I’ve always viewed it in the latter sense, and it’s a useful shorthand for the unending stream of failures by the mainstream Right. From immigration to gay marriage and the “war on Woke,” the conservative bloc has an innate talent not only for giving ground in its various culture wars, but for somehow reinterpreting or dissembling concession as an advance in a different direction.
But the 'Mainstream Left' has been losing as well. In fact, the ONLY winners are Jewish Supremacists. Conservatism has been eroded of all meaning, but so has Liberalism under Jewish Control. Liberalism used to mean being open-minded and skeptical about concentrated power. Now, liberality among so-called 'liberals' rings hollow because the shill-libs are in cahoots with the Deep State and shill for more controls and censorship. 'Liberals', just like 'Conservatives', have betrayed their core values. The only winners are Jews because both betrayals, Liberal and Conservative, serve Jewish Power.
Now, some will argue that Liberalism Inc. has gained a lot more than Conservatism Inc., but those are brands, not principles. So much of what goes by the label of 'liberalism' isn't liberal, just like so much of what goes by 'conservatism' isn't conservative. Even if we agree that Liberalism Inc. has gained predominance, it's in the service to globalist supremacism of Jews, not to uphold principles of liberalism or leftism. Bernie Sanders represents the so-called leftist wing of the Democratic Party, but look how far he got. The moment he showed any sign of traction, the entire power structure united against him. Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance echoed certain progressive voices in the past, but she was shut out of debates and smeared as a puppet of Putin and Assad(aka 'butcher of Syria').
At the heart of “the conservative problem” is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the “inclusive” state. This overwhelmingly takes the form of attracting votes by promising exclusionary action on immigration; retreating from this promise; then playing sleight of hand by trumpeting an advance in the direction of an “inclusive” economy.
One thing for sure, both 'mainstream liberals' and 'mainstream conservatives' are totally for the exclusion of Palestinians from foreign policy discourse. So, the problem isn't really about 'inclusion' vs 'exclusion'. It's about submission to Jewish Power. It's about appeasing Jewish Supremacism. If indeed Liberalism is triumphant and pushes INCLUSION over EXCLUSION, why are so-called the 'blue states' excluding BDS in government jobs, programs, contracts, and etc.? Why are so-called 'liberals' mostly silent about universities silencing BDS speakers and movements?
If Liberalism Inc. is really about 'inclusion', how come it is totally okay with excluding white working class voices, which once used to be the bedrock of the Democratic Party? How come Liberalism Inc. is now pro-tranny and for excluding feminist voices who, like J.K. Rowling, insists that men with wigs are not women? If Liberalism Inc. is about 'inclusion', how come it ignores Muslim views on globo-homo and 'gay marriage'? How come it insists upon ALL groups 'including' the globo-homo curriculum while ignoring the mostly anti-homo views and values of most cultures? Compulsory 'inclusion' of globo-homo agenda and 'exclusion' of critics of various cultures.
If US under Liberalism is really about INCLUSION UBER EXCLUSION, then the principle would apply generally to all facets of life and discourse. But not only are Palestinian voices excluded from the official debate but anyone who dissents is shut out as well. Whether white, black, brown, or yellow, you will be sidelined if you dare to support BDS.
Jewish Power compels Democrats and Republicans to EXCLUDE Palestinian concerns and pro-Palestinian sympathies. And both sides comply totally. If EXCLUSION is 'conservative', then US is surely ultra-conservative and ultra-right-wing on the issue of BDS and Palestinian justice.
From a historical viewpoint, it's problematic to push the traditionalist-conservative line in America given its history. After all, the US was created by forcing red savage natives to INCLUDE white conquerors and settlers in the New World. It was an offer the reds couldn't refuse. Also, it was whites who, from the very beginning, imported hundreds of thousands of black jungle savages into America and then encouraged them to have lots of kids because each new child was a valuable slave. Given that whites forcibly INCLUDED all these blacks in the colonies and that US was founded on principles of liberty and equal rights, for how long could blacks be kept as slaves and denied equal footing under the law?
Besides, given that US defined itself as a revolutionary and future-driven civilization in contrast to traditional Europe that, even until World War I, was largely dominated by kings and noblemen, of course the American meaning of conservatism was going to differ from the European kind. In Europe, it meant preservation of the power of kings, noblemen, clergy, and etc. In the US, 'conservatism' came to mean the preservation of the very engines of liberty, equality, progress, and development. We see this in the Western movie, often considered a conservative genre. But, what do Western heroes do? They defeat Indians and/or outlaws to tame the wilderness and open it to progress and development.
Also, once Anglos conquered the vast territories, they simply didn't have enough people for rapid development to exploit the resources. This meant Anglos had to 'include' non-Anglo Europeans from Southern and Eastern Europe, the kind of backward whites that Anglos and Germanics generally frowned upon. And Japanese were brought to Hawaiian sugar cane plantations and Chinese were put to work on railroad tracks.
Of course, there were varying degrees of resistance to mass immigration from the settled Americans. Many Anglos had anxieties about drunken Irish Papists who cussed and fought too much. The Anglos and Irish were often repulsed by Polacks(for being dumb) and Italians(for being greasy). During World War I, Anglos were paranoid about German-Americans who came under suspicion followed by persecution and were pressured to 'assimilate' fully into Anglo-American culture. (Craven German-Americans caved even though it was the treacherous Anglo World that waged war on Germany.) White Americans opposed mass Chinese immigration. And even though blacks were here before the arrival of immigrant-Americans, they were excluded from much of American Life, giving the lie to the professed principles of Americanism. But, because US was both a race-ist expansion of European civilization and an economic powerhouse obsessed with growth & expansion, there were increasing tensions between stronger identity and more industry. But then, could United States have secured its position in the world without industrial growth that relied increasingly on mass immigration in the late 19th century?
Historian Stephen Prothero wrote back in 2016 that “conservatives almost always lose, because they lash themselves to lost causes.”
Conservatives are bound to lose in a civilization committed to progress. Also, in any healthy forward-moving civilization, conservatism has to lose in the long run. (What was once new, in time, becomes the old and 'conservative', which then must be replaced by something newer and better, until it too becomes the old and 'conservative' to be replaced by yet more progress. The problem is what is often sold as 'progress' is anything but. So much of what carries the conceit of 'progress' is really a step backward or step into insanity. Also, American
Conservatism has a point in preserving the very engine of progress. It's like conserving the goose that lays the golden egg. Don't fix it if it's not broken. Problem is so many attempts to 'fix' the system only makes it worse, like the Great Society programs. On the other hand, no system is perfect and can always be improved.) Until the rise of the Western Ideal of progress, conservatism was the only game in town for the world. Ancient Egypt was ultra-conservative. China and India reached certain milestones and then hardly changed at all beyond what they deemed to be their zenith of power and achievement. Byzantine and Persian Empires were super-conservative. Those civilizations held that all great truths and wisdoms had been realized/revealed and established, usually in some golden age in the past. Therefore, the duty of man was not to seek out new ideas and discoveries but to maintain Timeless Truths and Iron Laws. Even in Western Science, it was taken for granted for the longest time that Aristotle, the greatest genius of all time, had provided all the answers that were to be learned than challenged.
Such was the state of affairs for all of humanity. But something happened in Western Europe, especially following the Renaissance. It began in Northern Italy but gained increasing momentum in France, Britain, and Netherlands, later to be followed by Germany. It was the idea that mankind could be on the trajectory of ever new discoveries, findings, possibilities, and etc. It could be by adventure, technology, science, arts & creativity, philosophy, and political experimentation.
In other words, because mankind is limited in knowledge and ability, it'd be presumptuous to claim humanity has arrived at the final truth or prophecy, the ultimate answer. Instead, mankind is forever on the path of discovery and realization. According to the ideal of progress, the notion of timeless wisdom is a form of hubris. Even when mankind feels it has figured out the answer, there are more questions and riddles to be solved. The quest never ends.
Of course, conservatism also makes a claim of humility, i.e. it is in the reverence for God or respect for the ancient wisdom that they reject the perfectibility of man, the conceit of 'presentism', and the reckless Faustian impulse. In other words, the ultimate truth embraced by conservatism is not of man's pride but man's limitations before the ultimate power of God or the vast expanse of history. Thus, conservatism tends to suppress tendencies toward impatience, the urge to push the envelope, the temptation to eat from the Tree of Forbidden Knowledge or open the Pandora's Box.
But then, progressives could counter that their position is the one rooted in true humility because humanity, in any given moment in history, can only know so much, therefore, it must be followed by new studies, discoveries, and experiments in order for mankind to incrementally arrive at bigger truths. This is true enough in science and technology.
When the West met the East, the latter was so sure that it had amassed all the wisdom, knowledge, power, and wealth it could ever want or need. The ancient sages in the Golden Ages had long ago figured out the timeless truths; therefore, Chinese only needed to study and honor Confucius and ponder the Tao. As for Western gadgets and tools, sure they may be clever and interesting, but Chinese had more than they needed and had no use for foreign devil stuff. Chinese may have thought themselves full of humility before their ancestors and vaunted sages, but they were also full of hubris in thinking that China had reached a level of civilization where no further change was necessary, welcome, or useful.
In contrast, the West came to believe in ceaseless progress. It believed that there was more knowledge, better methods, and deeper understanding yet to be realized in the future. Therefore, they opted for more change and progress, indeed a matter of fierce competition among those vying to be the Great Powers. And the results were indeed spectacular. Consider the changes in science/technology between the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. And between World War I and World War II. Look at the computer revolution in the past few decades.
So, given the West's investment in progress, of course conservatism is bound to lose out. It's because a system committed to progress and change cannot sit still or believe with absolute certainty that what we have in the NOW is FOREVER. No, it believes something better is always possible, just out of reach. Therefore, it is the role of conservatism to lose.
Now, if conservatism is meant to lose, is it without value? Of course not. It's useful as a brake, a cautionary lever, a pausing mechanism. After all, everything needs to be paced accordingly. A marathon runner cannot be in speedy mode all the time; at times, he has to slow down. Cars come with brakes. Accelerator gets you to the destination, but the brake is essential in tight spots, uneven terrain, and dangerous areas, like around the cliff. Or if an animal or child runs into the middle of the road.
Because the Modern West has been committed to change & progress and because its pride and prestige came to rest so much on being ahead of the curve and inventing the future, conservatism is more an instrument(a pausing or slowing mechanism) than an ideal or goal.
Indeed, what set the West from the Rest? It was the rise of modernity, before which the West wasn't all that more advanced or dynamic than other parts of the world. In certain respects, Persia, China, and India(and even Arabia) were ahead of the West. But the coming of modernity catapulted the West way past the Rest. It was like a breaking-the-sound-barrier moment. The West somehow broke out of the cycle of history and hurtled from triumph to triumph. Even calamities like the Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II couldn't turn back the tide of progress. By traditional standards, the devastation of something like World War II would have taken centuries to recover from, but the West rose from the rubble and ashes in a matter of decades. Japan(as de facto part of the Modern West) also recovered rapidly after great losses in World War II. Modernity was awesomely productive and rejuvenating.
Given the West's invention of and commitment to modernity, it's only right that conservatism would give way to more progressive and dynamic forces represented by what is called liberalism. Yet, the history of radical leftism demonstrated the need for conservatism as a necessary counterbalance against the over-enthusiasm for change, or revolution.
The radical left was so fanatically committed to its utopian 'scientific' and 'justice'-driven formula that it adopted the end-justify-means mindset. Any amount of sacrifice in man and material was deemed justified on account of uniting earth and heaven. The result was communist tyranny that failed to create utopia. Do away with the slowing/pausing cautionary measures of conservatism, and radicals will run riot, harming not only conservatives but liberals and finally even themselves.
The favored formula has been Liberalism-as-accelerator, Conservatism-as-brake. Though liberalism and conservatives are often portrayed as opposites, they are best seen as a partnership, though an uneasy one. Some social orders have been more brake than accelerator and vice versa, but in either case, it's the reliance on both that have allowed for experimentation and caution. Just like the left side and right side of the brains must be in balance, the liberal impulse for release and conservative insistence on control must work together. Liberalism's adventurous side is fraught with danger. After all, taking chances means you can break and fall. In contrast, conservatism plays it safe and cautious, sticks to what is familiar and comforting. It has less chance of falling and breaking but faces a danger of its own in the long term: It can grow complacent, unimaginative, and static. Stasis can lead to stagnation. It was conservative Spain that fell beyond the relatively more dynamic France and more liberal Netherlands & Britain. On the other hand, excessive liberalism can lead to rootlessness that leads to deracination.
Of course, it needs to be pointed out that certain changes are more fundamental than others, therefore to be approached with far more caution and contemplation. For instance, change in fashion amounts to wearing different clothes. It doesn't change the essential you. In contrast, organ-transplant surgery can save you or fundamentally worsen your condition, even leading to death. Or, in the case of sex-change operation(aka gender-reassignment surgery), it turns you into a freak. Buying a new car is less fundamental than moving to a new home. Changing friends is less drastic than changing spouses. Throwing away your movie collection is less significant than abandoning your children.
Likewise, liberal experiments are far less problematic with certain matters. For instance, laws can be rewritten and economic policy can be reversed. Even terrible economic experiments may not fundamentally alter a civilization. Communism was very destructive in Russia and China, but both civilizations survived and re-emerged intact. In contrast, there is nothing more fundamental than demographic change. After all, whereas ideology is something in the mind, culture runs much deeper, possibly going back several centuries or even millennia. As for race, it the product of eons of evolution. The European race wasn't created in the mind but painstakingly brought into existence over tens of thousands of years in the ice ages of Europe. Thus, for the West to experiment by importing other races and pretending that everyone's interchangeable is an absolute folly. To replace a race with such deep roots in Europe with new peoples based on fashionable ideologies pushed by Jews is the height of craziness. Also, it is to fall for the biggest scam in history because Jews know Diversity is harmful to goy societies. Jews push it because they can play divide-and-rule over goyim and amass power for themselves. Notice Jews push Diversity on goy nations but do all they can to minimize it in Israel.
At any rate, there is another problem for conservatism in the modern world in its respect, even reverence, for authority. Historically, conservatism was about hierarchy and obedience to one's superiors, especially in East Asia. It was about dogma and tradition. In contrast, liberalism took shape as mode of thinking in favor of skepticism, individualism, and liberty. Liberalism was far more likely to question authority and examine dogma. Conservative nature craves certitude, order, structure, and routine/repetition. It is far more anxious about change, difference, novelty, and strangeness.
But here's the problem. The modern world is dominated by liberalism, therefore Liberal World Order is the authority, the power. So, even as conservatism may not agree with what liberalism has to offer, it is admiring of and even awed by the power and prestige of Liberalist Power. Given this servile and dogmatic side of conservatism, many conservatives end up serving the Liberal Power because it is the biggest show in town. It's not so much that conservatives are enamored of liberalism per se but that they are entranced by its power and glory.
And why would it be surprising that liberalism gains more power than conservatism? West shot past the Rest not by being as conservative than the Rest but by being more liberal, more open to change, novelty, innovation, experimentation, and series of revolutions in culture, attitude, fashion, values, economics, and etc. Just like the liberal bourgeoisie soon accumulated far more wealth than the conservative aristocracy, the liberalist tendency was more amenable to creating new systems of progress and productivity.
Of course, things often got confused because, especially during the Cold War that pitted the capitalist West vs the communist East, the term 'conservatism' was often used to describe the liberal democratic capitalist order in its great struggle against the radical leftist communist order. But, there were two reasons for liberal capitalism's opposition to communism. On the one hand, the latter was too extreme and revolutionary in its goal of egalitarianism and social justice by waging war on capital, private property, individual rights, and economic hierarchy. On the other hand, capitalism opposed communism for being, in more ways than one, overly conservative. After all, Karl Marx, though fully cognizant of capitalism's revolutionary powers to turn the world upside down, hoped for a more stable and orderly post-capitalist future where, under state-sanctioned equality, people would be able to live without the hellish upheavals of capitalism that accelerated history to an insane level. As years passed, many Western Liberals lost interest in communism not because it was too radical but because it proved to be too conservative, even nationalist and traditionalist in culture and values.
Despite the ideological rectitude of opposing woke nonsense, it’s essentially true that the issue is already a lost cause. The appropriate time to suffocate the rise of wokeness was years ago, when it was still in its infancy as a niche of left-wing academic nomenclature... conservatives offered tepid opposition to the eruption of transsexualism into public life, especially in the ridiculous use of pronouns... and so on, they were at a loss to offer a meaningful challenge because of concessions already made on homosexuals... And on the homosexuals, conservatives were incapable of serious opposition because of concessions they’d already made around abortion, marriage, and the family, which had in turn created a childless, promiscuous sexual culture more tolerant of the sexually deviant.
Not necessarily true. One thing doesn't necessarily lead to another. Also, certain cultural trends were a matter of socio-economic changes beyond the power of ideology. Classic leftism and Old School communists opposed and even denounced stuff like jazz, rock music, youth culture, consumer culture, materialism, and etc. But they, like the social conservatives and church authority, were powerless to stop it. The Old Left despaired of the emergence of the New Left, what Jean-Luc Godard called the 'generation of Marx and Coca-Cola'. The Left couldn't stop Rock n Roll, Beatles, and Stones. So, what could conservatives do about it? Post-war capitalist affluence meant bigger houses, more freedom, more liberty for young ones, more hedonism, more fun-fun-fun. Drugs like pot and stronger stuff were criminalized in the Sixties, but changes couldn't be reversed and the culture got more libertine.
Some communist nations had abortion and even promoted it. Nominally, communist nations were feminist and into equality between men and women. But they didn't end up like capitalist nations. The Cultural Revolution in China was hellish and destructive. It was a massive blow against the Old Order, but the end result was very different from social revolutions in the West. If anything, society got more spartan, disciplined, and rigid, not more libertine and loose, in China.
Also, the conservative failure to oppose stuff like the homo agenda was partly due to conservative psychology. Again, conservatives believe in hierarchy. They are more likely to admire success, wealth, and power. Well, guess what? Homos were more tireless in careerist ambitions to gain success and seek favors with the rich and powerful. So, even rich and powerful conservative men came to be surrounded by homo toadies who proved to be so loyal and attendant. And plenty of servile conservatives began to notice that many of the most intelligent, creative, and connected people were homos in high places. Of course, conservatism can be moralist and/or populist than elitist and servile, but it's usually the latter kind that climbs up the ladder as power is about kissing ass to be let into the club.
But the biggest reason was the Protected-Pipsqueak Factor. Jews are the most powerful group in the US and put out the message that homos are their favorite allies. Thus, homos became untouchable. Imagine you're in attendance at an aristocratic court. Some dog keeps coming near to snap at you and to piss on you. So, you kick it away as a nuisance. And most people at the gathering would be on your side. But suppose the dog happens to be the favorite pet of a powerful prince at the gathering. Then it's a very a sensitive matter to just kick it away lest the prince take offense. Thus, the ill-behaved dog is a Protected Pipsqueak and has 'power' beyond itself in association to the prince.
Now, while it's true that homos have long constituted a disproportionately influential and privileged group(even while in the closet), they on their own couldn't have pushed the agenda that upended the values of the Western World. On their own, they were too pipsqueakish to take over. They needed the favors, backing, and support of a far more powerful group, and of course, it was the Jews.
Already, Jews had become immensely powerful and used their control of academia, media, and whore politicians to override Free Speech and turn 'antisemitism' into a taboo. Jews became not only excessively rich but almost godlike. So, whatever Jews favored and supported got special protection and promotion. There was a time when homos were objects of ridicule even among liberals. In the suburbs were I attended grammar school, the mostly Democratic Jewish kids were always saying "It's so gay" about everything, and making fun of homos was a favorite sport. The term 'fag' was liberally used in popular culture in the 80s, even among Liberals and of course blacks.
So, what happened? Jews, as the most powerful group, decided to switch from Free Speech and Civil Liberties to Political Correctness and Speech Codes. And almost overnight, tell-tale signs were in place that it would soon go from 'gay rights' to Gay Rites, but it didn't happen overnight but in carefully planned stages.
Even in the 1990s, Clinton pushed for laws that defined marriage as only between man and woman with overwhelming support from both parties, but it really feint to buy time. Jews were preparing the grounds for massive changes. With every passing year, homos went from figures of sympathy to figures of sacredness. The AIDS crisis was exploited to present homos not as irresponsible sexual perverts but something akin to Holocaust victims. HIV = Homocaust. Rush Limbaugh used to make fun of homos all the time, but he soon read the tea leaves and knew he had to change course. Jews control the media, and his radio spot wouldn't be so lucrative if he kept mocking homos. The advertisers might leave and then he might even be dropped from talk radio. It didn't matter how big he was. (By 2020, Jewish Power used Big Tech to deplatform Trump, the president of the US.)
While it's true that liberals were more tolerant of homos, they didn't think very highly of homos either. Liberals were opposed to "God Hates Fags" sentiments and calling homos 'sodomites', but they didn't believe homos were anything special. But then, Jews used media to present homos as better, cleaner, more dignified, more conscientious, more capable, more everything. In time, homos were sacralized as especially tragic victims of 'homophobia'. So, Liberals who used to tolerate homos came to fetishize them. They were vulnerable in this regard because liberalism, in ostensibly being anti-religious and secular, craves for something spiritual and holy. Then, it's no wonder that liberal-types are especially open to embracing new gods and new fashions in flakey new age stuff. Now, which group has the power to invent and market new gods? Jews. And just like that, so many liberals came to not only revere homos but to regard LGBTQ as litmus test of who's on the side of angels and who's with the devil. So, stuff like 'love equals love' and 'marriage equality' became the new catechisms, the new sacraments.
Now, given the absurdity of this all, why were conservatives unwilling to fire back? One reason is many conservatives are materialist and hedonistic, hardly grounded in old time values or morality. But the main factor was that, once the word was out that homos are the best buddies of Jews, conservatives got cold feet about opposing the homo agenda. Homos had the advantage of the Protected Pipsqueak Factor. They were not to be touched as the #1 pets of Jews. So, it wasn't long before conservatives too accepted the term 'homophobe', and, instead of arguing "there is no such thing as homophobia", they were professing, "I am not a homophobe." And in time, 'homophobe' went from someone who made funny jokes about homos to anyone who said 'gay marriage' is wrong or that homo fecal-penetration is objectively gross and unhealthy.
Even though globo-homo stuff is hardly conservative, the conservative concession follows a certain structuralist logic. Again, a facet of conservatism is about servility to power, obedience to authority, and admiration of privilege. Then, it's only natural that conservatives would become so servile at the feet of Jews as the ultimate winners and overlords of the New West. In a way, it was a replay of what happened to the Pagan West. Roman Empire decided at some point that some dead Jewish heretic named Jesus is the Son of God, and all of a sudden, pagan Rome turned into Christian Rome. How could the once proud pagan Romans come to worship as the ultimate God some Jewish heretic killed haplessly by ragtag Jews and mighty Romans? Because the Emperor said so, and given most people are sheeple, they just went along. Even when great revolutions happen — the rise of Christianity or the Bolshevik takeover — , the conservative nature tends to cave to the new boss. If one thinks about it, Christianity is hardly a conservative religion. It freaked out conservative Jews, and Jesus preached a very radical message. And yet, once it was made the official faith of the empire, most people caved to it sooner than later, and it became the new official or 'conservative' doctrine. Likewise, Marxism-Leninism went from radicalism to the new conservatism in the Soviet Union. Over time, many Russians took to it as the new dogma, new stability, and established order that had arrived at the end of history.
The globo-homo thing cannot be understood apart from the power of idolatry. It wasn't ideology alone that pushed it over the top. After all, ideology is about ideas and can be debated. In order to shut down further debate, Jewish Power idolatrized homosexuality to the point where it was no longer a matter of debate but of faith. If you accepted the 'rainbow' faith of holy homos, you were with the angels. If you rejected the faith, you were a 'homophobe', a demon. But then, the same thing had already happened in regard to Jewish Power. Jews used the Holocaust to sacralize themselves into a holy people. So, one could either accept the Holocaust Faith and worship Jews as an eternally holy people OR be cast out as satanic 'neo-nazis' or 'Anti-Semites'. Notice Jews will not allow any debate on Jewish power and privilege. Jews will shut down anyone who waves the BDS flag or questions the crimes of Zionism.
The sacralization of Jews and homos(and blacks of course) is NOT liberal. True liberalism is about open debate, civil liberties, free speech, skepticism, and controversy. True liberalism was on display when the West stood with Salman Rushdie against the Iranian fatwa on him. True liberalism defends the right to read MEIN KAMPF and to burn the US flag as protest.
In contrast, the sacralization of Jews and homos is neo-religious, neo-dogmatic. It is a perversion of both liberalism and conservatism. It perverts liberalism because it goes from discussion of rights to enforcement of Rites. True Liberalism argues Jews and homos should have equal protection under the law. But Jews exploited the sympathy for minorities(persecuted in the past) to enforce reverence for them. So, just because Jews experienced 'antisemitism', we must shut up about their power, abuses, and failings. There goes free speech. And because homos were once hidden in the 'closet', we must shut up about homo degeneracy and neurosis because such would be demonically 'homophobic'. Such censoriousness is anti-liberal even as it plays on liberal sympathies for minorities.
In consecrating Jews and homos as eternal holies, a kind of conservatism is employed. It's about creating a new hierarchy of what's holy and unholy. Conservatives love hierarchy, and homos play on the game of high and low. Consider how conservatives love to praise and pledge allegiance to holy and powerful Jews while spitting on Palestinians as a bunch of lowlife losers. And so many conservatives are now professing to love homos because their hierarchical nature sucks up to the powerful, rich, and authoritative.
But this isn't real conservatism but a sham perversion because Jews have elevated what is human to divine status. Jews may be a special people but they are not gods. As for homos, it's one thing to tolerate the gross acts they indulge in but to elevate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting to the point of rapture and redemption? Sickening.
Endlessly distracted by new salvoes from the Left, conservatives always arrive too late to the fight, and they combine this with a particularly perverse kind of amnesia on prior defeats. The fundamental strategic difference between Left and Right is that the Left is aware that it is weaving a cultural tapestry, linking one threadlike advance to the next in an endless but coherent chain of social change, while the Right is engaged in political whack-a-mole, seeing everything it disagrees with as an isolated trend or event that can be defeated on its own terms or least milked for votes in the promise of such.
Speaking of amnesia, hasn't the Left lost as much as the Right has? What happened to communism? Or class conflict? Or labor unions? How far did Bernie Sanders get? Is the so-called Squad winning any favors by calling out on Israel's unequal treatment of Palestinians? How is it going with BDS? During the Covid 'pandemic', the superrich got superricher. So, just how is the Left winning?
Indeed, the very fact that the so-called 'left' is into silly stuff like gender pronouns is proof that the True Left is deader than dead. If the True Left dominated America, its preferred ideological game would be to require everyone to state his income and wealth. So, instead of people stating their gender pronouns, they would revealing how much money they're making and how much they got in stocks and banks. Wouldn't it be more threatening to power that way? Imagine a 'woke' nobody saying he makes minimum wage at Starbucks and has $50,000 in student debt while some Jewish start-up tech geek says he rakes in $10 million a year and has a net worth of $100 million. Now, that would make people more conscious of power and wealth differences. But if the 'woke' dummy says "I'm a bi-sexual" while the tech geek says, "I'm cis-gender though, of late, feeling a bit pan-sexual", it's all a silly game and no one comes off realizing the true character of power and privilege.
The fact that the so-called 'left' has been reduced to such trivial pursuits is sure sign that true leftism is dead. If leftism is so alive, why are the rich getting richer without any opposition? Why are Jews, the most powerful and richest people in the world, getting ever richer and more powerful, again with virtually no pushback? I thought leftism is about equality and leveling the playing field. Where is that in the current order? Middle Class gets squeezed while the oligarchs grow richer in places like LA and San Fran. Yet, the 'left' is mostly into pink hair, 'muh tattoo', celebration of trannies and fatsos.
Also, keep in mind that the so-called Right pushed for 'free trade', deregulation of Wall Street, lionization of capitalist oligarchs, libertarian worship of the rich, and reverence for authority and institutions of power, like the FBI and CIA. All those were 'rightist' pet causes. Today, the so-called 'left' is totally in cahoots with big money, big power, and the deep state. In other words, the Democrats, especially beginning with Bill Clinton, betrayed all the classic leftist agendas and adopted Republican ones. Not for nothing was Bill Clinton called the 'most conservative' president in modern times. On those grounds, one could argue that the Right won because the so-called 'left' adopted most of the GOP platform.
The link between gay marriage and the sudden rise of transsexualism to public prominence is an excellent example of the Right’s addiction to last-minute grandstanding on battles that have already been lost.
Stuff like 'gay marriage' and tranny nuttery are certainly not rightist, but they are not leftist either. They are power-games of ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacism. The utmost power in the US is Jewish. If rightism is about tribalism, then the US is, at its core, ultra-rightist because Jewish Supremacism is the puppet master.
Why do ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacists employ 'leftist' tropes? Because Jewish ultra-rightists see goy rightism as a rival and seek to undermine the rightism of all their perceived 'enemies'. But it's also because Jews fear real leftism. Real Leftism, in the name of equality and fairness, would call out Jews as the biggest capitalists, main imperialists, and top racial supremacists. Karl Marx did just that. He discussed Jews and capital. Jewish Power fears true leftism.
So, Jews hide behind a sham bogus 'leftism' to kill two birds with one stone. Jews use it to destroy goy rightism but also to sideline true leftism. By waving stuff like 'globo-homo' and BLM as 'leftism'(when they are not), Jews fire up all the wanna-be-progressive suckers who can't think on their own to forge a meaningful cogent leftism. Most people are minion-minded and rely on others to do the thinking for them. By pushing faux leftism, true leftist concerns about class inequality and Jewish tyranny over Palestinians get sidelined. Because so many people fall for the BS and take up this faux leftism as their battle cry, they are fired up against goy rightists. This way, goy right is weakened and the true left is marginalized. And that means ultra-right Jewish Supremacism grows ever stronger.
It's all about Jewish Power. Take 'exclusion' vs 'inclusion'. If the argument is that conservatives are so weak and lack the balls to enforce 'exclusion', how come they're barking mad in their total support of Zionist policy of excluding Arabs and ONLY ALLOWING JEWISH IMMIGRATION to Israel? If indeed the Right(which is about exclusion) hasn't the guts to say NO to the Left(which is about inclusion), then why is the Right so aggressive and insistent on Israel's right to protect its borders and keep out Palestinians who demand right-of-return?
You see, it's not about ideology. It's about idolatry. After all, the American so-called 'left' also supports the exclusionary policies of Israel. The Right can't oppose Inclusion in the US but can for Israel. The Left can say no to Exclusion in the US but can't for Israel. Funny how that works. The so-called Right caves to Inclusion when it comes to the US, and the so-called Left caves to Exclusion when it comes to Israel. There's no real ideology here. It's about Jewish Power as the top gangster in the US, and so, both parties more or less suck up to Jews and do their supremacist bidding.
American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism is undoubtedly connected in some form to the peculiar trajectory and position of American Christianity, or rather, varieties of American Post-Protestantism.
The problem with individualism is atomization, but the real problem with the white race, 'conservative' or 'liberal', is that they are woefully lacking in individualist impulses and agency. The Covid hysteria amply exposed the Myth of White Individuality. True, the White West produced many great individuals, many more than any other civilization. But it was misleading to conflate the notable individuality of certain key figures with the general population. Most white people were conformists, human cattle or dogs or schools of fish. A bunch of church ladies, bleacher bums, mindless fans, or insipid cultists.
Indeed, conservatism wouldn't be in this mess IF individualism really mattered among those on the Right. Many more individuals would have been bolder in stating their views and standing their grounds. But instead, we so often see herd mentality, conformism, and fear of disapproval. Indeed, even most so-called libertarians are weak individualists. Their idea of individualism mainly comes in two flavors: Let me use whatever drugs I want so I can escape reality OR I worship the rich and powerful as the most awesome people on earth who deserve to do whatever they wish, even gaining monopoly power and abusing it to shut out entire peoples.
Just like a healthy social order needs both liberalism and conservatism, a strong sense of community must be built on strong sense of individuality. We mustn't see individuality and community as opposites. Rather, we must regard strong individuality as ideal building blocks for a strong community. Indeed, even a strong-seeming community can crumble without a network of strong individualities. A hard shell filled with iron pellets is sounder than a hard shell filled with Styrofoam pellets. The former is tough on the outside and inside whereas the latter is tough only on the outside.
If the community is based on conformism and obedience(or weak individuality), all you need to do is change the elites and the masses will follow. Jews as a people and community survived for so long against great odds because their community is built on strong individuality. Even when Jews are dispersed and broken in community, each Jew is likely to be stronger in his individual will and conviction. Thus, he is less likely to yield to the larger goy community and instead bide for time to regroup with fellow Jews to rebuild the community. In contrast, Germans have lacked strong individuality. So, when National Socialism came to power, they were totally under its spell. But when it collapsed, those in East Germany became loyal servants to communism while those in West Germany became cucks to 'muh democracy'. And German-Americans caved to Anglo-America during World War I even though it didn't do anything wrong.
American religion has long been preoccupied with the idea of a God who loves the individual, and the salvation of the American Christian, especially the Protestant, does not arrive communally via the congregation but via direct confrontation with a very personal Jesus.
But Christianity in its original incarnation is an individualist faith. Jesus was a Jew with great individual will to break free of the Tribe. He did it His way. Also, He believed that each person must struggle within himself to be cleansed of sinfulness to gain entry into Heaven. You can't be saved simply by belonging to a tribe or carrying out rituals. You must cleanse your own soul as an individual. And no one can do it for you. YOU must do it yourself. In this sense, Protestantism is closer to the original spirit of Jesus's example and message. The real problem is few Protestants have anything like individual souls. Notice all those Evangelicals who never question the mindless support of Israel that puts on massive homo parades and stomps on Palestinian Christians. The real problem with Christianity is it makes hypocrites of its believers because it's teachings are too lofty and impossible to live up to. How many can 'turn the other cheek' or give away all of one's wealth to the poor and live in noble poverty?
Related to the ideological insistence on the individual is the conservative commitment to the fundamental principle of inclusion — a bias that taints all conservative political activity. In an interesting Newsweek piece titled “Why Conservatives Keep Losing the Culture Wars,” ... conservatives are inherently incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of introducing exclusionary policies, and their reluctance to even debate or discuss even the potential of such policies keeps the option of exclusion from the public eye; thus ensuring certain defeat in any culture war.
This goes to show how terminology affects the way we think. After all, 'inclusion' can be a euphemism for invasion. Spanish Conquistadors could say they didn't invade South America. They just ensured that they would be 'included' in the New World. Or, African invader-migrants and white cuck-collaborators can pretend that White Nakba(or Great Replacement) isn't about invasion but about 'inclusion'. Though 'inclusion' can mean lots of things, positive and negative, it is often used to sweeten the sting of invasion. So, early Zionist immigrants pretended they were just being 'included' into Palestinian society when their ultimate goal was to carry out Nakba pogroms and replace the native Arab inhabitants. For this reason, we need to counter with the slogan 'Inclusion Is Invasion'.
Of course, 'inclusion' does have a nicer ring than 'exclusion'. It sounds more open, generous, and kindly whereas 'exclusion' implies fear, anxiety, and stinginess. And it is true enough that a society should be inclusive in certain regards. The old aristocracy excluded the masses from possessing what are now considered basic human rights. At the outset of the American Republic, only 20% of white men could vote while the rest were excluded. It was only with Andrew Jackson that US became something like a 'democracy'.
In an ethno-state, inclusion would essentially be a good thing. It would mean all the people of the nation would be treated as members of a large family and included in power, discussion, and formation of policy. But under globalism, 'inclusion' has dark connotations because it suggests the West(and the developed world in general) should include masses of foreigners as New Nationals, which can only lead to Neo-Nakba scenarios where whites end up like Palestinians.
Nationalists should welcome intra-inclusion while rejecting inter-inclusion. Include all those within the national family but exclude the masses of other nations, but also be sure to respect the rights of other nations to decide their own character and destiny.
The problem of recent history has been that Western Imperialism and then Western Globalism stuck their noses into every corner of the world militarily, financially, culturally, and even demographically(look how whites utterly changed the landscape of the New World). In other words, modern Western History is about white people forcing all the world to 'include' white invasion, white interference, white exploitation, and etc. Blacks didn't sail to the New World. White people brought millions of blacks to North/South America and West Indies. Blacks didn't ask to be 'included' in the Western Imperialist enterprise. Whites insisted that blacks be 'included'(as slaves). Britain insisted that its enterprises be 'included' in China.
Sir Oswald Moseley may have rebuked British economic policy of the 20th century, but British pride and glory were inseparable from its imperial exploits of having forced much of the world to 'include' British intervention. I suspect part of the reason why UK, France, and Holland are so into multi-culti stuff is due to their imperial legacy. Having lost their empires, they've sought to restore imperial semblances within their own nations. So, make UK look like a mini-version of the British Empire. But then, given Sweden is into the same madness, maybe it owes more to Americanization of European ideology or Jewish influence to subvert white identity so as to gain control over whites via 'white guilt', diversity-fetish, 'muh restaurant', and jungle fever.
Another aspect to the politics of 'inclusion' is subtler in its speciousness bordering on venality. It is really to mask the fact that the current elites practice their own form of exclusion but justify it on account of 'inclusion' and 'diversity'. After all, Jews and most white cuck elites feel ZERO sympathy for the white hoi polloi. They love their own wealth, status, and privilege. They don't care one iota about all the dead working class from opioids. Like Charles Murray said in COMING APART, the rich part of White America constitutes a world of its own and has the most hostile and exclusionary attitude toward white lower elements, aka MAGA folks. Of course, these elites also exclude poor browns, lower income blacks, and the rest. They are snotty, vain, and oh-so-precious in their attitude. They believe they are 'more evolved' and, in a way, the globo-homo stuff caught like wildfire among the elites precisely because homos are so terribly elitist, fancy-pants, hoity-toity, narcissistic, and neo-aristo. By celebrating globo-homo, the elites could have the cake and eat it too. As it was labeled as 'leftist', they could flatter themselves as 'progressive'. All the while, they could bask in the undeniable whiteness and privileged character of globo-homo, mainly funded by super-rich Jews and enforced by well-placed Zio-Commissars in media and law firms.
But these vain stuck-up elitists also use the 'diversity' card and Negrolatry to lord over the white hoi polloi. They regard themselves as so 'tolerant' and 'anti-racist', unlike all those 'white trash' and especially the 'rednecks' in the South. And such attitude has a long pedigree. Consider the novel UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. It was unsurprisingly written by a Northern woman with no direct knowledge of the reality in the South. And this tradition carries on today with Stephen King who spent most of his life in whitopia where he could cook up Magic Negroes of his dreams. It's a kind of paradox. White 'anti-racism' or 'inclusionary' attitude toward blacks is usually inversely proportional to direct white experience of blackness. Generally, two kinds of whites are most pro-black: Those who are safely distanced from black thuggery & pathologies and those who are at the center of them. People like Stephen King in their affluent whitopias can dream of magical blacks full of folksy wisdom, and whites who are stuck in black gangsta paradise have no means of survival but as 'whiggers'. Whigger white males ape black males, and whigger white females accept ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. They talk and act like biatches and produce mulattos from between their legs, often fathered by various black men. Whigger mentality is kind of like Stockholm Syndrome. If the likes of Stephen King are the way they are due to naivete and lack of contact with reality, the whiggers are that way due to too much reality, one from which they can't escape because (1) they are too low IQ, like many 'white trash' elements left behind in Baltimore and (2) white society as a whole has given up on white solidarity. In the past, even affluent and middle class whites believed they should maintain some semblance of united identity and solidarity with poor whites(like the Joad Family in THE GRAPES OF WRATH). Today, only Jews among whites are allowed to maintain racial-tribal sense of solidarity. Indeed, rich Jews are praised for caring for poor Jews or vulnerable Jews in West Bank. But any rich white guy who expresses concern for poor whites is slammed as a 'racist'. It's noteworthy that Donald Trump's populism was fired by the sense among the white hoi polloi that here finally was a white leader who cared for white masses. But even if Trump personally felt that way(which is dubious), he mostly muttered about how he created more jobs for blacks and nonwhites(and of course how he went out of his way to suck Zionist manhood).
Rich whites in 'blue' suburbs can weep and groan about 'saintly' George Floyd because they live in security and prosperity. They can fantasize about or even indulge in washing Negro feet because their asses aren't kicked by it. The only reality they know is the safety of whitopia, which might have some nice well-heeled token Negroes, further lending the impression that Negroes are nice — the socio-economic class filter tends to elevate the better Negroes up the ladder, which means rich whites deal with the likes of Barry Obama than with the likes of Mike Tyson.
Their other 'reality' comes by the way of highly biased and selective Jewish-dominated academia and media that, to this day, go on and on about Emmett Till and MLK, as if the US is caught in some groundhog day of recurring Civil Rights Movement when, if anything, it has changed so much since then. Harking back to Emmett Till is like Christians, even with supreme power and tyrannical rule over others, re-enacting the death of Jesus and stories of Early Christians fed to lions. The legacy of Christian Sanctimony that eternalizes nobility of a moment in time has had a most pernicious impact on history.
Of course, despite all the bias and censorship, some truth does leak out to privileged and well-sheltered whites about black crime and thuggery. But, two factors prevent white elites from facing the music. One is fear. As they fear being called 'racist' and fear black rage(as blacks get awful aggressive, demanding, and violent real easily), they would rather pretend that blacks are still a victim race in need of white sympathy and assistance. They hide their white cowardice with postures of white magnanimity. Another factor is the power of narrative that contextualizes raw reality. So, even if white elites do become aware of black thuggery and violence, they contextualize them as black rage/resistance against 'systemic racism' or 'history of discrimination'. (Besides, the usual victims of black rage are lower income whites and immigrants, not rich whites.)
But seriously, if blacks were smaller and weaker than whites, would this problem even exist? Isn't black thuggery more the product of evolution than slavery? How serious would the black problem be if whites had brought over only Pygmies than big tough Negroes from Nigeria? But then, the American South also deserves blame as it was incapable of speaking honestly about blacks. The South should have said racial equality is impossible with blacks because they are tougher and more aggressive. Social equality would only lead to black biological thug-supremacy over whites. Not only would black males beat up white guys but use their bigger dongs to turn white women onto jungle fever and colonize white wombs. Imagine how US history could have been different if Woodrow Wilson had spoken along these lines, especially as an admirer of D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION that warned the white race along those lines(and proved to be prophetic). Or imagine how things could have been different if Southern States had come to an understanding with the race-ist Abraham Lincoln who wanted blacks out of the US. Lincoln and Southern States could have agreed to a program of gradually ending slavery and shipping blacks back to Africa or some place in South America. But nope, the Southerners insisted on keeping their dreaded institution that relied so heavily on blacks.
Recently, some snobby bitch at Davos conference said the elites of the world are in mutual agreement and understanding. The problem is the national masses are increasingly hostile to these elites. (This is hardly surprising as most globalist elites are shills of the Lone Superpower, the US, which is dominated by Jews. In the US, its satellites, and its puppets, individuals with traits for consensus, conformism, obedience, and opportunism are favored up the ladder. As they're mostly career-oriented, their priority is to serve the global hegemon than represent the particular demands of their own national folks. No wonder the elites the world over care more about globo-homo and BLM than about their own peoples and their problems. The more globalism advances, the more the elites prioritize appeasing the the world hegemon than serving their own people who increasingly seem 'provincial' and 'atavistic' for those accustomed to their globe-trotting privileges.) And I'm sure that the elites believe they are indeed for 'diversity' and 'inclusion' because their ranks are open to different races. If in the past the European Empires were ruled mostly by Europeans, today the elite positions in institutions and industries are open to blacks/Africans, Hindus, Chinese/East Asians, Arabs/Muslims, Latin Americans of all stripes, and etc. Yet, even if elite realms are racially and culturally more 'inclusive', they are more exclusive than ever in class terms(except when it comes to blacks who benefit from affirmative action, but then, AA policies also favor rich blacks from privileged backgrounds over talented & industrious whites from lower classes).
In a way, this emphasis on racial diversity is to serve as moral cover for class exclusion. Increasingly, the modern world is divided between haves and have-nots. With each passing year, the upper classes get richer while the middle class shrinks and the poor are sinking into the abyss. So, how does the rich class justify its power and privilege? It points to nonwhites among its ranks and says, "We are so inclusive while those white hoi polloi are Sooooo Very Raaaaaacist by calling for xenophobic border security and complaining about black crime." Of course, it's a matter of perspective. For white elites, more nonwhite immigrants mean more peons and cheap hirelings, whereas masses of newcomers mean more competition for the white masses(and blacks as well, though blacks haven't even been trying to compete). For super-rich Jews especially and the likes of Bill Gates, all those Hindu professionals mean cheaper high-tech labor. For white middle class, they mean more competition.
But then, as the white middle class folks are educated in Jewish-controlled academia and get their 'reality' from Jewish-controlled media(and as they are so anxious for status approval), many of them also fall for the dominant narrative, as do the dog-like yellows.
UK is a perfect illustration of the use of racial diversity by the elites to rob the masses of moral advantage. In the distant past, British elites used class politics to feel superior to the masses. Supposedly, the upper castes/classes were superior in intelligence, culture, manners, and the like. And the lower classes existed to serve their superiors, and to attain middle class respectability, they had to learn manners by emulating social superiors. But the industrial revolution radicalized many working folks, and there was also the influence of socialism. So, the moral advantage moved to the Left and the Labour Party that championed the white working class as the productive backbone of society. It was in this period that the upper classes were up against the ropes by Working Class politics that gained the moral advantage.
So, how could the upper classes regain their sense of superiority over the working classes? How about turning Leftist Politics from one of class to one of race? Instead of upper classes exploiting and excluding the lower classes, the new narrative would focus on whites exploiting and excluding nonwhites? If the upper classes pushed for mass immigration of nonwhites and coddled them in the name of 'diversity', they would win plaudits in the new order where 'racist' became a worse slur than 'bourgeois'. And if the white working class objected to mass immigration, they could be accused not only of 'racism' but 'xenophobia' and insufficient enthusiasm for the magic of 'diversity'. As 'inclusion' became part of the mantra, those opposed to mass immigration could be vilified as 'exclusionary'. Of course, the elites were less alarmed by mass immigration because they would lord over both the white masses and the newcomers. What about nonwhites gaining elite status and competing with white elites? Well, most of them are too dumb to compete with whites, and even those who did join could enter ONLY BY pledging allegiance to elitist cults like globo-homo. Of course, in the long-long run, white elites could end up in bad straits like the rest of the white population. But they don't think in the long term. They are incapable as their minds are essentially 'fashional'.
But then, white elites feel this way because they've been defanged of awesome race-ism, and this owed largely to Jews. The biggest beneficiaries of the New World Order are Jews. Jews want white elites to serve Jews. If white elites were inclusive toward the white masses, it would lead to white solidarity that excludes non-white competitors and would-be-usurpers. White class inclusion leads to white racial exclusion. This was true even during the New Deal in the US, which was like a milder version of National Socialism. FDR may have been a leftist-leaning Democrat with a soft spot for Stalin, but he got overwhelming support from the white working class and southern agrarian folks because his message and policies appealed to them and 'included' them. Also, his policies favored working men in order to bolster the family.
This is why Jews pushed libertarianism from the 'right' and 'anti-racism' from the left. It was to convince whites to think only as individuals and/or to regard white racial consciousness/solidarity as a grave 'racist' sin. Jews persuaded white elites to open their hearts to all the world, thereby severing the ties between white elite and white masses. But if whites welcomed all the world, would they not become hostile to Jews? After all, much of the world is either indifferent or hostile to Jewry. Muslims and Arabs certainly don't care for Jews due to Zionism. But Jews knew that the demise of white 'racism' via Diversity would lead to whites sucking up to Jews. Why? Diversity has too many faces and voices. There's no way white elites could lend an equally sympathetic ear to all sides. In essence, elites are focused on power and privilege. So, once white elites were disconnected from the white masses, they would naturally look to work with whomever that happened to have the most money, power, connections, and influence. Yes, the Jews. When white elites stopped worrying about the white working class, they weren't going to care about brown peons or Muslim hordes except in milquetoast rhetoric about the wonders of 'diversity'. No, they were going to be mainly focused on serving their own class prerogatives, and that meant sealing a deal with Jews, the richest and most powerful people on the planet.
Then, it's no wonder that the white elites seem so schizo in their outlook. They denounce 'tribalism' and 'racism', but they are fully in support of Jewish tribalism and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. White elites profess to care about all peoples equally but turn a blind eye to all the victims of Zionist-led wars in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and etc. They don't care about the impact of sanctions on Iran.
Conservatism has drunk as heavily from the well of hostile “inclusive” propaganda as any other entity within contemporary politics, with the result that it can’t comprehend the existence of any enemy that is not in some way “Nazi” or “fascist.” Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative.
This is especially amusing as Zionism has many similarities with Fascism and National Socialism. Even though Israel is ostensibly a 'liberal democracy', its core foundation is racial, cultural, and historical, i.e. it is a fascist democracy meant to serve the interests of a certain tribe. It's about democracy serving Jews than Jews serving democracy(with implications that anyone can be a 'Jew' or 'Israeli'). Of course, the reason why Jews denounce fascism is like their reason for attacking nationalism. Jews want it only for themselves, just like the British Empire encouraged nationalism for white Britons but denied it to their subject peoples. Jews know the fascist formula is a winning one. Why would Jews want other peoples to use the same formula and gain in power? It's like Jews and guns. Jews know the value of gun power, and that is precisely why they want to concentrate it in the institutions they control. Jews don't want us to have guns because they don't have direct control over us. But Jews control the state, and therefore want all guns under state control. Jews are also for gun ownership in Israel because their tribal brethren are the majority there and a well-armed Jewish Population can keep the Arabs at bay.
At any rate, the reason why 'fascist' is used as a universal epithet is actually to its credit. People don't like the grim/raw truth. Fascism comes closest to understanding how power really works. No system wants to admit to this and would rather convince itself as well as others that its power is animated by some higher principle or abstract concept. In truth, power is gangsterist in all forms, and fascism admits to this. This is why every side calls the OTHER side 'fascist'. It's like the term 'hate'. All sides hate, and politics is driven by hate and hostility, but it's always the OTHER side that is about 'hate'. It goes to show that people fear honesty and truth, preferring fairy tales about how their side is about 'justice' and etc. Yeah, just ask the Palestinians.
Another definition of fascism is about being liberated from the dogma of ideology. Benito Mussolini started on the radical left but came to the realization that the best system is one that fuses the revolutionary spirit of the left with rich themes of the right. Thus, fascism is a left-right ideology. In being such, it comes closest to understanding why Jews are so powerful. Core Jewish Strategists don't think in terms of dichotomy of left vs right, inclusion vs exclusion, or this vs that. Rather, Jews seek ways to meaningfully fuse the reverence for the past with the vision of the future. Jews are like boxers who fight with both fists. In order to gain supremacy, they push dichotomy-thinking among the goyim, whereby white 'leftists' only use the left jab and white 'rightists' only use the right-across. Jews use both the left jab and the right across. This is why any white person who still sees the world in terms of 'right' vs 'left' just doesn't get it. The winning formula isn't a zero-sum game. It's about arriving at a meaningful unity between right and left, between 'exclusion' and 'inclusion'.
The various enemies of majoritarian culture can’t be viewed as opponents on their own terms (neo-Marxist, postmodernist, ethnically alien, Foucaultian, deconstructionist, etc.), which would require developing a full understanding of their myriad and complex behaviors and ideologies, but must be refracted through a single facile lens — that of World War II.
But toxicity on the Right has been similar. If Conservatism Inc. tends to label its enemies as 'nazi' or 'fascist', the White Right has the tendency to cling to the WWII prism of Hitler as standard bearer of Western Civilization against Jews and Communists. But Nazi worldview was just another cartoon reality. Also, the reason why Hitler and Germans alienated so many Europeans was because they had no respect for the national sovereignty and aspirations of others. It was one thing for Germany to gobble up German-majority Sudetenland but quite another to make a move on Czech territory. Whatever faults the Poles had, Germans pulled a dirty trick by working with Stalin to divvy up Poland, causing tremendous misery. No wonder the main resistance against Germany in Poland came from the Polish Right. This Hitlerist Sentimentality has been toxic to the White Right. True, there were fine things about National Socialism, and some of Hitler's demands were legit, but it should be obvious to all by now that Hitler was pathologically megalomaniacal and driven by murderous anti-Slavicism. Also, even though National Socialists were right about Jewish perfidy, they went way beyond sane measures, much like communists were right about the problems of capitalism but went to extremes in the name of 'social justice'. One can be justified in one's rage but very wrong in the application of the rage toward extremes.
Myers’s thesis is that, rather than being the last bastion of Stalinism, North Korea is in fact home to a race-based nationalism and far-right politics derived from Japanese fascism... The problem, as I learned from both the text itself and criticism I subsequently consulted, was that the book featured a laundry list of exaggeration, omission, psychoanalysis, and ignorance of Korean culture, history, and politics, all of which combined to suppress the Communist footprint everywhere in North Korean politics in order to present the strange little nation of Kim Jong-un as an Oriental Nazi Germany.
Myers is as right as he is wrong. It's ridiculous to compare North Korea with Nazi Germany for the simple reason that North Korea isn't for world aggression. Unlike Germany with its lebensraum plan, North Korea just wants to survive as a unique civilization and unite with the South(on its own terms of course). Indeed, National Socialist Germany would hardly have been problematic without territorial ambitions. Racial-national consciousness becomes a problem ONLY WHEN your people rule over another people. It's like Mongolian national pride in Mongolia is no problem. But when Mongols, centuries ago, trampled all across China, Persia, and Russia, Mongol pride of identity was a big problem. Whereas Nazi Germany sought to emulate the great Anglo Empires that conquered and ruled over other peoples(especially in the US where the natives were decimated and replaced), North Korea had no such ambitions, never. If anything, its racial ideology is in reaction to foreign invasions. It's also absurd to compare it with Japanese 'fascism' because, if anything, Japanese regarded Koreans as fellow Yamato racial brethren and sought to 'convert' them to Japanese-ness. Japanese racial ideology was imperialist and expansive whereas North Korean racial ideology is insular. Also, by 'cleanest race', North Koreans don't mean racial superiority but racial resistance against foreign imperialism. After all, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and Vietnam became whorehouses of US G.I.s. Japanese women became mamasans. South Korea and Philippines developed huge prostitution industries, not least to serve foreign men. During the Vietnam War, the US used women in Saigon as whores. So, empire = interracist prostitution. And of course, Latin America is the product of white mass 'rape' of native women.
Then, North Korean racial ideology isn't supremacist but nationalist-resistance against the imperial tendency to reduce satellite nations into puppets and its women into whores. Indeed, Jewish Hegemonism is now doing this to the white race. White women are the new Saigon whores in the eyes of Jews. During the Vietnam War, the US regarded South Vietnam as a whore state. Its women existed to sexually service US soldiers. Today, Jews and blacks regard white women the same way. White women exist to serve the likes of Jeffrey Epstein or to become groupies of black rappers and athletes. In UK, black Africans and Jamaicans are celebrated for clobbering white athletes and impregnating white women. This interracism isn't about equality but about black supremacy over whites. The idea is that black guys can kick white butt and also got bigger dongs. So, black males are superior to white males, and so black men deserve the prize of white poon. As for whites, they must welcome this interracism as not only 'anti-racist' justice but natural justice, i.e. superior black men deserve white women while white men, being inferior, should either turn tranny, 'gay', incel, or marry some Asian chick and have kids who look like Sean Lennon the dork boy. Indeed, there's a pattern to media portrayals and commercials. If indeed the official dogma is colorblind interracism, there would be as many images of black women with white men as black men with white women. But the Jewish/Black line is black men and white women are ideal because black men are tops in masculine prowess and white women are tops in feminine beauty. Best men and best women. Thus, Western interracism is really a kind of supremacism.
Interracism can be supremacist. Mongols raped women all over the place. Jewish men raped countless Arab women during Nakba, and Jewish women laughed at the screams of Arab women in prison cells. Latin America was created by mass 'rape' by white men of brown women. And today, black-on-white sex is a form of interracist supremacism. It's a message that black men now own white women and that white men, being inferior dorks, should accept their cucky-wuck status in the new order. This is why Jews prize blackness so much. Jews are brains but lack muscle. But allied with black muscle, the combination of Jewish brains and Black brawn can beat the white race and reduce it to total cuckery
My guess is Myers' vilification of North Korea has something to do with globalist hegemony over the South. Though divided by great powers, both south and north had strong ethnic sense. That was the ONE unifying theme despite the political division. People like Myers want a permanently divided Korea where the south is always servile the West, now controlled by Jews. So, the West showers praise on South Korea for embracing globalism, interracism, globo-homo, diversity cult, feminism, and mass immigration. It tells the South that it is so much better than the North, which is supposedly 'racist'.
As for North Korea's communist legacy, it's true that Kim Il Sung gained power as a loyal Stalinist. But we need to understand why so many nonwhites around the world became communist in the past. It wasn't always out of ideological commitment. Through much of the first half of the 20th century, capitalism was synonymous with imperialism. Indeed, modernizing Japan was part of the capitalist world order and worked in cahoots with capitalist West in its imperialist expansion. In contrast, when the USSR came into existence, it condemned imperialism. So, naturally many nationalist-minded nonwhites around the world gravitated toward communism as the weapon against capitalist-imperialism. Thus, there was always a rightist element in Third World Communism. Fidel Castro himself began as a fascist and then moved to communism. But fascist or communist, he was always a Cuban nationalist. North Korea's political structure has been Stalinist, but its political themes have been national-familist. Mao was more the ideologue when he waged war on Chinese cultural past with insane campaigns. Such never took place in North Korea where the theme was closer to national filial piety to the Kim Clan. Indeed, when North Korea opted for political succession from father to son, the Soviet Union was highly critical.
At any rate, it is Zionism that is closer to Nazism because it isn't only racially conscious but racially supremacist. When North Koreans yammer they are the 'cleanest race', they mean they're least soiled by the seeds of imperialist rape. When Jews feel racial pride, it is as the Chosen, the superior race uber alles. Also, unlike North Korea that has no territorial ambitions outside Korea, Jews have been using their control of US and its puppets to destroy neighboring countries all over the Middle East and North Africa. The Yinon Plan is into lebensraum and mass mayhem for Jewish Supremacist Power. But how clever of Jews to project 'nazi-like' features onto other peoples while disseminating the false notion that Jewish Power spearheads the ideals of 'liberal democracy'. Yeah, just ask the Palestinians.
Conservatism is, perhaps more than any other contemporary political ideology, wedded to a personal and national savior that absorbs constant, fervid, and attentive devotion. This savior isn’t Jesus Christ, but Gross Domestic Product, and it’s worshipped by conservatives everywhere.
But there's another meaning to 'cash is king'. After all, most politicians are whores, and whores go where the money is. Jews got the most money, and so 'cash is king' translates into 'Jews are god'.
And so, GOP is beholden to Las Vegas which is run by super-rich Jews. But then, if indeed GOP believed in 'cash is king', it would oppose sanctions against Russia and Iran. After all, more business with Russia and Iran would surely do wonders for the GDP of US and EU. But isn't it funny how the 'cash is king' mentality doesn't argue for more economic relations with Iran and Russia? It's because cash in US politics is controlled by Jews. And anyone who calls for better business relations with Russia and Iran will be denied of political contributions. Also, as Jews control the gods, there is something bigger than cash among the so-called conservatives. The highest of the high is Jewish Holiness. Jews are holy, so their wish is our command EVEN IF it means diminished GDP. If the likes of Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz really believed in 'cash in king', they would call fore more business with Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and etc. After all, more business means more opportunities for US corporations to invest, sell, and rake in the bucks. But notice Jewish Gods > King Cash.
“Christ Is King” can be interpreted in two ways.
1. The christ-tard way for true believers who believe Jesus is going to save them. In fact, what passes for Christian Conservatism is white women going as missionaries to Africa, getting infected with jungle fever, marrying some black guy, having mulatto kids, bringing them back to the US, and being cheered on by the christ-cuck ‘conservative’ Congregation that is so eager to prove “We are not racist”. Yech. This is why Christianity is OVER and cannot save the white race.
2. A way to piss off Jews. This I support. Jews hate Jesus & Christianity and have been elevating globo-homo and other fashionable nonsense over the Christian God. So, when some say ‘Christ Is King’, they aren't really talking about Jesus and faith. They really mean to piss off Jews. It means the God that Jews hate and seek to demean is bigger than all the trendy globo-homo sham idolatry pushed by the Tribe. That I can support. Even non-Christians can say 'Christ Is King' in the metaphorical sense. It means 'My sense of holiness is free of Jewish demands'.
NURSE COMPARES MODERN AMERICAN HOSPITALS TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS
