney lost because he failed to win over sufficient number of white voters, especially in the Northern states. Also, the huge swing among Asian-Americans toward Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections undermines the MSM narrative that GOP loses elections because if it favors privilege. Asian-Americans are more 'privileged' than most white gentiles in education and jobs. If the GOP is the party of wealth, privilege, and success, the majority of Asian-Americans(and Jewish-Americans) should have voted for the GOP.
So, why did the GOP fail among so many voters who should be its constituents according to the MSM narrative? Before we delve into that, consider what had long been the winning themes of the GOP. Republican's pro-business position used to win over the superrich and the affluent. Republican's theme of patriotism used to work well among blue collar whites. Republican theme of suburban middle class values and solid small town values used to win over the white middle class. Republican theme of the Great White Man and the American Dream won it respect among aspiring immigrants who wanted to melt into the world of the Great White Man. There was also the issue of crime, mostly black crime.
The end of the Cold War meant the loss of the patriotic theme for Republicans. Though 9/11 and 'Muslim Terrorism' trope worked for awhile for the GOP, Bush loused up the War on Terror as badly as Johnson messed up Vietnam. Also, as time passed, even the staunchest conservative Americans began to wonder if the Muslim Threat was all that it was cooked up to be. And if indeed there was a Clash of Civilizations, why did Bush say Islam is a religion of peace, and only a handful of radical Muslims are causing all the trouble? On foreign policy, many conservatives came to prefer Ron Paul's 'isolationism' to Bush's 'interventionism', and when Romney the chickenhawk rattled his saber about more wars, it turned a lot of white blue collar people off--as many have friends and relatives whose sons died or were crippled in the seemingly senseless War on Terror; especially for Ron Paul Republicans, such saber-rattling means 'kissing Zionist ass'. In the late 70s and early 80s, many blue collar whites did vote for Reagan out of patriotic reasons. They never forgot how liberals 'stabbed the American military in the back' in the Vietnam War, and they were shocked by how nation after nation fell to communism around the world following the fall of Saigon: Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. And Carter seemed especially pathetic with the Iran Hostage Crisis. And of course, there was the problem of inflation. But that was then, this is now. There really isn't any patriotic issue to get all worked up about. There is the theme of Obama the mulatto globalist puppet of International Jews, but as mainstream media and the GOP are dominated by Jews, it's impossible for the GOP to go into 'racist' and 'antisemitic' mode. GOP can foam at the mouth about 'Russkies', 'Muzzies', 'Chinks', and Hugo Chavez, but it cannot call out on domestic enemies at home. Indeed, the liberal Jewish media, through their control of news and Hollywood movies, have encouraged white conservatives to channel their bottled-up rage at foreign 'enemies'. So, if whites are angry about black crime, they must keep mum on the issue and channel their rage by fuming about all those Muslim Terrorists killing 'white Jews' in Israel. Thus, 'muzzies' serve as surrogate blacks in the white conservative mind. Whites must project their domestic frustrations on foreign targets(and Jews encourage this since without such outlets for white rage, it may eventually come around to fixing on the real enemy of whites: the Jews. Why have liberal Jews in Hollywood made anti-Muslim movies like TAKEN? Why is liberal Jewish Hollywood remaking RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn?). Whites cannot discuss Jewish power, and so their suppressed rage is diverted at Global Terrorist Muslims, International Hindus, and International Chinese--away from the International Jew. Even so, there's nothing like the Evil Empire(of the Cold War) or Imperial Japan(of WWII) anymore to rile up the white American blue collar patriots.
GOP also used to have a winning formula in appealing to suburban voters. This was especially useful in the 60s and 70s when White Flight from black urban blight and crime reached its peak. Back then, white fear of black crime was fresh on many white suburbanites. But since then, successive generations of whites have grown in the safe suburbs, and they don't feel this fear of blacks. And their parents didn't say much about white flight since it sounds 'racist'. And suburban schools, no less than urban schools, are filled with politically correct propaganda. And white kids enjoy black culture from a safe distance: rap music, sports, and even interracist porn with the explosion of the internet. At one time, white suburbs were seen as a refuge from black crime. Today, many white suburbanites just see the suburbs as an extension of gentrifying downtown areas of big cities. Many white suburbs have been yuppified and SWPL-ized, what their Starbucks cafes and other cosmopolitanisms. Suburbs used to model themselves on small towns; indeed they were like small towns surrounding the big city. Today, most wealthy suburbs model themselves on downtown gentrified living. They have become far more liberalized. This SWPL-ization of the suburbs needs further research and looking into. (Of course, the fact that many affluent white suburbanites were indoctrinated in politically correct colleges also account for the big shift. In a way, conservatism is a victim of its own success, i.e. many successful white conservative sent their kids to good colleges, and those colleges turned their kids into supporters of 'gay marriage' and 'diversity'. Also, since conservatism favors respect for authority, conservatively raised children may paradoxically be more receptive to authority figures in higher education. This is surely the case among Asians: they are from an authoritarian/conservative tradition/culture, but their emphasis on respect for authority makes them perfect teacher's pets of political correctness.) GOP used to have the Cold War to win over many patriotic blue collar white Americans and the Crime War to win over many white suburban voters. But especially when Clinton adopted harsh anti-crime policies and threw a whole bunch of blacks into the slammer--and drastically reduced crime rates--, the Crime War became less of an issue for many white suburbanites. Again, conservatives were the victim of their own success. They lost the suburbs partly because Clinton the New Democrat adopted many conservative policies.
Conservatives also used to have the economic war and culture war card. Economic War won over the superrich. When top tax rates used to be over 70%, many rich folks went with GOP for the simple reason of not wanting to be bled dry by the government. But once Reagan reduced tax rates and New Democrats more or less accepted the bargain--along with 'free trade' and financial deregulation--, there was less urgency for the rich to side with the GOP. After all, the rich are vain and narcissistic, and it's much more fun to culturally hang around 'creative', 'innovative', and 'expressive' liberals than with 'square' 'whitebread' conservatives. Again, the GOP was a victim of its own success.
And then, there was the Culture War which pitted decent Americans against the freaks and decadents. This used to win over many middle class people to the GOP, especially when freaks and radicals of all kinds went crazy in the late 60s and 70s. But consider the sudden shift in the style of the radicals and freaks. Gays used to act really freako and turn off many people. But the new gay style is very conservative, respectable, and more 'middle class than middle class'. So, gays no longer come across freaks but as the new Ozzie and Harriet(or Ozzie and Harry as the case may be). And if Jewish radicals used to turn off many white conservatives with their nasty and virulent personalities and outrages, most liberal Jews tend to be very respectable and 'bourgeois' in style. There aren't a lot of Abbie Hoffman or Andrea Dworkin types anymore telling people to 'steal this book' or howling 'all sex is rape'. The face of the New Jew is David Remnick. And even the so-called socialist Naomi Klein looks like a total yuppess than some crazy leftist radical talking crazy in the 60s. And feminism abandoned its overalls and handkerchiefs and embraced femininity and sexuality. Though feminists reviled Camille Paglia when she appeared on the scene, Paglia-ism has won. Feminism used to divide the generations. Young girls in the 80s and 90s wanted to be attractive and were pissed off with first generation feminists who were telling them it's wrong to be a 'sex symbol'. Today, feminists of all stripes have embrace sexiness, and even hook-up culture is seen as 'empowerment'. Such sexual sensibilities and attitudes may not be conservative, but in making peace with the biological fact of sexual differences--women wanna look good and sexy--, feminism became less of a turn-off for many women, even anti-liberal women.
Anyway, since liberals and leftists adopted the conservative look and style, it became more difficult for the GOP to frame the Culture War as one between respectable decent folks and outrageous freaks. When gays put on corporate suits and diligently work in office buildings, they come across as more respectable than many white conservatives with ass tattoos and body piercings. When gays and liberal Jews are more likely to listen to classical music and read Shakespeare than white conservatives, what does it mean to be culturally conservative? And when liberal women now wanna be sexy, the old conservative trope of feminism as 'movement of big fat ugly Jewish women' no longer works. Some might say this has all been a Saul Alinskite plan of the Left to use 'conservative respectability' to worm into the heart of Americana and change it from within. And I'm sure some leftists really flatter themselves that they are doing just this. But, it seems most liberals, leftists, and gays just got sick of the whole radical ugliness of the 60s and early 70s. They 'grew up' and matured, and they got 'corrupted' by the material privileges that comes with taking part in capitalism and wealth-creation.
The GOP also lost the immigrant vote. Among some groups, this could be understood simply in terms of poor Third World immigrants wanting more freebies from Big Government. Given the voting pattern of Mexican-Americans and Central-American-Americans, this is no surprise. The more interesting data of the 2008 and 2012 elections concerns the massive shift of the Asian and young Cuban vote from the GOP to the Democrats. Not all immigrants are the same, and indeed Asian-Americans(especially East Asians and Hindu-Asians) are very different in their mind-set, sensibilities, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes from Mexican-Americans and the like. If the GOP is the party of success and middle class values, why would so many Asian-Americans vote for the Democrats? It's because America today isn't America 20 yrs ago and because the image of the Great White Man isn't so great.
Among immigrants, ability and aspirations matter in how they think and vote. Mexican-Americans, rather low in their abilities, don't have much in the way of aspiration. Many Mexican-Americans instinctively feel that they aren't going to rise very high, and so they stick with the party of more handouts. But Asian-Americans, like earlier waves of European-Americans, have both the ability and aspiration to rise higher. Many European immigrants in the early part of the 20th century held the Anglo-American White Man in awe and aspired to use their abilities to enter Anglo-American society--and even to become Anglo-Americans themselves. There was a time when Asian-Americans held the Great White Man with great respect and fear(and with fear comes respect). In their home countries, they likely got their image of American from news reels of General Douglas MacArthur and John Wayne & Charlton Heston movies. White Man Big and Tall and Great and Awesome! White American Man Big Superpower and Victor over Japan and Protector of Free Asia from Bad Commies! Unlike Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans knew that they had the ability to join white society, the World of the Great White Man. Their abilities matched their aspirations. So... what happened?
Asians, who are mad about success and upper mobility, discovered that the Great White Man was not so great. Many Asians found themselves getting better grades and going to better schools than whites. So, incrementally, Asian-Americans came to feel more like Jews. Instead of seeing White America as awesome, they saw it as something they rise above. An element of contempt crept into their feelings toward whites. Also, Asian-Americans discovered that among whites, liberal and Jewish ones were smarter than mediocre conservative whites who are into Creationism, gun hoarding, Nascar, Rush Limbaugh, and ass tattoos. So, if the Great White Man trope still existed for Asian-Americans, the new Great White Man was the urban liberal white or the Jew.
Another factor was the slow but steady decline of the white middle class(as the backbone of the American Dream). When America used to be defined by the solid white middle class as the hallmark of Americanism, most Asian-Americans wanted to belong to that class, especially as many had memories of poverty back home. But as the white middle class began to shrink and Asian-Americans strove for higher success, the ideal of the American Dream in the form of White Middle Class-ness began to lose its appeal. The new objective for aspiring Asian-Americans to strive for and emulate was the urban SWPL global 'creative class'. Very liberal and Democratic. Even 20 yrs ago, an Asian-American might have thought a good life in America was having a steady job and affording a home in the suburbs. But with Section 8 Housing and easy credits handing out home loans to every dumbass, the suburban ideal lost its appeal. The newly and truly affluent and privileged were found to be concentrated in the 'Europeanizing' big blue cities. But what led to the demise of the White Middle Class? Free trade and globalism and 'ownership society' that cheapened the ideal of the American Dream. Again, the GOP was the victims of its own success.
Liberals often complain that irrationality is rife on the American Right, and they are not entirely wrong. American Right has many elements that tend to disdain rational thought, empiricism, science, and intellectualism. Indeed, the cult of anti-intellectualism is one reason why the GOP has failed to attract sufficient numbers of very smart people. While American conservatism has its share of smart people, it has few intellectual giants. Worse, in the name of MLK worship and fighting 'racism', American conservatism has been more outspoken against men like Arthur Jensen and James Watson than against people on the Left. (Remember how Rich Lowry thanked Al Sharpton and Mother Jones magazine for alerting him about 'white racists' at the National Review.) And there is no love lost between 'rightist' Darwinists and Evangelicals(and other believers in Biblical Truth).
There is the libertarian wing of the American conservative movement, but libertarians are accidental 'conservatives', i.e. they happen to be the conservative camp because they oppose Democratic big-government-ism. People who write for publications like REASON have little in common with most American social, cultural, and religious conservatives. They are even often at odds with American 'crony capitalists' of the GOP. Libertarians are such purists in their convictions that they live in their own bubble. Though many affluent and well-educated conservatives have no time for Evangelical nonsense, they've been muted in their criticism of Fundamentalist Christian ignoramuses because they need 'social conservative' numbers to win elections. Just like the global capitalists of the BJP struck a bargain with the Hindu nationalists to form a mass voting bloc, the rich secular conservatives of the GOP have pandered to the irrational ignorance of religious conservatives in order to win votes. Of course in the South, race is the bigger factor, but then, its voting patterns are really no different from voting patterns in places like Boston, Chicago, NY, St. Louis, and etc. Where there's a lot of racial 'diversity', tribal politics tend to rule. So, even if big cities tend to be dominated by Democrats, whites will vote for the white Democrat and blacks will vote for the black Democrat. And in NY and Chicago, whites, Jews, and gays have formed alliances to keep the power among themselves than give it up to blacks or Hispanics. So, all this stuff about 'racist white Southern voters' is really just a case of projection on the part of 'liberal' Jews, whites, and gays. What chance of Democratic Jews voting for a Muslim-American candidate in NY even if the latter were a true blue Democrat? How many NYers really want another Dinkins? How many white Chicagoans really want to hand over the city to the likes of Luis Guiterrez or Bobby Rush? How much do white liberals in Cincinnati really love their black neighbors?
Anyway, we tend to associate Reason with liberals, not least because, especially since the French Revolution, the political debate has been seen as one between secular rational universalist egalitarians vs religious sacramental particularist hierarcheans. This was more the case in the Old World than in the New World of America as religious freedom and mass religiosity became a part of the American democratic process. As America didn't have a state religion, churches weren't seen as part of the Establishment. (Though the Catholic Church was part of the Establishment in Italy, it wasn't as reviled by the Left as in other European nations because of its extensive involvement in charity and its anti-capitalist ideology. Indeed, many leading Italian artists and intellectuals were both Catholic and Marxist. Anti-religious feelings were stronger in Spain and France because of the Church's alliance with Franco in the former and because the French Revolution had ideologically laid the foundations of anti-clericalism, a hostility that never went away.)
The Left vs Right dichotomy couldn't be easily resolved in the West because both sides were rife with all manner of inner contradictions. For example, the Left was said to stand for reason/rationalism, universalism, equality, and secularism. But reason/rationality meant the primacy of intelligence, and that meant the intelligent people would rise way above the less intelligent. It could end up creating inequalities even wider than before, something Marx understood about capitalism. Capitalism was a rationalist/materialist ideology, but it favored the ruthless, resourceful, and intelligent: the bourgeoisie, the elite class that would use its formidable skills and privileges to gain ever more wealth and power while the rest of population got poorer and poorer. Marx's main enemy wasn't the old aristocracy/monarchy. He firmly believed that the old order would be wiped away by the new order of capitalism dominated by the ruthless bourgeoisie. The real battle would be between the pauperized proletariat and the privileged bourgeoisie. Marx saw the bourgeoisie as far more dangerous than the old aristocracy. If the old elites inherited their power and privilege, the bourgeoisie rose through cunning, talent, and intelligence. Though the old aristocracy had lots of power, it didn't necessarily have much talent or intelligence. In contrast, the bourgeoisie rose to great heights with their high intelligence and ruthless ambition. It is no wonder that Marx closely associated bourgeois power with the rise of Jews and believed that the Jewish Problem could only be resolved by the extermination of capitalism. It was capitalism that allowed smart, cunning, and ruthless Jews to rise about others. Get rid of capitalism--a form of ruthless meritocracy--and, Jews will be like anyone else. And Soviet Union and Iron Curtain nations were proof of this. Though Jews played an instrumental role in the creation of communism, they were eventually sidelined by less intelligent gentiles. And without the ability to accumulate great wealth, Jewish talent and skills went untapped in communist nations. Jews were forced to be like everyone else.
This contradiction on the Left hasn't been resolved to this day; if anything, it seems to be getting more intense. As yrs go by, Jews and smart white gentiles get richer and richer while the rest get poorer and poorer. Charles Murray wrote extensively about this in COMING APART. More freedom and mobility among Americans hasn't led to more equality but to more divisions and hierarchies. Places like NY, Chicago,and San Francisco are economically more divided than ever. Working class dwindles and middle class feels the pinch, but the affluent 'creative' globalist class gets richer and richer. Even during the 'Great Recession', there's lots of good times in the core gentrified downtown areas of big cities. We've also seen the rise of 'whitopias' in places like Portland and Seattle. White, Jewish, and gay liberals who speak for 'equality' have themselves become less and less equal and more and more privileged. American politics is funny business where the 'egalitarian' superrich liberals lecture non-rich white conservatives about the evils of 'greed'.
Or consider higher education. What are among the most exclusive educational institutions in America? Harvard and Yale. And yet, they are the ideological bastions of 'equality'. There is 'affirmative action' for blacks and Hispanics, but who are the sacrificial lamb to make room for the likes of Barack and Michelle Obama? Middle class whites, lower middle class whites, working class whites, and poor whites. Rich and affluent Jewish and white liberals maintain their grip on higher education by sacrificing the less privileged whites in the game of 'diversity'. But even with 'affirmative action' for blacks and browns, Harvard and Yale favors the creme of the crop of the black and brown community. So, rationalism and equality have never been bosom buddies. At best, there's the ideal of equality of opportunity, but given the biological differences among individuals and groups, this only creates new hierarchies. When blacks were given equal opportunity in sports, they dominated many of them and indeed many races are defacto banned or biologically discriminated in certain sports such as basketball. When the L.A. Lakers win the championship, countless Mexican-Americans pour into the streets to celebrate, but how many Mexicans are there in the NBA? Lots of Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans love the NFL, but how many Mexicans and Asians are there in football?
The ideal of universalism hasn't worked out for the Rational Left either. Universalism means common/shared truth for all people in the world, but greater the universalist/globalist reach, greater the problems of diversity. The Soviet Union and Communist Yugoslavia, by creating multi-ethnic states, laid the foundations of all sorts of cultural and ethnic strife. Though the conflicts were suppressed under the iron heel of communism, they never went away and exploded with the end of communism. The fires still burn in many former republics of the USSR. And in the West, the leftist ideal of universalism has morphed or surrendered to the ideology of 'multi-culturalism' and the cult of 'diversity'. The Left used to see diversity as an obstacle to the universal truth. Indeed, 'culture' was critiqued mostly as superstitions and 'atavistic' customs standing in the way of progress of universal truth. So, Soviets smashed countless churches, and in Red China, most Chinese had to wear the same blue Mao suits. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao sent Red Guards to wage a war on Old Reactionary Culture. And in the Spanish Civil War, the radical Left waged wars of destruction on all symbols of Old Spain. But in time, the Left came to realize that culture and race don't simply don't go away. So, the new leftist politics was increasing racial and ethnic consciousness--called Identity Politics--among non-white groups and turning it into a united anti-white force. Leftism also came to disdain universalism because European Imperialism had often used the 'universalist' argument to rationalize and justify their invasive actions around the world. Europeans would claim to be spreading the universal truth of God and Jesus or the universal values of human rights that were, oddly enough, unique to the West. And communist record of cultural violence and suppression in non-European nations also disgusted the Left with radical universalism. There was also the romanticism of anthropology that romanticized non-Western cultures--more primitive the better--as Edens that shouldn't be spoiled by the 'cancer' of white rationality and modernity. (That is one reason why only whites get blamed for slavery. It is assumed that since black Africans were primitive, their lived in a kind of Eden, and therefore, even their practice of slavery was very warm and loving.) And it dawned on the white leftists in the 60s that blacks couldn't be recruited to become colorblind warriors of progress. Black Panthers and other such groups insisted on their own racial or ethnic pride. They weren't just gonna lock arms with white liberals and sing 'We Shall Overcome'. And so, the new mode became radical cult of 'diversity'-ism where cultural identities would be encouraged but as a weapon against white power and privilege. (But this has created new contradictions within the Left that is now a coalition of self-loathing white ethnophobes and non-white ethnocentrists.)
Also, rational science of the human mind and behavior hase uncovered the strong possibility that humans are irrational and 'spiritual' by nature. Some liberal scientists now say that some people are born with 'liberal' genes and some are born with 'conservative' genes. Ironically, anti-religious Reason has discovered that man--or at least most people--cannot be rid of their 'religious nature'. So, if religion is banned, mankind will merely find something else to worship. It's no wonder why people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Lennon, Oprah, and Obama have been revered and worshiped as substitute gods. You will notice that their greatest devotees are 'secularists' or those who claim to be 'spiritual but not religious'. In the absence of God or some spiritual figure to worship in their lives, they worship new 'gods'. And people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, in their refusal to worship 'new gods' simply worship their own egos with an arrogance worthy of the old gods. If Reason proves that human nature is not rational, what is to be done? Perhaps, it means that the 'progressive' elites must manipulate the masses as if they're little children or Pavlovian dogs. This is markedly different from behaviorism of B.F. Skinner who focused on human action, or outward behavior. The new manipulation seeks to manipulate the 'ghost in the shell', or the 'soul'.
Of course, communists understood this. Though the ideal of Marxism was to use rational appeals to win over the Proletariat to the 'scientific' truth of class struggle, it became quite apparent to communist intellectuals that most of the unwashed were pretty dumb and hopeless. Lenin had no respect for the Russian masses. Trotsky had even less. Stalin saw most people as 'the horse'--like in George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM. And in truth, Marx was able to pontificate about his fantasy idealism because he lived in his own intellectual bubble and refused to rub shoulders with the real members of the Proletariat. When Engelsl offered him a tour of a factory, Marx declined and refused to see reality that might undermine his theoretical view of everything. So, how were most people won over to communism? Same way most people were won over to Christianity. Throughout Christian history, most converts were illiterates who never read the actual words in the Old and New Testaments. And even most people who could read weren't exactly thinkers or intellectuals. Most people were won over by the pageantry, the songs and music, the rituals and ceremonies, the hype and taboos, the feeling of rapture that came with conversion. And their children were raised into Christianity as the 'one and only' True Faith. Similarly, very few people who became communists read DAS KAPITAL or other works by Marx. A good number may have read THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, but that was communist theory boiled down to cops-n-robbers. What really won over most people were the parades, the songs, the pageantry, the marches and rallies, the iconography of the 'great prophets of progress', the endless propaganda, the slogans about 'land, peace, and bread', the feel-good easy scapegoating or demonization of the 'bourgeoisie' as the source of all evils, and its new set of sacramental taboos that made the movement seem almost holy and 'spiritual'. Most communists never read much of the COLLECTED WORKS OF LENIN, indeed not even the much shorter COLLECTED WORKS OF STALIN. Though communism was anti-capitalist, it was more 'sold' than told.
Same goes for Nazism. How many Germans really read MEIN KAMPF? Indeed, if more had read it, more would have opposed Nazism or would have seen it as a crazy and crashing bore. Nazism kept gaining popularity because Hitler, along with Albert Speer and Joseph Goebbels, had a keen understanding of the power of hype and 'marketing'. So, National Socialists came up with slogans, parades, pageantry, iconography, songs, rituals, and sacramentics to match those of communists. National Socialists also intentionally appropriated the color red on their flags to steal fire from the communists. This is what turned on the Germans. Faced with economic depression, national humiliation, and an uncertain future, Germans needed something to inspire them, and for a growing number of Germans, the pageantry of National Socialism was irresistible. Also, just as communism has the arch-demon-villain in the 'bourgeoisie', the National Socialists had the easy scapegoat in the International Jew. We know from the popularity of action movies--and countless legends and myths through the ages--that people love to see the world in terms of 'us versus them' and 'good vs evil'. This was equally true of Marx and Hitler. For communists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the bourgeois capitalist, the oppressor of honest working men of the world. For National Socialists, there was the vile enemy in the form of the subversive Jew, the mortal enemy of the Aryan Race. (Incidentally, National Socialism could have triumphed if it hadn't such a hostile view of Slavs. If Hitler's view had been more like that of Mussolini, he could have gotten rid of leftist Jews while winning the loyalty of patriotic German Jews. And he wouldn't have waged on the USSR, and even if he had, he would have summoned and welcomed the support of Slavic anti-communists. But the moment his invading armies convinced the Slavs that Nazis were gonna be even worse than the communists, Hitler's fate was sealed.)
Though 'intelligent' and 'rational' liberals today laugh at dumb conservative morons who believe every word in the Bible--and though liberals warn of the theocratic danger posed by the Christian Right--, the fact is America is moving towards a secular theocracy ruled by liberals. Though there are plenty of sane rational liberals, those who hunger for power don't care about telling the truth or even knowing the truth. They want to own and control the 'Truth' that is to be propped up with pageantry, hype, iconography, ritualism, sacramentalism, and taboos.The whole MLK myth is a pernicious and obnoxious means of social control. Smart liberals know the truth about MLK. They know that he was NOT a man of peace but only used the cult of peace to fool Americans. Jewish liberals who used and manipulated him know this. So, why the hype and why the taboo? Because such are effective as means of social control of the masses. If a rational argument was made for MLK, it could be countered by rational arguments against him. To forbid any such argument, King is turned into a godman, and so, it becomes taboo to even say anything negative or critical about him. As even American conservatives have succumbed to this myth, MLK is the new religion of the land. Of course, embracing irrational superstitions comes naturally to many conservatives. What is truly sad is that so many so-called secular liberals have fallen for it as well.
Liberals say they are for open debate, open discussion, and free argument, but they are lying. They are for open debate only on issues of their preference and approval. So, we can have an open debate on 'why white privilege is evil' but we cannot have an open debate on 'why physically stronger blacks are attacking whites' or 'why smarter Jews have hogged so much power and wealth in America'. Any criticism of black evils would be counter to the spirit of MLK faith, and so, it must be taboo! And since the bigger modern faith is Holocaustianity, Jews are never to be criticized or opposed. Though America still allows free speech, we have defacto 'hate speech' regulations against honest discussion of black problems and Jewish power because anyone who dares to do so is effectively blacklisted, shunned, disgraced, shamed, and destroyed. The new habit among liberals is not to open up more debates and discussions but to tell conservatives what can be discussed and what cannot. Instead of Political Argument, we have the new cult of Political Silence. Of course, liberals say they're advising conservatives for the own good, i.e. liberals are the smart doctor and conservatives are the sick patient, and so, liberals should apply anesthetics to 'relax' the patient in order to draw out the toxic blood within the conservative vein. It's the new political medical treatment of 'bleeding' the patient. The last I heard, 'bleeding' killed George Washington.
The most obnoxious use of pageantry and iconography in recent times has been with Obama and 'gay marriage'. How some political pimp from Chicago got elevated to messianic status may seem outrageous to some, but it's hardly surprising. Most people are easily manipulated, and it's easier now than ever. With the erosion of traditional values and bedrock certitudes, we all live in a world of flux. Especially among white people, there is no racial identity, racial pride, national identity, national pride. Christianity as a Western tradition has faded away among many white people. Instead of pride and identity, there's likely to be shame and anti-identity for white Americans and Europeans. Having being severed from their roots, the Western tree is wobbly and shaky. And so, it looks for new causes and commitments and mistakenly sees the very ropes pulling it down as new supports. Jews are committed to felling the Western family and cultural tree, but when Jews toss ropes at the White Tree, it thinks Jews are lending a hand to make the Tree better. The White Tree doesn't know that the ropes are being tied to the trunk and branches to be pulled down--like the Tsar statue in Sergei Eisenstein's OCTOBER.
White liberals--and even white conservatives--are easy targets for Jewish liberal manipulation because they have no core values. They only have peripheral values like Tolerance and Cult of Diversity. My point is not that we should doggedly remain rooted in a fixed set of ideas. We should be open to new ideas and listen to all sorts of arguments and discussions. And if some old ideas or values are proven to lack real value, we should discard them and adopt new ideas and new values. Traditionally, liberalism at its best sought to do just that: put forth new ideas and new arguments in an open-minded way. Who can deny with Clarence Darrow's fight for freedom of speech for the teacher who wanted to teach evolution? In the past, liberals were indeed on the side of progress and social improvement. For greater liberty and freedom. For more civil liberties. And as rationalists and secularists, they argued for logic and empirical proof. Of course, there were also plenty of dumb and deceitful liberals, but there was indeed a golden age of liberalism when smart and serious liberals did put forth logical and fact-based arguments for greater freedom and truth.
That ideal is gone for good. While there are genuinely scientific liberals in the media and academia, the liberals in power in all institutions have a dual attitude when it comes to truth. They now feel that there is 'elite truth' and 'mass truth'. It's like in the Soviet Union, the elites had the freedom to discuss all sorts of topics and had access to Western media, but the Soviets masses were denied such freedom and access since they were deemed too stupid and dumb. What was okay for the elites was not okay for the masses. Elites could access and discuss certain truths but the masses had to stick to official propaganda and official news. Though communist elites justified such restrictions on the basis that the masses are too dumb and gullible, therefore liable to fall for capitalist-bourgeois lies and propaganda, the real fact of the matter was the elites feared that the masses weren't so dumb after all and might realize that capitalism and freedom are better than communism and totalitarianism(the basis of elite communist power).
The liberal ideal used to be that the educated and intelligent elites should have faith in the masses and use reason, logic, facts, and open-minded exchange of ideas/opinions to raise the knowledge level among the people. Thus, truth--and I mean real truth--would spread out across the populace. Today, elite liberals think entirely differently. They believe that certain truths are just too dangerous, and therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to even know about them or discuss them. Since most of the media and academia are controlled by liberals, liberals now have the power to restrict information and news they don't want the masses to know about. Also, even the so-called conservative media mostly go along with this since it will be economically destroyed by the liberal elite. There is still freedom on the internet, but liberals are working overtime to end free debate and open discussion by pushing for 'hate speech' laws. In Europe, people can be fined or jailed for writing things on the internet that are deemed 'hateful' and 'intolerant'. Elite liberals are pushing such laws in the US on the basis of protecting minorities like blacks and gays. This is very funny since most of the 'hate crimes' in the US are actually committed by blacks. Since blacks are stronger than other races, almost no one goes up to blacks and says, "Hey nigger". Not only will the black guy beat up the offender but our cult of MLK will ostracize and condemn the 'racist'. Just look what happened to Don Imus for joking about 'nappy-headed hos'. And gays are among the most powerful people in America, and they have the power to intolerantly destroy the lives of people who don't bend over to the gay agenda. The real reason for 'hate speech' control is not to protect the powerless but to shield the powerful. Jews control America, and what Jews fear most is that there will come a day when gentiles--of all color--will call out on Jewish power, Jewish privilege, Jewish influence, Jewish abuses, Jewish oppression, Jewish history of exploitation, Jewish mendacity, and etc. This is what 'hate speech laws' are really about. It is to protect Jewish Supremacism from criticism.
Jewish intellectuals once used to call for open debate and freedom of speech. Even Jewish communists who supported all manner of tyranny and mass murder taking place in the Soviet Union wrapped themselves around the American flag and the Constitution and demanded total freedom of speech. Had liberals, leftists, and Democrats held political power all throughout the 1950s, these liberal Jews would not have called for free speech and civil liberties for all. They would have called for government and institutional clampdown and purge of all 'hateful' and 'reactionary' elements. How do I know this? Did Jewish liberals and leftists care one bit about the 100,000+ Japanese-Americans locked up by FDR? Did Jewish liberals show any disdain for the movie MISSION TO MOSCOW by Michael Curtiz(the Jew who directed CASABLANCA) that rationalized and justified every one of Stalin's crimes? No. The Jewish support of Civil Liberties was purely accidental and tactical. With the rise of anti-communism(and return of Republican power) in the late 40s and early 50s, many Jewish radicals came under pressure and some were blacklisted for a few yrs. This is why Jews embraced total freedom of speech. It was to serve tribal interests. Under the guise of total commitment to freedom of speech, Jews were able to outmaneuver McCarthy and pose as defenders of civil liberties of ALL Americans. But it's been some time since anyone or any group dared to take on Jewish power. Jews have control over all the elite institutions. They can do whatever and get away with it. They no longer need the protection of civil liberties and freedom of speech since they have control over media, academia, law firms, courts, Wall Street, Hollywood, both political parties, advertising, government, and etc. What Jews fear is the awakening of gentile consciousness against this Jewish power, and so the Jews are trying to prevent/preempt any such phenomenon by enforcing 'hate speech laws' that will prevent anyone from speaking out about Jewish Power. Such is the nature of the Jew.
So, we now live in the era of 'dual truths'. Jewish elites are good enough to access, know, and discuss the truth, but WE are not good enough. We must stick with the Official Truth. So, elite Jews in their own clubs and societies will discuss racial differences and the nature of their power--and what they must do to expand it and keep it forever--, but we are not supposed to know or think anything about it. To be sure, some Jews are just so goofy and filled with chutzpah that they accidentally spill the beans. One of the funniest is Joel Stein's HOW JEWISH IS HOLLYWOOD? The article starts:
"I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe 'the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,' down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood."
Though Jewish control of the media/Hollywood/Wall Street has exponentially increased since 1964, Americans today believe Jews don't control the media. It goes to show that truth is less important than the medium of truth. Those who control the flow of information, the symbols of inspiration, the dogma of official truth, and the fear of taboos control what is and isn't "truth". Though Jewish power increased since the 60s, Americans today think Jews are less powerful!! Yes, this sort of thing can happen in a so-called democracy where information is supposed to flow freely and teach people the truth. Joel Stein, a clownish character, probably thought he was just being funny, but ever since that article has been picked up by 'anti-Semites' like Kevin MacDonald and David Duke, it appears he's been disciplined and pressured to lay low and remain silent; he's been effectively disappeared as a 'bad boy Jew'. On the other hand, maybe some Jews thought Stein's way of breaking the news in a funny matter could be beneficial to Jewish power. If Jewish power is sold as something funny and hilarious, maybe people will laugh about it than fear it--even though it has tremendous impact on all facets of their lives, from information to education to finance to foreign policy.
Anyway, the fact that Jewish power increased from 1964 to 2008 but Americans thinks Jews are less powerful today says something about the the problem of 'dual truth' in America. Jews are allowed to discuss and work to increase Jewish power in their elite inner circles, BUT we are not supposed to know about it, and even if we did know, we are not supposed to discuss it openly lest we lose our jobs. The failure of American conservatism can be glimpsed in this too. Conservatism cannot exist without memory, yet American conservatives--most of them anyway--seem to have no knowledge of the change in Jewish behavior and strategy since the 50s. If American conservatives had a real sense of memory, they'd know that Jews argued for government censorship during the FDR yrs but then argued for civil liberties when Jewish leftists came under attack by anti-communists--and today, they are arguing for 'hate speech' laws that would effectively silence all criticism of Jewish power. In other words, Jews have no principles, only strategies. Their own principle is tribal power. Most elite Jews believe that most of us 'cannot handle the truth', which really means we'll handle it TOO WELL and realize that Jews have been behind white deracination, dispossession, and demise. Jews see us as stupid little children. We are to live with the 'noble lie' while Jews in their closed elite institutions get to secretly discuss issues about racial differences. It's just like ANIMAL FARM with smart pigs owning the house and us working in the fields.
Now, some of you may think that my assessment of Jewish power is exaggerated. After all, there are lots of superrich non-Jews. But huge wealth isn't sufficient power to challenge Jewish power. After all, there are many very rich people in China, but their wealth and status can be destroyed overnight by the Communist Party. No matter how rich you are in China, the fact is the law courts, media, police, and military are dominated by Communist Party oligarchs. You don't mess with the real overlords with control over the institutions. Similarly, no matter how rich you are in America, if you cross Jews, Jews can use their institutional power to destroy you almost overnight. Jews get to decide who is okay and who is not okay. Plenty of black rappers and white rockers have said and done outrageous things, but they get millionaire dollar contracts from the Jewish-controlled entertainment industry. But when Mel Gibson got drunk one time and said, "Jews start all wars", he was effectively blacklisted from the film industry. If you're a filthy Zionist and support Israel's right to possess 300 illegal nuclear weapons, you're A-okay and given all sorts of favors. But no matter how rich you are, if you argued for Iran's right to possess nuclear weapons, you're gonna lose a lot of powerful friends and connections--and protections--right away. Jews have such a lock on the key levers of power that even the superrich who dare challenge Jewish power are toast overnight. Suppose George Lucas made a film about the oppression of Palestinians. Think of all the friends and connections in the film industry he would lose almost immediately. And Jews in government will send an army of goons to audit Lucas's tax files and prosecute him for the most minor infraction--while the grand Jewish crooks on Wall Street get to do as they please.
Returning to the matter of irrational appeals, just consider how 'gay marriage' became such a hot issue. It wasn't through rational debate, reasoned discourse, morally logical appeals, or any kind of real sense. It was through the power of pageantry, iconography, hype and sensationalism, sanctification of gays and lesbians and even cross-dressers as holy angels, the vilification of decent people as 'odious, noxious, and toxic homophobes'--yes, so-called 'tolerant' people use such strong adjectives against people they don't agree with--, parades, rallies, advertising, sacred threats, and veiled threats, and etc. I say 'veiled threats' because brazen threats give the game away that we are being pressured and brow-beaten to bend over to the Jewish-supported radical gay agenda. People don't like to feel that they are being forced to do something. So, Jews and gays come to you with a smile and ask you to support 'gay marriage' while hinting that if you don't comply, you're gonna go down. Since you fear being shunned, shamed, and destroyed, you support 'gay marriage' and in order to convince yourself and others that you did it out of conviction than cowardice, you express an overly zealous support of the gay agenda. It's like a dog barking extra-loud while serving its master. Though being ordered by its master to attack, it makes believe that it's in control of its own emotions by barking like crazy. But no matter how much all these converts express their support for 'gay marriage', we know they acted out of cowardice. They really had no choice since if they don't support it, they'll be disgraced, shunned, and rejected from polite, hipster, and cool society. And so they hide their shame of cowardice with rabid support of 'gay marriage'.
Bullies come to you and shake their fist at you. But not all bullies are so brazen. In AGE OF INNOCENCE, we see how polite society with fine manners could use all sorts of subtle pressures to force a man to marry a woman he doesn't love and abandon the woman he really loves. Similarly, the neo-haute society of today has all sorts of ways to make you go along 'reasonably' by applying all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle pressures. Jews and gays don't want us to think that we've been forced to go along with their agenda. And so, they employ all sorts of nudges and appeals to our irrational emotions to make them go along with the 'gay agenda'. As many people are dumb and ignorant, they are pushovers for such manipulation. Even so, many people still resist the ridiculous gay agenda. What to do with such people? Since they can't be fooled, they must be pressured. One way is with money and bribery, and this is especially effective with politicians. Notice how NY Republicans were bought over to voting for 'gay marriage'. Politicians should really be called prostitucians. Even so, there are still people who refuse to fall for the bogus bullshit of 'gay marriage' that says it's healthy and wonderful for men to practice fecal penetration and insert male sexual organs into organs meant for defecation of waste material. Since Jews and gays don't want to be exposed as brazen bullies, they use all sorts of hidden bully tactics. They use all sorts of hints and send all sorts of signals that if certain people are not with the gay agenda, their reputations will be smeared, they may lose 'friends', they may not get promotion, they may be turned into the butt of jokes and mockery. And if there are still holdouts to accepting 'gay marriage', there is the looming 'hate speech' law that aims to fine or imprison anyone who speaks out against such filth. 'Gay marriage' is of course the real hate crime against real marriage. It offends the fundamental dignity of the meaning of marriage. The idea that a penis entering a fecal hole is the biological and moral equivalent of real sex is vile, hateful, and disgusting. It's like saying eating a plateful of feces is the same as eating a plate of pizza.
There never was a sane rational argument for 'gay marriage'. Indeed, all arguments made for 'gay marriage' could just as easily be used to champion polygamy, group marriage, and same-family marriage or incest marriage. If marriage should allow anything demanded by adults of consenting age, it can be just be just about anything. Indeed even 'friend marriage' between two heterosexuals who wanna get married ONLY to share benefits from work. It's ridiculous. Jews and gays are the neo-aristocrats, and just like the upper classes in AGE OF INNOCENCE, they are really out for their own privilege. Gays are so vain and greedy that they are willing to subvert the entire meaning of marriage just to serve their own perverse ego. And that isn't enough. Gays and Jews are working to ban any speech that is 'hateful' or 'contemptuous' of gays or the homosexual act. So, if you say 'gay sex is unnatural and gross', you should be fined, sent to sensitivity training, or locked up. Just like aristocrats used 'polite power' to get their way, Jews and gays use all sorts of subtle ways to send a message that we better not mess with their agenda or challenge them since they have the power to destroy reputations, careers, and lives.
So many Americans are such pushovers or bendovers. Think of the rainbow flag and homosexuality. Now, what does the beautiful and miraculous rainbow have to do with two men sticking their penises into fecal holes or with fat hairy guys who put on lipstick and wear dresses? NOTHING. But by hyping and advertising homosexuality as a kind of rainbow, so many Americans have been made to feel that there's nothing more heavenly and wonderful than homosexuality. Gee whiz, gays must be angels, and that being true, who are we to deny them 'gay marriage'?
Just like most Christians were converted to the Faith through emotional appeals, many Americans have been won over to 'gay marriage' through irrational appeals that sanctified and beautified the gay world. Just like most Americans think Jews don't control Hollywood due to Jewish manipulation of truth, many Americans associate gayness with rainbow colors, cool/hip/funny characters on TV, and all the other crap we see due to media manipulation. And of course, just like movies have good guys and bad guys, the Jewish media present opponents of 'gay marriage' in the most unflattering and demeaning manner. While the media suppresses all the unpleasant facts of gays and show only their nice side, the media ignores all the positive side of supporting real marriage against 'gay marriage' and feature only the most deranged voices that denounce 'gay marriage'. So, the impression that Americans get is "gays are so perfect and angelic, and their enemies are so ugly, old, and vile."
But we see the same thing with Israel and Iran. Both nations have their good sides and bad sides, but Israel is featured as some perfect democracy in the Middle East whereas Iran is featured as a totally crazy nation that 'wants to wipe Israel off the map'. And we hear so often that tiny little Israel, as the outpost of Western values, is surrounded by all those barbaric and hostile Muslim nations that want to destroy it. Using that logic, why didn't the West support apartheid South Africa as the final tiny outpost of Western Civilization on a Dark Continent filled with murderous black savages out to rob, rape, and murder whites? Well, it just so happens to be the case that Jews control the media in the West and get to decide what is what.
Unless American patriots take on Jewish power, nothing is possible.
