Actually, it was indeed Zionist but it wasn’t Communist by any stretch of the imagination.
The underlying structures of political psychology are more or less the same across the board. Some societies lean toward secularity while others toward religiosity. Some are labeled ‘liberal democratic’ while others are deemed ‘autocratic’. Granted, it depends on the perspective as an order claiming to represent the will of the majority may be criticized as tyrannical by its opponents. Some may even argue that the will of the majority, though democratic in the crudest sense, could violate the rights of minorities, e.g. Hungary is ‘autocratic’ for favoring the Christian Hungarian majority over the migrant-invaders and their Sorosian-globalist enablers. Israel claims to be ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ while its critics condemn it as a ‘fascist’ or ‘terrorist’ state; some call it an ‘apartheid state’, which goes to show democracy and race-centrism can co-exist side by side, as also demonstrated by the bulk of American History defined by both democratic elections and Euro(especially Anglo)centrism. The US has gone from favoring the white race over nonwhites to now favoring Jews over goyim, especially whites and Palestinians(who’ve been bombed back to the Stone Age by the Israeli war machine supplied by the US), and favoring blacks over non-blacks(as the official narrative endlessly reminds us of Emmett Till while ignoring the countless victims of black savagery).
In any given society, regardless of its prevailing ideology or credo, most matters remain within the domain of objectivity. Whether the ‘liberal democratic’ West, Islamic Iran, Stalinist Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany, communist East Germany, totalitarian North Korea, Ottoman Turkey, or Shinto-Militarist Japan, it’s highly unlikely that anyone would have gotten worked up over studies on a particular shellfish or a species of trees. It would have been regarded as a matter of scientific observation or personal hobby, inoffensive regardless of the findings or conclusions. Even in the most repressive societies, most topics can be approached empirically, rationally, and even critically. Most are deemed self-contained domains of knowledge independent of the values and principles of the prevailing order. Whether a society is capitalist or communist, the botanical facts about flowers are what they are, neither ‘Marxist’ nor ‘bourgeois’.
Scientific observation may face backlash if a certain discovery runs counter to the official cosmology, perhaps the most famous example being Galileo’s troubles with the Church over the issue of Heliocentrism. Back then, Geo-centrism wasn’t merely the reigning scientific theory in astronomy but a sacrosanct truth based on the Holy Book. Of course, some orders have gone much further and rejected the very notion of scientific endeavor as running counter to fundamentalist faith, i.e. the only truth worth knowing is by divine revelation(as recorded in sacred canonical texts). But such total suppression of knowledge has been rare among complex civilizations.
According to Ray Bradbury’s FAHRENHEIT 451, a junior-level rehashing of Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD and George Orwell’s NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR, or a kind of dystopian-satire-for-dummies, modernity is no guarantee for the free flow of knowledge and imagination as his fictional world is anti-intellectual, anti-creative, and ‘bibliophobic’ — people are functionally literate but anti-literary. Ironically, the system is the product of intellectual utopianism that believes humanity will be happier and healthier devoid of the neuroses resulting from excessive engagements with arts and letters, i.e. contradictory ideas and dangerous fantasies foster trouble minds that create troubled times.
Even as Bradbury’s novel is directed against anti-intellectualism, it is also an indictment of intellectualism, i.e. intellectual types are often less engaged with the real world than obsessed with their mental-lab model of the world. Only intellectualism could have conceived of the anti-intellectual utopia of the novel. The anti-intellectual worlds of BRAVE NEW WORLD and NINETY-EIGHTY FOUR were also constructed by intellectuals. While plenty of intellectuals appreciate and admire other intellectuals, even in disagreement, there have always been a category of intellectuals who, believing themselves to be so right, seek to devour all others. If monomaniacal intellectuals(Karl Marx or Ayn Rand) claim logic and facts as ‘scientific’ or ‘objective’ validation of their project, totalitarian spiritualists(usually of the monotheistic school, such as Moses and Muhammad) claim prophetic vision, i.e. the one and only true God revealed to them what was revealed to no other man.
In our world, plenty of intellectuals(and second-rank intellectuals as commissars) are at the forefront of enforcing certain orthodoxies, effectively censoring certain views & ideas as ‘too dangerous’. Their views are picked up by the trained seals of journalism and academia who never had an original thought or independent idea in their life.
These intellectuals claim the ideas are simply wrong(and have been ‘debunked’), therefore ranging from utterly useless to downright dangerous. Granted, certain more honest intellectuals concede that the ideas/views may contain a measure of truth or even be essentially true BUT nevertheless must be suppressed because they’re too undermining of the consensus that holds the order together. Every order is maintained by authority justified in power and prestige by a set of ideas, icons, and narratives, which, if threatened, could undo the authority, whereby the order itself can come undone. In the end, the Catholic Church was less appalled than anxious in regards to Galileo as Heliocentrism threatened the foundational authority of the Church as the final arbiter of truth.
Likewise, plenty of Jews must know that the official Holocaust Narrative is incomplete, distorted, and/or exaggerated. Yet, what they fear most is not so much the truth per se but its impact on Jewish power/influence that, since the end of World War II, owed a good deal to its ability to silence or destroy critics and rivals on the basis of Holocaust-Guilt-and-Redemption. While Jews, given their high IQ and drive, would have made great gains even without the Holocaust Cult, there would have been greater pushback and check on their influence and agenda. Intoxicated with megalomaniacal hegemony, Jews sense that mounting criticism may threaten their world order; and therefore, the Holocaust Card is still their best bet for suppressing their critics and enemies.
Things get more complicated when, intentionally or not, certain shibboleths come to be threatened in unexpected ways. It can be a veritable minefield for the unwitting scholar who believed himself to be only doing his job as an objective observer or researcher. Just like it’s easier to detect the odors of others than of oneself, such hazards are more detectable of other societies/cultures than of one’s own.
For example, the West that routinely condemned Iran for its theocratic suppression of freedom of speech/expression was rebutted in kind by the Islamic Republic that pointed to the West’s own taboos, something so deeply ingrained over the years that many Westerners weren’t even aware of their violation of free speech principles. (Likewise, few bat an eye when Israeli interests and Jewish sensitivities trump the rights of free speech in the US as just about every figure of prominence in politics and culture take it as a given, like the Sun rising in the East, that Jews are exempt from rules that apply to everyone else. Even when Jews like Ben Shapiro attacked and impugned Donald Trump in 2016, they were among the first guests to be welcomed on the red carpet at C-PAC conventions. Even when Jews slap your face, you must offer your hand. Netanyahu betrayed Trump in 2020, but there’s Trump groveling at Bibi’s feet.)
Some years ago, when Europe defended ‘satirical’ cartoons of Muhammad on grounds of freedom of expression(and before that there was the defense of Salman Rushdie’s SATANIC VERSES), Iran countered by holding a Holocaust Revisionist conference, if only to highlight the West’s hypocrisy. If free speech is really an iron-clad principle in Europe, why does it penalize individuals who dare to challenge the official narrative? If Iran(and other parts of the Muslim World) have limits on free speech, doesn’t the West as well, if not on theocratic grounds than on ethnocratic ones that favor Jewish esteem and emotions above all else?
While certain ideas are deemed merely incorrect or problematic by the reigning ideology, others set off the alarm bells, with possibly severe consequences for the violators. For example, Modern China accepts the theory of evolution but has its own spin on the origins of East Asians & Chinese, i.e. they are descended from the Peking Man or some such, in marked divergence from the standard Out-of-Africa theory that says East Asians evolved from a branch of humans that migrated out of Africa and mostly superseded the earlier inhabitants of Asia, such as the Peking Man. The preferred Chinese theory is more an expression of nationalism or racialism than the product of science, though some may argue that the Out-of-Africa theory has been simplified(and to an extent even falsified) to overemphasize the African factor in deference to Negrolatry, especially as it gives the false impression that Sub-Saharan blacks left the Dark Continent to evolve into other races when, in fact, the group that left North Africa had already deviated considerably in genetics from the peoples of lower Africa; furthermore, prior to recent genetic discoveries about Europeans and Asians possessing some degree of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes, the Out-of-Africanists had staunchly insisted that a single group of humans who left North Africa were the sole genetic progenitors of all future races outside Africa. Thus, one can’t help suspecting that even Real Science is inflected with some degree of ideological biases.
While most subject matters are approached objectively or neutrally while some are deemed potentially problematic, a handful of topics are dealt with as a matter of life and death, even literally. In China, it’s a lot safer to mock the theory of Peking Man than the memory of Chairman Mao.
Every society has its set of holies and unholies, the sacred and the profane. Certain ideas and views are deemed as not merely problematic, incorrect, or misconceived but sick, satanic, blasphemous, or evil. Being ‘unacceptable’, they aren’t even to be brought up for discussion, only for condemnation(in a more muted version of Orwell’s Two-Minutes-of-Hate). Recall how ‘gay marriage’ was a matter of debate but then was no longer even to be questioned as its supposed rightness was as inviolable as the ending of slavery.
Different orders have different terms for these intolerable and unacceptable ‘evils’. A religious order may deem them ‘satanic’ or ‘devilish’. In the so-called ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ West, they fall under the rubric of ‘hate’, of which the greatest profanities are ‘antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. It’s telling that Jews and homos are advantaged by special terms designated to vilify antipathy towards them, whereas other groups enjoy no such terminological privilege. Thus, if goyim hate Jews, they are committing the secular sin of ‘antisemitism’, whereas if Jews hate goyim, such as Palestinians, there’s no word to describe the hatred.
Granted, as ‘racism’ means hatred directed at ANY group, one could condemn Jews who hate Palestinians or white Christians as ‘racist’. Still, a generic term lacks the impact of a term reserved especially for one group. Besides, due to the power of selective invocation, the term ‘racism’, far from being generic or neutral, has become essentially synonymous with hostility toward blacks.
Thus, even though ‘racism’ technically applies to antipathy toward any group, it’s mostly associated with negativity about blacks because the global media(dominated by the West) invoke the term most often and most forcefully in reports, narratives, and examples where blacks are the said victims.
Religious people have long understood the mantric power of repetition. When something is chanted over and over, it bypasses rationality & criticality into the region of mental habit. Even though our modern society prides itself as rational and critical, the overall impact of the media(and even academia) is often theocratic. When the mass media repeats the same terms and catch-phrases over and over, they have a near-hypnotic effect not unlike those in mantric rituals. This is especially true as most of the mass media are controlled Zionists who pursue more or less a uniform tribal-global agenda. Thus, far from fostering independent voices in the media formulating their own thoughts and opinions, most so-called journalists repeat the same talking points handed from above. When the mass audience hears these virtually identical phrases over and over, day in and day out, week after week, they fall under a spell, not unlike religious folks in a trance. For example, when the media repeated 24/7 the exact same wordings about the ‘unprovoked Russian invasion’ of ‘democratic Ukraine’, many viewers became like children instructed on the catechisms about angels and demons.
Consider the endless repetitions in the mass media and from government officials about ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation’, not really to address the problem of ‘fake news’(another oft-repeated mantric term) but to concentrate the ‘truth’ in the hands of ‘experts’ and commissars in sync with the ruling ideology, narrative, and/or agenda. With all the ‘trusted’ sources and experts repeating the prescribed mantra at all times from all outlets, it’s no wonder that a large share of the population has been reduced to mental parrots.
But then, it’s not like the other side, the institutionally disadvantaged Republicans and so-called ‘conservatives’, is lacking for suckers of their own. While their out-of-fashion and/or disapproved ‘regressive’ values and convictions may, in a knee-jerk way, shield them from the most brazen manipulations of the ‘liberal’ ruling elites, they often fall sway to the mantric emanations from their own side, like when much of the MAGA–sphere was suddenly inflamed over the Panama Canal, an issue no one had cared about for ages.
Of course, the biggest mantric kahuna of them all is the proposition-turned-into-conviction that ISRAEL IS OUR GREATEST ALLY. Why a state that regards as one of its greatest national heroes a man who’s been characterized as the biggest and most damaging spy in US history — Jonathan Pollard — is America’s closest, greatest, and most precious ally really makes one wonder, but the majority of Americans don’t wonder, don’t think, and don’t ask questions because it’s been mantra-chanted over and over and over by virtually every politician and prominent figure favored by the Jewish-run media. Well, it must be true because EVERYONE SAYS SO. Even though Israel now resembles the worst of Nazi Germany, the endless catechisms from top officials and well-funded ‘influencers’ have managed to preserve the faith of Americans in Israel as the nation that America cannot do without, even though the truth is the opposite, i.e. the US can do fine, indeed even better, without Israel, whereas Israel cannot survive without the US.
This is why Evangelicalism, Holocaustianity, and GloboHomo are crucial in the Zionist ploy with America. As any rational person knows that Israel offers little material benefit to the US — if anything, it’s a massive drain on US taxpayers — , the pro-Zionist argument comes with the aura of spiritualism or quasi-spiritualism. For the Evangelicals, no people can long thrive without the blessings of the Jews, the Chosenites. Thus, America rises or falls along with Israel in some mysterious way, rather like Elliott’s syncing with the space creature in E.T.: THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL, whereby if one gets sick, the other does too. Holocaustianity implies that the West must seek atonement, and it just won’t do to let Israel hang out to dry in yet another calamity(even though it’s the Jews doing something like genocide on the Palestinians and Arabs). As for the ‘secular’ types, the GloboHomo claim of Israel as the ‘gayest country’ means it’s the new mecca of ‘progressivism’. Thus, the linkage between the US/West and Israel is rendered priceless, a bond that cannot be explained in dollars and cents.
Due to the power of media oligopolies on mass psychology, our so-called secular society is far less rational and critical than people realize. Many people’s sense of actuality is largely or even mostly divorced from factuality. The globalist oligarchs spent vast sums to buy up media companies not to encourage free thought and critical thinking but to obtain the power of Mind Control. While it’s theoretically possible that some idealistic oligarch may build or purchase a media network in service to higher principles of liberty and truth, why would anyone spend so much to gain control, only to lose it, an inevitability if people are encouraged to think for themselves and gain popularity & credibility based on equal exposure?
This is the question facing Elon Musk who made a big brouhaha about buying Twitter to promote and defend free speech, only to continue to censor certain voices and rig algorithms to favor certain personalities while suppressing others in the disingenuous notion of ‘free speech but not reach’.
Always, the incentive for spending vast sums of money is to gain control, not to share or lose it. Why spend all that money if the end-result is everyone, who spent no money of their own, having as much say as the person who spent the fortune? What was the chance that all those Jewish media oligarchs would give equal representation and reach to pro-Palestinian voices in the name of commitment to fairness and justice?
Thus, selective invocation(by the powerful) defines the ideal or principle than vice versa. Even seemingly universal notions become skewed by the programmed invocation, whereby a particular sample becomes exalted as The Example, one that is more-equal-than-others.
‘Diversity’, for example, in the most generic or technical sense means a variety of things, but because blacks are usually presented as its icon, the term has become almost synonymous with Negrolatry, so much so that a category(be it a school, sports team, or a community) is deemed ‘vibrantly DIVERSE’ even if it’s all or nearly all black. If a sports team has 10 whites and 2 blacks, it’s not ‘diverse enough’, but if it has 10 blacks and 2 whites, it is wonderfully ‘diverse’.
And even though Arabs are more properly Semitic than Zionist Jews who are semi- or almost entirely European, ‘antisemitism’ only applies to antipathy toward Jews. Granted, ‘antisemitism’ as definition has roots in the Western historical context, i.e. while Israeli Jews are more white than the Arabs, Europeans regarded Jews in their midst as less white, more alien, or ‘Semitic’ of Middle Eastern origin; thus, the term gained meaning in regards to Jews.
But then, if ‘antisemitism’ has special meaning within the Western context, why is it applied to the Middle East with an entirely different context? It made sense for totally-white or ‘Aryan’ Europeans to regard half-European Jews as ‘Semites’, but it’s rather surreal for largely Europeanized Jews to be lecturing fully Semitic Arabs about the evils of ‘antisemitism’, especially when the Zionist enterprise was about half-white Jews, with the full backing of the white world, colonizing the Arab World and relegating Palestinians to lesser-human status. It’d be like mulatto blacks in the US settling in totally Black Africa and accusing the native blacks of ‘anti-black racism’ for opposing the colonization by the mulattos.
The rules of sampling largely determine the meaning of any theme. For instance, even though the United States long ago held itself as a republic favoring no particular race, creed, or color, the overwhelming presentation of whites as archetypal Americans maintained the impression that the US is a White Country, indeed well beyond the demographic dominance, i.e. even though the US was 90% white for much of its history, it seemed like a 99% white country. (The impact of selective sampling can skew popular and global impressions in weird ways. The sudden ubiquity of homosexual themes in the media had many Americans believing that 25% of Americans are ‘gay’. The prominence of blacks in sports and pop music led many Americans to believe the US is 30-40% black; and the routine of casting blacks as judges in movies fooled the world that the US court system is dominated by blacks. Arabs, usually cast as Jihadis by Hollywood, became synonymous with terrorism in the global imagination. Organized crime, usually represented by Italians in movies and TV, seemed mostly a racket run by ‘goombas’ despite the prominence of other ethnic groups. By media coverage, you’d think blacks are cowering in fear from white violence when the opposite is the reality.
Even though Jews comprise only 2% of the US population and Hanukkah is a minor Jewish day of remembrance, it’s second only to Christmas during the Holiday Season. One would think the US is 40% Jewish.
Some categories are positive, some are negative or tragic. When it comes to World War II, a conflict in which 50 million people are said to have died, the sheer over-emphasis on the Holocaust would have us believe that most of the killing involved Jews, the superstars of the event, with all the rest, the goyim, relegated to the roles of mere extras or props in the tragedy. And even when people realize that many more goyim died(and fewer Jews than the claimed 6 million), Jewish lives matter more because they have faces and stories(like Anne Frank) whereas goy dead are merely statistics. (Likewise, even though many others died on the cross during Roman Times, the crucifixion of Jesus is the only one that matters because his story was not only told but spun into myth. It’s no wonder the Jewish Kirk Douglas sought to steal a bit of that thunder with SPARTACUS where the crucifixion of its hero denies Christianity the monopoly on the Cross.) It’s understandable why Jews would feel the way they do about World War II, but their perspective has come to overshadow all the others, indeed even to the point where Western governments retroactively pretend that ‘saving the Jews’ was their main priority during the war(and furthermore, it’s to their everlasting shame that they failed to).
And when it comes to ‘racism’, blacks are almost always the favored samples, thereby rendering the ‘worst kind of evil’ as mainly crimes against blacks(when not against Jews). Even though ‘racism’ ostensibly applies to any kind of irrational hatred, bigotry, or ugly prejudice, it offers little protection for any group other than blacks(and Jews) because it’s usually invoked with examples of black(or Jewish) victimhood. There were endless stories about the evils of Apartheid in South Africa, but what the Zionists were doing to the Palestinians were either ignored, justified, or contextualized, i.e. it’s sad and unfortunate, but Jews have no choice because of terrorist attacks and etc. While no rationalization or justification was allowed for Apartheid in South Africa(despite the reality of black violence and terrorism), the various repressive Zionist policies against the Palestinians were either supported as moral imperatives(to prevent another Holocaust!) or spun as necessary evils(against the greater evil of the Arabs/Muslims).
Even though FBI statistics on Hate Crimes have consistently shown that blacks are vastly overrepresented among the offenders, the media and academia have usually emphasized those incidents, cases, and narratives where blacks are the victims, usually of whites but even nonwhites. So, never mind all the black rage and violence against whites. Never mind black hostility and viciousness toward nonblack groups of all stripes. Such cases of black hostility aren’t usually associated with ‘racism’ but met with appeals for empathy with black ‘despair’. Yet, if other groups react to black brutality or hostility with negativity, that is ‘racist’.
Therefore, the public came to associate ‘racism’ as an evil done to blacks instead of as hatred by any group toward any other group. Just like Arab hatred of Jews is ‘Anti-Semitic’ but Jewish hatred of Arabs is not, nonblack hatred of blacks is ‘racist’ but black hatred of non-blacks is not. Blacks run into trouble ONLY IF they act up against Jews. When blacks shit on whites, Jews ignore the hatred or even encourage it. But if blacks shit on Jews, then Jews admonish the blacks for ‘antisemitism’ and call on whites to join in denouncing such hatred. Blacks who dump on whites are showered by Jews with book contracts and DEI positions. Blacks who dump on Jews are de-banked and blacklisted, but then with the full support of brownnosing white cucks. Given Jews use blacks against whites, you’d think whites would be delighted over blacks barking at Jews. Instead, whites bark at blacks who dare bark at Jews. The white mind sees both whites and blacks as dogs to Jews as masters. So, whatever Jews do to whites or blacks, the duty of both goy groups is to serve the master Jew.
So, it doesn’t matter if the West is said to be guided by universal and liberal principles IF the characterization/dramatization of such principles are biased in favor of some groups over others. Imagine a book about animals that denounce animal-to-animal cruelty but only features illustrations of raccoons beating up on foxes but never foxes beating up on raccoons. After a while, the said universal principle effectively turns into a ‘tribal’ one as it’s presented in terms of one particular group always wronging another particular group. How is it that it’s always the raccoons acting badly but never the foxes?
If Bill and Bob are told it’s wrong to hate or hit one another but only Bill’s transgressions are condemned while Bob’s go ignored, then the message effectively becomes pro-Bob.
In the US, Jews have so endlessly been presented as pure-as-snow victims that even when Jews foment wars and carry out genocidal acts, the knee-jerk reaction of politicians and ‘mainstream’ pundits is to explain all events in terms of Jewish victimhood and its responses(in the name of Never Again).
Now, take the term ‘inclusion’, which usually means blacks and homos who are the favored allies of Jews. It’s always about celebrating how some homos or trannies have been ‘included’ in such-and-such institution or event, or the need to ‘include’ more blacks(despite their lack of qualification).
But, how often have we heard about the need for Wall Street, Las Vegas, or Hollywood to INCLUDE more Palestinian-Americans and their voices? If anything, the powers-that-be have gone out of their way to ensure that pro-Palestinian students will be denied entry into key sectors of power, influence, and wealth.
So, it’s never sufficient to rely on the letter of any principle. Rather, its face must be noticed. A universal principle that favors the Jewish face over the Palestinian face has de facto become tribal. Consider how Jewish media monopoly made Zelensky of Ukraine the face of ‘liberal democracy’, rendering that principle interchangeable with Jewish globalist hegemony, parasitism, and bloodlust.
Indeed, ‘racism’ is less problematic than ‘iconism’(even in service to ‘anti-racism’) that invariably favors some groups over others via skewed representation in the victimhood sweepstakes, e.g. Jews over Palestinians. Jews found a workaround with universalism to rig things in favor of their Tribe. They did it by upholding the letter of universalism(such as ‘hate is wrong’) while emphasizing certain groups, namely themselves(and blacks and homos), as the avatars of victimhood. When Jews say, “We should all love one another” but then show only goyim beating on Jews but not vice versa, the said universalism might as well be an ADL manifesto.
Granted, certain kinds of skewed/selective emphases are warranted given the bio-social reality and/or historical context. There was a time when the American system clearly favored whites over blacks who were denied even the basic rights of citizenship. And when it comes to the problem of sexual violence, it makes sense to highlight male-on-female violence over the female-on-male kind because men are stronger and more aggressive, thereby more prone to abuse women than the other way around. Certain relation-dynamics are permanent, and the one between males and females is one of them. No matter how much society tries to enforce sexual equality, male-on-female(and trans-’female’-on-real-female) violence will define sexual aggression.
But certain group dynamics are conditional to the time and place, clearly the case with racial problems. For example, white domination over blacks in the US owed to social and legal norms that favored whites over blacks(and nonwhites in general). Thus, a black who wronged a white faced harsher punishment than a white who wronged a black. And in general, whites stuck together against blacks, even in cases where whites were in the wrong.
But, the white advantage over blacks was different from the male advantage over females because, devoid of social, legal, and institutional advantages, the natural dynamic between whites and blacks actually advantaged blacks as aggressors as blacks are more muscular and impulsive, i.e. blacks are more likely to kick white butt than the other way around. Remove the legal advantage for whites, and the result isn’t equality between the races but blacks being advantaged in threatening and scaring whitey to death and kicking whitey’s ass.
Therefore, while it makes sense to focus on examples of male-as-aggressor to raise awareness on sexual violence, it makes little sense to selectively invoke white-on-black violence to characterize the race problem, wholly ignoring the profound transformations that have overturned black-white dynamics in the US and the West. Indeed, the fact that the Jewish-run media have to dredge up the Emmett Till sob story and proselytize the gospel of George Floyd betrays the desperation of the official commentariat in regards to racial reality. In a world where overt racial hostility and violence are overwhelmingly black-on-white(and nonblack), the usual examples presented by the powers-that-be doggedly fixate on blacks-as-victims. This is as problematic as the continued characterization of Jews as a race of Anne Franks in a world where Jews are the instigators of global wars and hate campaigns against entire nations and peoples, if only to distract Western goyim from the fact of Jewish supremacist domination over them. It’s Russia-Russia-Russia, Iran-Iran-Iran, or China-China-China, and don’t you forget it’s ‘Anti-Semite’ to notice, let alone criticize, Jewish Power. Jewish Power would have us believe that Jewish-Goyim relations are eternally framed as goyim-being-’Anti-Semitic’-to-Jews, but even a cursory examination of the world says otherwise. The current conditions of Zionists-acting-Nazi-like in Gaza and World Jewry recruiting Jihadi terrorists across the Middle East & Central Asia and Sub-Nazi elements in Ukraine belie the official version of events.
The messed-up state of the world partly owes to the cultural deficiencies of various peoples. Some peoples have a mind but no body, whereas other peoples have a body but no mind. Jews, a highly urbanized, educated, and intellectual people have a mind but hardly a body, as in ‘national body’, except of course in Israel where they constitute the mind-and-body of the nation. Elsewhere, Jews compete and thrive as the mind but over the body that isn’t Jewish. But just like organ-transplants lead to resistance, the Jewish Mind and Goy Body isn’t always a match made in heaven(to put it mildly), and both sides sense a natural repulsion from within and without. Jewish mind may rule over the goy body but doesn’t identify with it at the soul-level. Thus, the Jewish mind often seeks to subjugate, punish, exploit, squeeze, and abuse the body. (Same was true of the white mind and the black body in the American South.)
And traditionally throughout European history, the goy body, white and Christian, felt wary of the Jewish element in vaunted positions of finance and political influence. What Jewish Power fears most is, of course, the emergence of the white mind to lead and guide the white body. Jewish Power can tolerate and even appreciate the white mini-mind(aka the cuck-mind) but not the Big Mind. The mini-mind, though mentally skilled and capable, lacks the requisite depth, breadth, and the will power to devise and steer the destiny of the civilization. The Big Mind isn’t only about mental ability but about the heart and soul because mankind, being driven by emotions, doesn’t live on brains alone. For the longest time, the heart and soul of the White West was Christianity, the worship of the Son of God killed by Jews who rejected Him. And with intellectual roots in Classical pagan civilization(while the bulk of the Jewish community remained self-ghettoized in Talmudism), the White World had the mind, soul, and body.
But following Jewish Emancipation, much of the mind-centers of modernity were usurped by Jews. And with the fading of Christianity(and/or twisting it into a White Guilt cult) and with Holocaust as the new redemptive theme, the white world lost the power of mind and soul, apparently forever tarnished by the Narrative that implied that the Holocaust, the greatest evil of all time past-present-and-future, was the inevitable culmination of deep-seated Western evils of ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’. Thus, the white body, devoid of mind and soul, outsourced those tasks to Jews(and blacks, at least in the funky soul department, e.g. ‘black girl magic’). White race became like the Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion, and the Tin Man in THE WIZARD OF OZ, seriously deficient in key areas, a condition that could be alleviated only with the help of the Wizard(who kept on cooking up ever more difficult missions). In time, the White Body was fated for dissolution as well, because the mind and soul(those of Jews), to which the white body entrusted the fate of the West, figured on turning whites into minorities in the West in favor of Diversity, whereby Jews could forever play divide-and-rule among the discontented and disarrayed goyim.
Now, as to why anti-communism turned into a jackpot for the Jews. In Yuri Slezkine’s book on 20th century Jewish History aptly titled THE JEWISH CENTURY, he describes the two great Jewish (con)quests, both in empire-sized countries, namely Russia(or the Soviet Union) and the United States. In Russia radical leftist Jews embarked on a vast social experiment with communism, and in the United States enterprising Jews, ranging from liberal to neo-tribal(especially via Zionism), immersed themselves in New World capitalism devoid of the restraints of bourgeois Europe.
While there were plenty of anti-communist and/or pro-capitalist Jews in Russia and plenty of radical socialist or anarchist Jews in the US, the monomaniacal character of the Soviet Union meant that Jewishness would overwhelmingly come to be associated with a single ideology. Communism simply could not tolerate capitalism, especially the kind espoused by Ayn Rand and the like, whereas the United States, operating on liberal principles, allowed for greater dissent and difference of opinion and conviction. Even though Jews gained great power and influence via capitalism in the US, the relative tolerance and freedom allowed them to play with more than one set of cards, whereas Jews in the USSR were limited to Marxism-Leninism as primarily defined by Stalinism, under which Jews could only associate with the Left, i.e. all the cards had to be radical leftist with Stalin’s stamp of approval — perhaps things might have been somewhat different with Leon Trotsky at the helm — , and that meant Soviet Jews would live or die by communism. (When Soviet Jews expressed enthusiasm for Zionism as a Jewish form of national-communism, an alarmed Stalin and his cohorts grew distrustful of the Jewish element in their midst, laying the ground for the creation of the Jewish liberal underground that would eventually turn Zionist because the Jewish Right in the US was more likely to champion their cause whereas American Jewish leftists & liberals, due to residual ideological affinity to revolution or progressivism, as well as knee-jerk antipathy to McCarthyism, was slower to fully endorse the West in the Cold War.)
In the US(and Western Europe in general), Jews could play both left and right, sometimes in internecine struggle but often in complementary negotiation. While outright communism was harmful to Jewish wealth(and reputation), Jewish association with socialism could actually be beneficial as it lent the Jewish community a humane face, i.e. Jews aren’t only about greedy profits but ‘social justice’. Just as the Italian Fascists, National Socialists, and FDR’s New Dealers understood that capitalism needed a heart with a degree of socialism(or pro-labor politics), Jewish capitalists in the West appreciated the Jewish Left for associating Jewish identity with justice and equality.
Western goyim’s take on the Jews in the 20th Century could be roughly divided in half, with World War II or mid-century serving as the pivotal sea change in attitudes, though the process gained completion somewhere around late Sixties or the early Seventies. In the first half of the century, the views on Jews were varied: Philosemitic, Anti-Semitic, or somewhere in between.
Furthermore, it was commonplace for Jews to be critical of their own community and influence, or “two Jews, three opinions”. Even within the Left, Jewish factionalism was notorious. There were leftist Jews against rightist Jews, Zionist Jews vs Assimilationist Jews, Western Jews vs Eastern Jews, and just plain Jews vs Jews for the sake of arguing. Back then, Zionism, the Holocaust cult, and Americanism(that fell under control of Jews as the global model) had yet to emerge or fully take shape, thereby allowing Jews to coalesce into a true unity. For all the intra-tribal dialogue(and collusion) between capitalist Jews and communist Jews, there were serious tensions and animosity.
Americanism proved crucial as, more than any other factor, it melded Jews of various ethnic stripes into a generic(or regenerated) sense of identity, which became de-Babelized. And as the US was the immigration magnet that Russia was not, its Jewishness had greater global depth and reach. Even as the Soviet experiment represented the melding of all ethnic groups into a brotherhood of man, most Jews in Russia were of Russian or Eastern European origin, whereas Jews in the US could be from any part of Europe(or Latin America). Also, in a country where money was king, Jewish rise in wealth only made Jews more awesome(or More-American-than-American) than more suspicious, as was often the case in the Old World defined by social stations and cultural traditions.
As for the goyim in the pre-World-War-II period, there wasn’t yet anything like the Holocaust Guilt to stigmatize ‘antisemitism’ into the greatest of all sins, even to the point of the Catholic Church recanting its long-standing view on Jews as the Christ-killing deniers of the Son of God.
Therefore, many reputable, well-respected, and popular artists, writers, opinion-makers, demagogues, agitators, and leaders could be openly or at least tacitly ‘Anti-Semitic’. And much of Christianity still regarded Jews as unrepentant Christ-deniers. Many on the Left associated Jews with capitalist exploitation(even though Jews in the movement insisted that ‘antisemitism is the socialism of fools’), and many on the Right emphasized the role of Jews in radical and/or subversive movements. And given the extent of communist horrors prior to World War II, had World War II been avoided the main narratives on 20th century atrocities would likely have dwelt on the Jewish role in communism.
But then, World War II happened, and it wasn’t just another Great War(like World War I) but the GOOD WAR, indeed one so good, necessary, and justified that it united the Left and the Right against the Devil himself. When the war was initially limited to Germany and Great Britain(with the sudden collapse of France), neither the Left nor the Right was particularly enthused about supporting it one way or the other. As the Soviet Union was partnered with National Socialist Germany, the Moscow Line was that communists worldwide shouldn’t agitate for war against fascism. And as many on the Right in the West regarded communism to be by far the greatest threat(and had little love for Jews with their prominent roles in Bolshevism), they either favored or supported fascism(as bulwark against the Red Menace) or argued for neutrality, i.e. let Europeans fight their own wars and leave Americans out of it, of course on the assumption that Germany was the likely victor on the Eastern front.
But once Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the new Moscow Line was the restoration of the Popular Front(abandoned for the duration of the Nazi-Soviet Pact) that called all ‘progressive’ forces, be they liberal or socialist, to unite against the evil of fascism. The Right, by and large, refused to bite, and saw the German-Russian War as none of America’s business(or even secretly rooted for the Germans against the ‘Asiatic’ and ‘communist’ Russkies, the kind of attitude expressed by George S. Patton soon after victory).
But then, the ‘Japs’ attacked the US, and the ‘Krauts’ sided with the ‘Japs’ and that set off a firestorm of racial rage in the US; and so, it became the Good War, a unity of the Right and Left in the US. If the Left wanted to deal a blow to the far-right Nazis, the Right wanted to crush those slanty-eyed ‘Japs’ for daring to attack white sailors of the US navy. Now, there was something for both the Left and the Right to support the War.
Because the Right became nearly as invested in the war(despite its initial wariness about siding with the radical leftist ‘Asiatic’ Soviet Union against ‘Aryan’ right-wing Germany) out of its vengeful hatred of the ‘Japs’, especially under the presidency of supposedly ‘socialist’ FDR, the post-war consensus of the Good War was doable. Besides, the Cold War soon undid the US-Soviet alliance and turned the communists into bitter enemies, thus enabling the Right to define the new conflict as a kind of continuation of World War II, i.e. from the Hot Good War to the Cold Good War, both defined in terms of Good Freedom versus Bad Tyranny.
World War II surely produced some truly schizophrenic pacts and alliances. The short-lived Nazi-Soviet Pact was strange enough. But there was also ‘Aryan’ Germany at war with ‘Asiatic’ Russia but allied with genuinely Asiatic Japan that was at war with Asiatic China. The Western Right, though closer in sympathy with ‘Aryan’ Germany, found itself in alliance with Russia and China against Germany because of the hatred for the ‘Japs’. Not only until Nixon met with Mao and laid the groundwork for US-China cooperation against Soviet Russia did foreign policy become as surreal.
Even though American support for World War II had more to do with racial(and even genocidal) hatred for the treacherous ‘Japs’ than sympathy for Jews(or animus against fascism as an ideology), History is written by the masters of academia and media, whose coverage and writings ensured that the war came to be remembered as an epic struggle between rational-humanist forces against the irrational forces of darkness.
Even though liberal/leftist historians came around to admitting that Stalin’s USSR was brutal and murderous, its ideology was nevertheless said to have been inspired by the brotherhood-of-man and equal justice, whereas the Japanese Empire was about naked imperialism while Nazi Germany was about brazen racial supremacy(that even led to all-out genocide); and furthermore, fascism wasn’t an ideology but merely a pornography of power, a vision of the world where thugs and bullies beat up the weak.
And especially as the West downplayed the crucial Soviet role in the defeat of Germany, World War II was seen less as a defeat of the Fascist Right by the Communist Left than as the defeat of the radical far-right by combined forces of humanity, a narrative appealing even to conservatives who could conveniently distance themselves from the Extreme Right.
The one event that came to overshadow all others was the Holocaust or Shoah, insisted upon as the central tragedy of the entire event, the curse around which initially fell only on the Germans but then spread to others as well as either collaborators(who rounded up Jews), ignorers(who simply didn’t care), and knuckle-draggers(like the US that supposedly forestalled decisive actions to save the Jews, though one wonders how bombing the railroads would have stopped the mass killings; if Germans couldn’t ship the Jews to the death camps, they could have just shot them on the spot). Had Jews not gained elite dominance in the West, especially in the US, they would likely have been remembered as yet another unfortunate group caught up in the tragic events; but they were in the position to shape the Historical Narrative and Iconography.
Even though racial rage against the ‘Japs’ weighed heavily as a motivating factor in swinging American public opinion, not only against Japan but its ally Germany, the rightist aspect of this vengefulness became de-emphasized, especially in retrospect(as the race-hatred angle was played up during wartime; as Charles Lindbergh pointed out, America’s war against Japan was like Germany’s war on Jews). Instead of White America fighting a Race War against Yellow Japan, the preferred view was that of the Liberal Democratic West allied with the lesser evil of communism to defeat the absolute evil of Nazism-Fascism-and-Japanese-militarism, with Nazism singled out as the most dangerous of the three, despite the fact that most Americans had been unwilling to support, let alone join, the war against Germany when the Wehrmacht smashed into Russia.
Another muted consideration was the possibility of rightist, even ultra-rightist, reasons for Jewish pressures on Great Britain and then the United States to enter into war against Germany. In a way, Jewish actions implied that it was worth sacrificing countless goy lives to either protect Jewish lives or punish National Socialist Germany as the greatest enemy of Jewry, i.e. Jewish lives are infinitely more precious to save and tragic to lose than dime-a-dozen goy lives, hardly a prescription for racial equality.
While plenty of left-leaning Jews rooted for Communist Russia against National Socialist Germany(seen as ‘far right’) on the basis of ideology, an even more powerful reason may have been tribal-ethnic-national, i.e. the Germans were at war with Jewry for hegemony. Had Hitler, like the earlier incarnation of Mussolini, been accommodating to the Jews, would World Jewry have been so hostile to his wars?
Jewish reaction to German policy against Jews was not unlike White America’s reaction to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. It was racial and visceral. The ‘Aryans’ were at war with the ‘Semites’, and therefore, Jews felt compelled to unite as an ethno-global-community.
Indeed, the fact that Jews to this day are so fluid when it comes to ideology and readily work with Sub-Nazis in Ukraine and Jihadi terrorists in the Middle East suggests that the true modus operandi of Jewish Power is tribal-supremacist, or “Is it good for the Jews?”
One wonders if Robert Oppenheimer’s incentive to develop the Bomb as fast as possible was so that Jews could take credit as the vanquishers of Hitler’s Germany, the ultimate enemy of the Jews. As it happened, by the time the Bomb was ready for testing, Germany had already been defeated, meaning that the Jews couldn’t take credit as the victors. Instead, the credit went to goyim, especially the Russians and Anglos(on both sides of the Atlantic). (Had the Bomb been completed earlier and played a key role in the defeat of Germany, perhaps Jews wouldn’t have been as bitter as they could have posed as victors as well as victims, as was the case with the Russians who were filled with pride as the ultimate winners. Also, the sheer devastation of Germany under several nuclear strikes might have earned it a measure of sympathy, like what the Japanese got in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
Of course, there was a rightist element in Russia’s war with Germany as well. Even though it came down to fascist Germany vs communist Russia, it was a war for the Motherland than for any ideology. Stalin even revived Russian nationalism(which had been subdued earlier) and even elements of Orthodox religion. (And in Poland, it was the Right that constituted the bulwark of resistance against Germany.)
But after the war, the Communist East suppressed rightist themes in favor of Soviet triumphalism throughout Eastern Europe. And, as the US became locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union whereupon the advantage depended largely on winning over the Third World with universal appeals to brotherhood-of-man and equal justice for all races, a remembrance of World War II as primarily a Race War between empires in which White America squashed Yellow Japan would have backfired, especially given the likelihood of the US becoming embroiled in future Asian wars, as indeed happened in Korea and Vietnam.
And as Jews were a minority in goy nations, they preferred to spin World War II as a struggle of all humanity against tyranny than as a bitter Race War that originated from the tensions between supremacist ‘Aryans’ and supremacist ‘Semites’.
The Right was effectively written out of World War II historiography, rather odd considering some of the greatest figures were rightist or conservative men like Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and George S. Patton, the subject of a rousing movie. Apparently, such men were ‘good rightists’ because they(with the possible exception of Patton) understood that the far right was worse than the far left, or “the only good right is the one that fights the far right.”
Whereas many on the Left espoused the Popular Front program of ‘no enemy to the left’, those on the respectable Right were expected to side with even the far left against the far right, i.e. however misguided the far left may be, by far the worst is the far right, thus obliging the respectable Right to favor the far left over the far right(though when Jews practice far-right extremism in Israel, the entire political spectrum in the West is expected to lend support as, apparently, there is no higher good than Jewishness itself).
Indeed, the narrative on the ‘evils’ of McCarthyism illustrate this anti-right bias. Notice that the liberals and progressives aren’t condemned by the ‘Red Scare’ narrative for having either aided or enabled, wittingly or unwittingly, the various forms of Soviet, communist, or radical infiltration/subversion, but American Conservatism is forever tarnished for having allowed Joe McCarthy to operate in its midst. At the visceral level, American Liberalism(and centrism and even much of conservatism) made McCarthyism out to be the second greatest crime against human decency after Nazism in the 20th Century.
For most boomers, the three greatest horrors of the century were Nazism, McCarthyism, and Southern Segregation. Even though they knew at the rational/factual level about the much greater horrors around the world, they were conditioned to be more outraged by the abuses of McCarthyism.
This wasn’t based on any consistency of standards, as Americans were allowed to forget about what had been done to German-Americans during World War I and Japanese-Americans during World War II. And today’s ‘progressives’ have no qualms about espousing quasi-McCarthyite hysterics about Russia-Russia-Russia and are easily given to fear-mongering and ‘xenophobia’ about all things Russkie. In other words, then as now, your average ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ mind is usually mere putty in the hands of the Liberal/Jewish Elite.
Even though liberals long held the edge in arts & culture, the overarching narrative on McCarthyism furthered the erosion of the Right’s representation in intellectual and cultural fields. For the boomers, the Right came to be associated with repression, paranoia, persecution, fear-mongering, and hysteria. And given the shifts in ideological fashion, it was no longer tenable to hold rightist views on anything but individualism(or personal freedom) and economic theory(or free markets), as all other views could be disparaged as ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘xenophobic’, and finally ‘homophobic’. Men like John Wayne and James Stewart came to prominence when it had been permissible to hold ‘racist’ attitudes in arts and entertainment. Indeed even up to the Sixties, most liberals were staunchly ‘homophobic’ and 80% of Americans opposed interracial relations, meaning even many liberals disapproved even as they championed equal rights for blacks.
In contrast, the Left, despite its own repressive tendencies and soft spot for totalitarian Soviet Union, came to be associated with liberty and freedom. Because communists and communist-sympathizers were targeted by ‘paranoid’ Red-Baiting, they were assumed to embody the opposite of McCarthyism, the love of free speech and civil liberties. (In a way, it was a clever replay of the founding myth of Americanism where Christian sects persecuted in the Old World attained freedom of conscience in the New World, conveniently overlooking the fact that these puritanical types were repressive, even ruthlessly so, in their own right.) Because certain leftists and radicals, some of them Jews, were ‘persecuted’ during the so-called McCarthy Era, they were sanctified as martyr-champions of liberty and tolerance(despite their support for the totalitarian terrors and mass killings in the communist world); as for the ‘Nazi-sympathizers’ or Germanophiles who were blacklisted or marginalized during World War II, never mind.
Granted, the American Right was stupid to entrust so much influence to an erratic fool like McCarthy, and in retrospect Cold War politics on the Right(and US military establishment) was often dangerous to the point of recklessness. On the other hand, Liberals tended to overlook the fact that Cold War militarism was largely a continuation of the War State created under FDR’s wartime America.
Certainly, by over-emphasizing the foreign threat of World Communism, the American Right dropped the ball at home in the foolish fear that, faced with an alien threat, Americans of all stripes would come together in a united front(like against Space Aliens in a sci-fi scenario). One could argue that McCarthyism was an attempt to address a domestic challenge, i.e. radical subversion was growing from within as from without, but the crude demagoguery turned off the sophisticates and respectable types who disdained association with such a boorish figure.
But worse was to come as the Jews, in alliance with blacks and with strategic support from the Soviet Union, made the Civil Rights Movement the thematic centerpiece of the second half of the 20th Century in the US, the world capital of Freedom, which was bound to reverberate around the world. According to this Narrative, ‘racism’(especially against blacks) and ‘antisemitism’ were two sides of the same coin of ‘white supremacism’. The Germanic ‘Aryan’ kind committed genocidal acts on the Jews, and the American ‘racist’ kind burned crosses, hanged mostly-innocent-blacks-demeaned-as-‘niggers’ from trees, and committed countless acts of terror.
And just as ALL GERMANS were deemed guilty, if not for having supported Hitler then for having not done enough to resist him, all whites in the US were likewise judged, eventually the ‘liberal’ ones as well, because they were either directly or indirectly complicit in the racial injustice that had lasted for too long, though to be sure, Jews, despite their own history of exploitation of blacks, were mostly spared of the blame — in instances where blacks, like Malcolm X, called out the Jews as parasites and leeches on the black community, Jews sharply pushed back with accusations of ‘antisemitism’, apparently a goy disease so wide and varied that it even affected some in the otherwise saintly black community. “Go beat up a white guy and rape a white girl but never ever blame Jews.”
And then, especially after the end of the Cold War, Jews added homos to the pantheon of sacred cows, which further degraded the moral legitimacy of the Right. While Classical Leftism had little use for homosexuality and cultural degeneracy(seen as products of bourgeois-capitalist decadence and indulgence), the neo-‘progressive’ more-evolvists(whose conceit was being ‘more evolved’ vis-a-vis rest of humanity mired in Neanderthalism) preached Globohomo with sacraments, purification rituals, and relics. As Homomania was proselytized as a secular faith with quasi-spiritual rites and raptures, critical thinking and skepticism were devalued in the so-called Progressive community(that came to, LOL, lionize Dr. Fauci as akin to its own pope).
Consider one of the vilest films of the 21st century(albeit illuminating in its exposure of the Jewish machination of goy memory) REMEMBER by Atom Egoyan. In one scene, the avenging ‘Jewish’ hero arrives to kill a Nazi criminal in a hospital but discovers the guy is actually a homo, a sacred being, and blesses him with a kiss, ROTFL. It is unintentionally hilarious.
The Left, having lost colossally on communism(and socialism in general) in the Cold War, latched onto anything that might offend or diminish the Right, and so, the so-called Culture War gained traction, one that the Right was bound to lose because the post-war taboo made it verboten to discuss Jewish influence as the mastermind of the assault on the Right(though also increasingly on the Classic Left, as Jewish interference ensured Boris Yeltsin’s victory over the Russian Communist Party in the 1990s and as the Jewish-run media routinely characterized the intransigent communist elements in the former Soviet Union as ‘conservatives’, all the while hiding the fact that the so-called ‘liberals’ were, at their core, either ultra-right Zionist supremacists or spineless brownnosing white cuck maggots begging for handouts from Jews as the masters of the world).
Even during the height of the Cold War, the Right’s ideological argument was defensive than offensive, a sign of moral inferiority complex. Whereas the liberals and the leftists boldly held that the far-right was the worst of the worst, the most that the conservatives and rightists could muster was that the far left was either just as bad or nearly as bad as the far right but not worse.
In other words, the conservatives and the right had renounced the far right in the way that the liberals and leftists hadn’t with the far left. Even those liberals and leftists who came to denounce Stalin and the Soviet Union had no doubt that Hitler and the Nazis were far worse. For all the excesses of the far left, it was argued it had a saving grace or redemptive quality, something entirely missing in the far right, i.e. the far left created hell by trying to create heaven on earth, whereas the far right intended to create hell on earth.
In contrast, except for fringe elements on the Right, most conservatives and rightists agreed that Hitler and Nazis were the absolute worst… but maybe just maybe Stalin and communism were almost as bad. In other words, whereas the liberals and the left were absolutely certain that the far right was worse than the far left, conservatives and rightists could only counter with the moral-equivalence argument: Stalin was nearly as bad but no way he was worse than Hitler, the Devil Incarnate and the worst monster of all time(mainly because he killed precious and sacred Jews).
If the Right in the first half of the 20th century confronted Jewish Power in its various manifestations, capitalist as well as communist(and tribal-reactionary as well as radical-subversive), the rulebook changed in the second half of the century when the world came to be more or less divided between the two superpowers. Prior to the war, there had been three centers of power: US capitalism, European(and Japanese) Imperialism, and Soviet Communism. The great imperialist powers practiced capitalism like the US but with a notable difference. America, with its shallower history, hemmed closer to ideology and economic theory, whereas Europe(and Japan) with its deeper history balanced ideology with pre-modern concerns of grandeur and tradition. As Margaret Thatcher later said, America is about ‘philosophy’ whereas Europe is about history — one wonders where she placed Britain between the two — , though, to be sure, since her statement, the US and EU have been converging toward a singularity of cuckery to World Jewry, which amounts to favoring Zionocracy, Negrolatry, and Globohomo above all else.
Even though Americanism and Sovietism could also have been said to be expressions of imperialism in their own right, their stated principles begged to differ. Soviets claimed to be about liberation of humanity from capitalist/imperialist exploitation; thus it was the Soviet UNION, not the Soviet EMPIRE.
And contra the brazenly imperialist model of Europe(and Japan) that practiced capitalism to selectively favor the metropole, American capitalism, at least in theory(as with the promotion of democracy and self-determination for all peoples), claimed to be grounded in universal principles, i.e. whereas European Imperialist Capitalism was openly designed to dominate other peoples, the American kind could serve as the basis of worldwide progress whereupon all of humanity would be free to prosper on an equal basis.
That brand of Americanism fully materialized during the Cold War when the communist side accused American Capitalism of continuing the legacy of European Imperialism. In other words, Americans inherited or usurped the empire from their European peers who could no longer afford it.
If the religious variant of communism was Liberation Theology, its capitalist counterpart was the Prosperity Gospel, a more hedonistic outgrowth of the Protestant Work Ethic(a point of distinction from Mormonism): Don’t just work hard to save and invest but dream of mansions and fancy cars, and jewelry for the missus.
Prior to World War II, the ideological divide wasn’t so stark, the binary that it became with the US and USSR as seemingly the last contenders of ‘History'(as Francis Fukuyama defined it). European Imperialism had its own ideological rationales that were at odds not only with the Bolshies but the Yanks.
Furthermore, there was the rise of Fascism and National Socialism that fused elements of the right and left, capitalism and socialism, radicalism and traditionalism, and for a time, the fascist model was in the running in the war of ideas, especially as the Great Depression cast doubts on the so-called capitalist-democratic system. In an era of social and economic turmoil, many people looked to fascism as the preferred alternative to communism, also billed as the wave of the future.
But following the total military defeat of fascist powers(along with militarist Japan) and then their ideological disqualification(especially in light of Nazi horrors and Japanese barbarism), soon followed by the sudden retreat and then collapse of European Empires, the only game in town was America vs Russia, or liberty-capitalism vs liberation-communism.
Thus, the ideological debate became binary, perhaps more than at any time in history(at least since the Catholics and Protestants were at each other’s throats in the 17th Century, but then, that was confined to Europe whereas the Cold War was global in scale).
Even though nationalism was still in play, e.g. American patriotism and Russian patriotism, it was subordinate to ideology. America-as-proposition trumped America-as-white-nation, and Russia as mother-goose of world revolution trumped Russia as motherland. And even though Mao Zedong was a Chinese nationalist, ideology often raged against Chinese traditions, customs, and values in the name of revolution.
However, there was a hidden exception to the capitalist vs communist binary in the global game, and it was Jewish Power, especially as it came to identify ever more with the Zionist enterprise, followed by the Greater Israel project. Whereas most goyim(especially in the West) increasingly put ideology first, Jewish Power continued to place identity and tribal unity at the center, playing both the left-liberal side and the right-conservative side in service to Jewish interests. The view among goyim, right and left, that most Jews were driven by ideology(given higher education levels and intellectualism) blinded them to what was really happening.
In a way, the most important story since the end of World War II concerns the miscalculation by both the left and the right as to the nature of Jewish Power. It is also a story of great betrayal by Jews of the left and the (goy)right. Oddly enough, the Left was even more deluded than the Right on this score, and the Jewish Betrayal was even more profound because of the widely held assumption that Jews were overwhelmingly leftist-liberal. But were they really?
Especially following the end of the Cold War, Jews have not only gone about demeaning and/or defacing the most prized values, themes, and icons of the Right but degrading the meaning of leftism to such a degree that radicalism has lost its luster. It was all the more devious because Jews maintained the façade of ‘progressivism’ even as they perverted its mission. When the ‘left’ today is largely associated with tranny men in women’s sports and encouragement of homelessness among big city junkies, it’s not for serious people.
All the while, with their immense wealth and power, supposedly-mostly-liberal-Jews ensured that both Democrats and Republicans would unconditionally support Israel that, if anything, has turned ever more right-wing and extreme over the years.
The Left, contra the more tribal-national-racial-minded Right, is supposed to be about equal justice and universal values but, under Jewish-Zionist pressure and influence, has largely been toothless against AIPAC’s grip on American foreign policy. (It’s no less true of the so-called conservatives of the Classical Liberal or Libertarian variety who profess affinity to ideas and values than to blood and soil. For all their rejection of ‘identity politics’ among goyim, they usually give a free pass to Judeo-centrism and Zionism.)
Incredibly enough, the Western Left in the past few years has been closely associated with the most perverse alliance of Jewish globalists and Sub-Nazi far-rightists in Ukraine. And the so-called ‘progressives’ in the various US departments and agencies, almost entirely run by Democrats, have been hard at work recruiting the most radical and extreme religious nutters in the Middle East to wreak havoc on whatever country or people hated by Zion.
Therefore, even though the Jewish takeover of the West since World War II may seem like the triumph of the Left(as most Jews are ostensibly on the ‘progressive’ end of the spectrum), the truth has been otherwise, with true leftism demoted and/or degraded into mindless celebration of degeneracy & decadence or a neo-tribal & quasi-spiritual idolization of certain groups as more-equal-than-others, namely Jews, blacks, and homos, of course. Look past the smoke-and-mirrors of Jewish ‘progressive’ values, and more often than not, what’s discernible is far-right Jewish tribal-supremacism that, in its nihilism and contempt, isn’t averse to exploiting whatever ideology to further fulfil the megalomaniacal designs of Zion.
Why did the so-called ‘Neocons’ keep switching parties ever so often, playing both sides against one another?
Jews make ideology serve identity, even as they insist on goyim to favor ideology over identity, that is unless the said ideology runs counter to Jewish interests, in which case goyim must favor Jewish identity over ideology. In other words, ideological universalism trumps goy tribal-particularism but Jewish tribal-particularism trumps ideological universalism.
The rational goy-rightist position on Zionism would oppose it on grounds of Jewish hostility against white identity, white unity, and white nationhood. If most Jews/Zionists are hellbent on destroying the white world, why should whites support the Jewish nationalist project? Where’s the give-and-take?
As for the leftist goy position, how could it logically support Zionism given its imperialist and supremacist character?
Yet, by and large, much of the ‘progressive’ community in the West have either been complicit in Israel’s crimes or muted in their criticism. Consider Kamala Harris naming Hamas as the evil perpetrators of the 10/7 attack but not naming the party responsible for the death and destruction in Gaza. In her appeal, we should do more for the people of Gaza while overlooking who dropped the bombs and shot the children. Such has been the milquetoast position of American ‘progressivism’ for as long as anyone can remember.
And of course, the sudden shift among rich powerful Jews toward Donald Trump following the explosion of pro-Palestinian protests gave the game away. These Democratic and ‘progressive’ Jews were suddenly willing to support ‘literally Hitler’ Trump or at least go easier on him in 2024 out of the fear that the Democratic base was finally waking up to the evils of Zionism.
A lot of this surely owes to opportunism and cowardice, i.e. plenty of goyim of all stripes, white-black-or-otherwise, suck up to Jewish money & power in the game of “gimme what’s mine”. But, there’s also genuine sentimentality or sanctimony about the Holocaust cult, a misconceived kind of idolatry-morality, or ‘idorality’. True morality consists of a set of rules and principles applicable to all on an individual basis. A person cannot be said to be more guilty(or less guilty) of a crime because of his identity. Murder is murder regardless of one’s race, color, or creed. So, true morality would have to judge Jews on what they do as individuals or as an organization of individuals committed to a shared agenda.
But morality and idolatry became fused in the case of Jews. The Holocaust cult became so pervasive, relentless, and sacralized that people began to equate Jewishness with innocence and victimhood regardless of what Jews did. Such logic never applied to Christians who were to be judged on an individual basis. In other words, being a Christian didn’t mean you lived by Christ’s teachings; you could still be a person of evil thoughts and deeds. The mere identification as white or Christian was no guarantee of moral validation; one had to prove one’s worth by deed and action.
But, Jews came to be shrouded in holy Holocaust aura. It meant Jews, merely on account of their identity, were above judgement, at least by goyim(with the Mark of Cain of Antisemitism). When Jews hounded goyim, goyim were expected to reflect on the wisdom of Jewish chutzpah. But when goyim criticized Jews, how dare they? Oy vey, the presumptuous goyim passing judgment on the holy, wise, and tragic Jews? The nerves!
It’s no wonder the Jewish-Goy dynamic became so demented. Even in cases where one suspects the Jews did wrong, one must reflect on what drove the Jews to do whatever they did. Even if Jews wronged you, maybe you did something to warrant their bad behavior; therefore, YOU should undergo self-criticism and be more careful in the future(even though Jews are the ones who did you wrong).
In contrast, Jews aren’t under similar pressure to reflect on their own behavior when goyim give offense, in which case the blame is entirely dumped on goyim. So, if Palestinians are expected to reflect on why Gaza was bombed back into the stone age, Jews aren’t expected to reflect as to what they may have done to drive Palestinians into acts of rage. So, Russians are expected to reflect on their history of antisemitism and pogroms as the catalyst for the disproportionate Jewish role in Bolshevism, but Jews need not reflect on whatever they may have done in Weimar Germany that drove a substantial number of Germans to throw in their lot with Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.
This moral idolatry essentially posits that Jews are in the right for simply being Jewish. A kind of birth-right morality or birth-righteousness. It’s no wonder then that Jews have been rewarded by all sides despite their betrayal of all sides. For example, Jews have been hostile to Donald Trump and MAGA, but all we get from Trump and MAGA-tards is more unconditional support for Israel, more Scofield Bible nonsense, more death-and-destruction for Palestinians, and more cucking to Bibi Netanyahu who welcomed Jonathan Pollard, the biggest traitor in US history, as a national hero of Israel. And notice how the Democrats, even as they call Trump a ‘fascist’ and ‘new Hitler’, dare not mention that he’s a beloved figure among far-right genocidal Israelis. The Boomer disease of moral idolatry or ‘idorality’ of Jews must enter the dustbin of history if we are to have any semblance of a moral order.
Anyway, in the binary climate of the Cold War, the ideological options of any consequence seemed to be liberal-capitalism and liberation-communism(though more astute observers might have noted the rising currency of Jew-Worship and Negrolatry as looming obsessions in the West). Both materialist camps claimed to be ‘democratic’ in their own ways, the capitalist camp via regular elections(and the ‘rule of law’) and the communist camp in its vision of collective ownership by the workers as the productive class. There was the non-aligned movement, but it was of limited influence. And, there emerged a serious rift within the communist camp between industrial Soviet Union and agrarian Red China that preached the gospel of guerrilla war to the Third World. And not all capitalist countries shared the same political systems, especially in Latin America and East Asia where much of modernization was realized under autocratic governments. A school of thought in the West even defended autocratic governance as inevitable, even ideal, during the developmental phase prior to the emergence of an educated middle class, without which democracy would be dysfunctional.
Still, the basic conflict came down to communism versus capitalism as the last men standing in the War of ‘History’. As communism was leftist, many assumed capitalism to be rightist, conservative, even reactionary, not least because leftist propaganda deemed it so. Whereas communism stood for revolution, capitalism supposedly stood for maintaining the status quo of oligarchy, monopoly, bourgeois privilege, and repressive/exploitative hierarchy, or so the communist camp and its cheering section in the West argued.
What was often overlooked was how faster the social orders were changing under capitalism than under communism, which, if anything, seemed to have a freezing effect on history. Compare West Germany in 1955 to West Germany in 1975, and it certainly underwent far more drastic changes in all areas than East Germany in the same period. The differences were even starker between China and Taiwan, between North Korea and South Korea. Or Western Europe in general with Eastern Europe. The communist side, for all its radical/revolutionary rhetoric, had done more to preserve the status quo, even traditional culture.
But then, Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism focused on its revolutionary than reactionary tendencies. If anything, capitalism was problematic because it was excessively revolutionary, too rapidly transformative, turning the whole world upside down without providing sufficient time and space for humanity to adjust to the changes, thereby advantaging the new adaptive class of enterprisers at the expense of the working masses who, being less educated and politically conscious, were condemned to be deer-in-the-headlights of rampaging history. Unlike radical anarchists who exulted in violence-for-violence’s-sake, communists believed in the necessity of violence to create a more stable order in which the masses would be spared the whims of volatility.
Of course, as communism mostly gained power in relatively backward countries(made worse by wars), there was hardly any industry or modern wealth to inherit, and therefore communism was tasked with the creation of industry, what Jean-Paul Sartre called ‘concentration camp socialism’.
Even the most cursory survey of the Capitalist West since the end of World War II indicates severe challenges for conservatism, unless it’s defined as conserving-the-very-engine-that-produces-the-most-change-in-the-shortest-time, a kind of socio-economic paradox.
However, the distrust and hatred of communism(as the embodiment of radicalism and assault on God & Country) was such that conservatives and rightists in the West supported capitalism with a passion that might have puzzled earlier generations on the Right who, though suspicious of radical ideas, were also wary of the disruptive impact of capitalism. This was especially true in Europe where ‘liberal’ often meant fewer regulations and more ‘free trade’, whereas the term connoted ‘socialist’ statism in the US(especially in light of FDR’s New Deal programs; FDR’s war economy was no less ‘statist’ or ‘socialist’ but could be spun as equally ‘rightist’ in favor of military themes associated with gung-ho patriotism). Conservatives and rightists in the US became so hostile to communism that they often conflated socialism(even those of Social-Democracy and the New Deal) with communism, thereby opposing(at least ideologically) any further encroachment of the state into the economy. William F. Buckley and his ilk got their start by arguing for what eventually came to be known as ‘libertarian’ solutions to all problems. It became fashionable in rightist circles to argue against any form of statism as a ‘road to serfdom’, a slippery slope to Orwellian totalitarianism.
Especially with the fascist and/or ‘Anti-Semitic’ Right disgraced and disposed of in ‘respectable’ rightist circles of the postwar order, there was a concerted effort to reorganize the movement more along abstract principles of individualism, universalism, and economic theory. As virtually all the rightist elements on the European Continent had been tainted as either allies or collaborators of the Evil Nazis, the postwar right found itself in dire ideological and moral straits. The few remaining respectable rightist voices, those associated with Churchill and De Gaulle, presented their bona fides in having stood against the evil far right of Nazism and fascism, i.e. they were the good right because they resisted the bad right.
To be sure, social-democratic Sweden had been one of the major beneficiaries of good relations with Hitler’s Germany. And, it was the Polish Right that had fought hardest against the Germans, but its role was soon erased by Soviet Occupation and Polish communists. No wonder Winston Churchill was held in such high esteem by post-war conservatives so eager to prove that True Conservatism was anti-fascist and, more than even the communists, stood firm against the Nazi menace(unlike Stalin who once formed a pact with Hitler).
In the US, the post-war conservatives became rather embarrassed of the pre-war Right as its stalwart hero was the ‘isolationist’ Charles Lindbergh who not only argued against American involvement but called attention to the Jewish role in driving a wedge between the Anglos and their racial brethren Germans.
As the Cold War intensified, the US found itself in a pickle. During the War, resistance against Germany had mostly come from leftist elements(except in Poland), and it made sense for the US, as fellow vanquisher of the Nazis along with the Soviet Union, to lend support to leftist elements across Europe and in Japan. But the Cold War cast these leftist elements as potential agents of the Soviet Union, leaving the US no choice but to support rightist elements, even rehabilitating those charged as ‘war criminals’, easier done in Japan(as its main victims were other Asians, not Jews) than in Europe where the rehabilitation of certain German and Austrian figures continued to dog the West due to growing Jewish power and resolve to hunt down every last Nazi criminal and collaborator. (Even the Vatican came under harsh scrutiny and the socialist Mitterand was dragged over the coals for his Vichy past; even the legend of the French Resistance was exposed as mostly myth. Kurt Waldeim was destroyed in the public eye, and a scandal brewed over Swiss Nazi gold.)
With a widening web of Jewish power and influence, the New Right used extreme caution not to trigger Jewish sensibilities. To be sure, Jews were rather schizophrenic in their political morality. For example, it seemed as if the Right had to renounce ‘racism’ to be in good graces with Jews, who, however, weren’t exactly principled in their insistence on whites to favor and indulge Jews as a special people and look the other way at the plight of those victimized by Jews. In other words, unconditionally support Israeli actions and the Wars for World Jewry. So, ‘racism’ against Jews and blacks(as props of Jews) was deemed totally evil, but ‘racism’ against Palestinians and Arabs/Muslims in general became de facto obligatory(except when Jews found such groups useful as pro-immigration-diversity props against the anti-invasion/replacement voices on the Right).
And, of course, while all goy collaborators of Nazism must be smoked out and punished(even in their final years), don’t mention anything about the Zionist elements who collaborated with the Nazis. (And always associate terrorism with Muslims but feign ignorance about the key Zionist role in its creation as a political instrument. And associate gangsterism with Italians, the Irish, and lately the Russians, not so much with the Jews, though with the romanticism of hoodlums in popular culture, Jews aren’t as averse to featuring their kind as Tough Jews.)
William F. Buckley led what became one of the most self-defeating templates of the New Right. On the one hand, given the rise of the Holocaust Cult and the conflation of ‘racism’(usually regarding blacks) with ‘antisemitism’, Buckley sensed the necessity to redirect the American Right toward colorblindness and meritocracy(though this didn’t happen overnight as the National Review once defended Southern segregation). The new themes were essentially about individual choices and aspirations. This Right would renounce all vestiges of ‘antisemitism’ right away and ‘racism’ in a more incremental manner, if only out of Cold War considerations — the National Review continued to support Apartheid South Africa as an ally of Israel against the USSR and routinely criticized the Anti-War MLK while he was alive, before finally adopting his memory as a ‘conservative’ icon).
But this very same New Right, though ostensibly moving toward colorblindness, totally supported Jewish supremacism, Zionism, and the dehumanization of Palestinians. In other words, the New Right really hadn’t seen the light. It didn’t go from white-centric racialism to colorblind individualism but rejected white racial identity mainly to appease the ascendant Jews(which it, in equal parts, feared, envied, and admired as the next big thing), shamelessly cucking to Jewish identity, unity, power, and even supremacism.
Speaker Mike Johnson says Israel is maybe the US’ closest ally “in the world” in a promotional video for AIPAC.
Follow: @AFpost
— AF Post (@AFpost) February 26, 2025
Especially given the moral deficit of the Right in its association with ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’(as well as ‘nationalism’ increasingly identified with Nazism and Japanese militarism), the New Right sought moral credit by ever more pathetic and desperate attempts to earn the approval of Holy Holocaust Jews, even if, surreally enough, it was incumbent on the New Right’s support of Jewish supremacism and its near-genocidal aims in Palestine/Israel.
Winning over Jews was crucial as the Tribe became both a cash cow and a sacred cow, what with Holocaustianity soon outpacing Christianity as the central moral-spiritual compass in the West.
It’s worth noting that for all the Conservative Inc.’s denunciation of Identity Politics in favoring race/ethnicity/sexual-orientation over individual merit/morality, it has practiced the same kind of idolatry-morality or ‘idorality’ in regards to Jews, i.e. Jews are good to have on one’s side simply for their sanctified identity regardless of whether they, as individuals or a collective, do right or wrong. Thus, Conservatism Inc., even in association with the most supremacist and genocidal Zionist lunatics, could claim to be morally justified in its relation with the Holy Tribe. Sounds like Identity Politics to me.
Also, by fully endorsing the Zionist supremacist project against the Arabs, whites could partially absolve themselves of Holocaust Guilt, i.e. “Sure, the Holocaust happened in the heart of Christian Europe, but WE WHITES are now with the Jews against the Palestinians as the New Nazis.” Never mind Jews have been implementing the lebensraum plan against the Palestinians. It goes to show whites and conservatives can be total human trash devoid of any logic or decency.
The Buckley Plan revealed there was no real moral progress in the New Right. Its rejection of white ‘racism’ was merely to appease the Jews as the new master race. After all, if the New Right finally did see the light and came to realize the evil of racial supremacism, why did it then go about cucking to Jewish Supremacism and Zionism? Why did it come around to acknowledging Nelson Mandela as a man of justice but then continue to lionize Bibi Netanyahu the Zionist Jewish-supremacist?
Buckleyism continues in disingenuous figures like Charles Murray, who has insisted that his observation of racial differences in IQ has no bearing whatsoever on his view of human rights(that equally apply to all people, smart or dumb) but then supports Jewish supremacism and the destruction of Palestinians on the basis that smarter Jews have the right to crush inferior Palestinians. This kind of rightism is shot through with moral and intellectual fraudulence.
The problem wasn’t so much Buckley’s purging of the so-called ‘far right’ elements(as there are extremists in any movement) but his unwillingness to hold the Jews to the same standards. In principle, if whites must reject white ‘racism’, then Jews must do likewise with Jewish supremacism. But the bargain between the Buckleyites and the Jews was (1) whites must be ‘anti-racist’ but (2) Jews may be totally ‘racist’ in favoring Jewish Power uber alles. It was a stupider deal than when Indians gave away Manhattan island for a bead necklace.
The ridiculous post-war contract between white conservatives and Jews was that both groups should denounce white identity while elevating Jewish identity. Thus, the ‘principled conservatism’ of the New Right failed at the most basic level, that is in its own stated principles. While calling for reform in white consciousness, a conservatism with no place for ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’, it indulged the worst excesses of Jewish ethnocentrism of tribal-imperial ambitions, paving the way for the Neocon takeover of Conservatism Inc. These ‘principled conservatives’ pounce on anything even remotely pro-white for the kill but spare nothing in their brazen and explicit support of all things Jewish and Zionist.
Imagine if Bill and Bob’s idea of mutual understanding is for Bill to remove his own balls. Instead of both guys removing their balls, both agree that only Bill should be castrated. No wonder then that American Conservatism(overwhelmingly white) turned eunuch while Jewish Politics got bowling balls for its cojones. In no case in history has the ball-less ruled over the ball-full. No, the ball-less always served the ball-full, and today’s white cuckservatives are nothing but a class of mental eunuchs at the service of portnoic ballsters.
If the Western Left assumed or assured itself that Jewish Power was mostly on its side for reasons of ideology, history, and/or circumstance, the Western Right conceded it was so, if in despair. If the pre-war ‘Anti-Semitic’ right rebuffed Jews as the Other, preferring various degrees of separation, the post-war Right could no longer cling to such attitudes as Jews had become sacrosanct. Jewish antipathy could be a badge of honor for the pre-war right but became a badge of shame for the post-war counterpart that, forbidden to rekindle ‘antisemitism’, sought ways to diagnose the reasons for the antipathy and to formulate accommodations to gain the trust and favor of Jews whose blessings became invaluable to anyone seeking fame, fortune, reputation, and/or respectability. (So, the likes of Paul Johnson argued that Jewishness is essentially conservative in terms of culture, history, and spirituality but found itself shipwrecked on the left due to mishaps of history, a problem that might be rectified, mostly by goy conservatives cucking hard to the most rightist Jewish tendencies such as Zionism.)
The Left valued Jews as intelligent and educated, the sort of people who are most likely to be progressive, intellectual, even radical. And as Jews came to symbolize the most tragic victimization by ‘far right’ Nazism, the Left came to own the Anne Frank cult as well. The Left held that the Jews, having been eternal minorities, had more of a reason to identify with underdogs and marginalized groups of the world, those denied the basics of human rights & dignity.
Especially following the horrors of Nazism, many Jews felt that rightism isn’t merely an Anti-Semitic nuisance but an existential threat to Jews as a people. To be sure, plenty of leftists reviled political figures like Henry Kissinger who threw in his lot with Richard Nixon in the Vietnam War and anti-communism in general. And the more radical elements of the International Left railed against Zionism(as an ultra-nationalist betrayal of Jewish martyrdom in Word War II), especially in the heady times of the Sixties and Seventies.
But, by and large, the Left believed the bulk of Jewish Power to be firmly on its side. The Left even favored the Neocons in the struggle with the ‘Paleocons’ in the assumption that the former had a softening effect on the latter(with its supposedly hardline or reactionary positions), i.e. better Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz than Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis(referred to as ‘white supremacist’ in Jewish-controlled Wikipedia). Indeed, when an all-out culture war erupted over the soul of the Conservative movement between people like Buchanan and the Neocons, not only the entire Liberal press but Bill Buckley and National Review editorial board came down on the side of the Neocons(who postured as ‘anti-racist’ conservatives). The general consensus, given the Jewish stranglehold over media discourse, was that Pat Buchanan almost irreparably tarnished the GOP convention in 1992 with his ‘Culture War’ speech that some Jewish commentators mocked as ‘sounding better in the original German.’ Most conservatives, instead of rallying behind Buchanan, joined with ‘moderate conservatives’ in distancing themselves from his brand of ‘extremism’, caving ever more to Jewish Power. As a result, the Republican or Conservative position on any issue came to rest less and less on values or principles but on whether it might please or displease Jews. The main reason for abandoning the opposition to the radical ‘gay’ agenda was the word got around inside the beltway that it will piss off the Jews, including the Neocons(who were after all the flipside of the Neolibs).
In the end, however, the Left lost out in its miscalculation of Jewish Power. The eventual demise of any meaningful progressivism can be traced back to this blind-spot that most Jews were truly on its side. In truth, most Jews were essentially tribal-supremacist and had adopted leftism as a strategy or ruse. This hadn’t always been the case, especially in the first half of the 20th century when many Jews, often of humble(or even impoverished) backgrounds, fervently took to radical ideologies and dreams of revolution.
But increasingly in the post-war environment, more and more Jews realized communism, at least the Soviet kind, was a dead-end for them(and humanity as a whole). By the Seventies and Eighties, more American Jews were worried about the ‘plight’ of Soviet Jews than forging a global pan-Jewish alliance against American Capitalism-Imperialism. And the increasing centrality of Zionism and Shoah-business as the defining markers of Jewishness(that infected Philo-Semitic goyim as well, reshaping American politics to pledge greater loyalty to Israel and to denounce any sign of ‘antisemitism’) was bound to turn Jews into LINOS or Leftists-In-Name-Only, though the power of labels is such that it can outlast the expiration date.
If the Left assumed Jewish Power to be an ally — the most important one given the money, institutional influence, and disproportionate involvement of Jews in the cause — and thereby overlooked its darker ethnocentrism, the Right couldn’t be so complacent given that the Jewish dagger was aimed at its heart. However, the Right couldn’t opt for outright confrontation either because of the burning taboo of ‘antisemitism’ in the aftermath of World War II. No matter how hostile the Jews were to the Right, the latter could only hope to assuage them that the New Right not only reviled ‘antisemitism’ but was more Philo-Semitic than the Left(that had some issues with Zionism, whereas the Right fully endorsed ‘white’ Jews beating up on inferior ‘brown’ Arabs, thus betraying the fact that white ‘racism’ didn’t really go away but was channeled into new conflicts between the white-adjacent and the nonwhite).
Granted, Jews cleverly hedged their bets and tossed some bones to the Right, thus fooling enough conservatives that Jews, albeit in smaller numbers, had their backs as well(though with the point of a knife).
In earlier times, the Right, less fearful of accusations of ‘antisemitism’, would have called out on Jewish Power, its roles in both radical leftism and finance capitalism, along with cultural subversion. But in the post-war era, it became ever more disreputable to be critical of Jewish Power, then it became taboo, then downright blasphemous. For a time, those who dared not express ‘Anti-Semitic’ views themselves nevertheless associated with or even praised those who with the fortitude to do so. But over time, even the faintest association with such types became radioactive. By the end of the century, just about every Conservative was forcefully asserting that he wanted NOTHING to do with Pat Buchanan(and it was to John McLaughlin’s credit for refusing to play this game).
There was no denying the Jewish role in anti-conservatism, anti-Christian agenda, anti-white agenda, and etc. The secret tapes of Richard Nixon’s conversations with various goyim on the Jewish Question reveal that the American Right, at least behind closed doors, were well aware of the problems of Jewish Ascendancy.
Especially frustrating was that Jews could call out the WASPs, pedophile Catholics, Italian ‘goombas’, Dumb Polacks, haughty British, arrogant French, and so on(especially for the ‘sins’ of ‘antisemitism’), but it simply wouldn’t do(even by law in Europe) to speak ill of Jews.
It meant the Right had to seek roundabout ways of dealing with hostile Jewish Power. Whereas Jews could be brazenly ethnic in their attack against goyim — no problem for Jews to speak critically of Arabs/Muslims but Arabs speaking likewise of Jews would be ‘Anti-Semitic’ — , goyim, especially whites, had to contend with Jewish Power only in the domain of ideas. Jews could say whiteness itself is a problem, but whites could only argue that ideas held by Jews are wrong but Jewishness could never ever be wrong. (A similar logic operates with the black problem. So, conservatives are loath to blame blacks for the crime-infested conditions in Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, and etc. No, the problem is said to be ‘big government’, ‘socialism’, ‘Democratic policies’, ‘liberalism’, or other bad ideas planted in black minds. Replace those bad ideas with good ones of free enterprise and family values, and you will have Conservative Wakanda in the Afrosphere. Of course, blacks can blame whiteness itself, i.e. the problem with white people isn’t only the bad ideas in their minds but their very identity, meaning that even well-meaning white ‘progressives’ are suspect because of their ineradicable whiteness, a view endorsed by Jews who run the publishing industry and promote books by various black pseudo-intellectuals such as Ibram X. Kendi.)
There is something like the Dark Matter theory of sociology and politics. Certain things simply cannot be named as the actual mover-and-shaker, the real culprit, or the critical mass as to why the world is as it is. Thus, the discussion of the Ukraine War mentions the Russians, Americans, Ukrainians, Poles, Brits & the French, Turks, and Americans(as well as Indians and Chinese who have Russia’s back), but there’s hardly any mention of the Jews, the group most instrumental in having brought about this war. It’s as if Jewish Power has to be addressed as the Dark Matter of history, i.e. we feel the impact but cannot(or must not) identify the source or agent. Even naming George Soros complies with the Dark Matter theory in failing to connect the dots to illustrate the bigger picture of Global Jewish Influence. The reason why the Gaza tragedy has been such an eye-opener(and possible game-changer) is that there was no getting around the fact that it was a JEWISH thing aided and abetted by a global network of Zionist supremacists and their brownnosing army of white cucks.
While Jews were making spectacular gains under capitalism, the Right convinced itself that the worst excesses of Jewish Power(and Jewishness in general) could be contained if the Left was put in its place. After all, the great majority of Jews were Democrats and identified as ‘progressives’. And radical movements were often led or funded by Jews. And, certain anti-leftist Jews made common cause with the American Goy Right — figures like Ayn Rand and the more libertarian and/or Zionist-minded Jews morphed into Straussian Neocons.
So, even if Jewish Problem wasn’t limited to the Left, it was assumed that the MAIN sickness lay there, and if those Leftist Jews could be contained, perhaps even converted, then the Right(and white people in general) would have an easier and happier relation with Jews.
But as it happened, even though the Right grind its teeth about Jews-as-communists, Jews-as-anarchists, Jews-as-socialists, or Jews-as-radicals, it was the Jews-as-capitalists who were gaining the most power(and growing in David-Mametian and Alan-Dershowitzian contempt for goyim).
The notion that “Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans”, at least from the conservative/libertarian perspective, seem to imply that the problem lay in Jewish politics, not Jewish economics, i.e. if Jews were focused on gaining more wealth and abandoned their pet political causes, they’d get along just fine with conservatives who are all about enterprise and success, the American Way. But in unloading or reducing their ‘Puerto-Rican’-ism, Jews didn’t adopt ‘Episcopalian’-ism of deracinated individualism and abstract principles but weaponized their growing wealth and power to fuel their long-held Jewish tribal-supremacism that inherently regards goyim, whites included, as inferior dogs and cattle.
The Right also failed to acknowledge that capitalism, given its decadent and nihilistic tendencies, provided a greater range of opportunity for Jewish subversion than communism or socialism ever could. One merely needed to compare Weimar Germany with Bolshevik Russia to understand which, capitalism or communism, was more conducive to cultural degeneracy.
But during the Cold War when the Communist East was identified with the Left while the Capitalist West was identified with the Right, many conservatives conflated the triumph of capitalism with victory for rightism, despite witnessing their children growing into hedonistic louts right before their eyes under the influence of consumerist youth-culture. John Lukacs on the Right and Christopher Lasch on the Left understood this conundrum. And Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” could as well have applied to blind-sided American Conservatism that misdiagnosed the relation among politics, economics, and culture.
Even as conservatives chose not to name the Jew(out of fear and/or under the spell of Holocaust Cult), they figured that the capitalist victory in the Cold War would deal a serious blow to the negative radical side of Jewish Power that had been such a bane to the American Right. But even as the Right fixated on this hope and delusion, Jews had quietly moved most of their assets away from the Left while maintaining the façade of the Liberal front. Indeed, contrary to the collapse of the Soviet Union being a setback for Jewish Power, it was a new gilded age for the Tribe that, unloosed from any humanitarian loyalties and obligations, ran riot on the fumes of limitless greed and supremacism. But don’t tell that to Conservatism Inc. or even to MAGA, the current darling of which is Javier Milei, the clown-prince of Argentinian libertarianism whose apparent idea of appeasing Jews is to fuel more Jewish capitalist greed and Zionist excesses. Thus appeased by foolish goyim, why would Jews be incentivized to treat them with respect and admiration? When dogs grovel at the feet of their master, does the master see them as his equals?
Despite the spectacular gains of Bolshevik Jews in Russia, in contrast to American Jews with no comparable chance of a sudden power-grab, the long-term impact of leftism-communism was a severe restraint on Jewish Power. Leftist-communist Jews won the sprint, but the rightist-capitalist Jews won the marathon.
The appeal of leftism to Jews was more understandable in the Russian context where the dominant Orthodox Church was hostile to Jews, where enterprise and wealth-creation were suspect to the peasant masses with no entrepreneurial culture to speak of(sometimes leading to outbreaks of violence against Jews), and where plenty of Jews, over-educated or not, faced bleak career prospects.
Under such circumstances, many Jews saw little promise in capitalism. If anything, the goy impression of Jewish Greed only seemed to fuel resentment and hostility, making life harder even or especially for Jews with little or no wealth but who bore the brunt of the bad reputation around the wealthy/greedy Jews.
Besides, as many Eastern Jews were themselves destitute, many believed capitalism held little in store for the little Jews; it seemed the cash cow of the Big Jews in alliance with High Society goyim.
That being so, the only solution seemed a compromise between Jews and goyim on Marxist principles. Goyim would embrace Jews as comrades, and Jews would choose equality with goyim under socialism than exploitation of goyim via capitalism. If Jews had missed the great opportunity to unite with humanity via the universal faith of Christianity, perhaps Jew-Goy harmony could be fulfilled through the gospel of Marxism-Leninism.
As Karl Marx wrote, the best way to be rid of ‘antisemitism’ was to prohibit the drug that drives Jews into a frenzy. If anti-Jewish elements saw Jews themselves as the problem, Marx focused on the very thing that made Jews the problem, i.e. Jews were not the germs but merely more susceptible to the germs of greed. Of course, one might argue that Jews must be inherently problematic since they are naturally more prone to be corrupted by greed than other peoples are, but one could counter that some people being more prone to alcoholism doesn’t make them less human; the solution is to remove the alcohol from the alcoholics than to remove the alcoholics from humanity. With no more drink to mess them up, alcoholics will sober up and become responsible members of society. In a way, communism was Prohibition-ism but with the banning of capital than alcohol, and perhaps Prohibition was communism but with the banning of alcohol than capital in the hope that universal sobriety/temperance would make everyone equally decent, LOL.
The communist take on the JQ held that if Jews are allowed to play the money game, they invariably earn and steal more. While it’s fabulous for rich Jews, it’s bad for Jews in general who aren’t filthy rich but nevertheless become associated in goy minds with their worst money-grubbing tribal brethren.
However, if capital is taken out of the equation, there’s no longer any means for Jews to gain more at the expense of others, and finally, the Jew and goy can be equal as comrades.
Within such an ideological framework, Jewish Power was bound to be constrained in time despite the initial spring of Jewish over-representation in the upper ranks of decision-making and influence. But because of the shock of revolution(in the most conservative European country no less) and the crucial role of Jews in it, many on the Right assumed communism to be synonymous with Jewish Power that would go from strength to strength on the wings of radicalism.
In effect, communism robbed Jews of their greatest asset in the power-game: Jews couldn’t accumulate great wealth. Even if higher IQ advantaged them for academic and institutional success vis-a-vis other ethnic groups in the communist bloc, power remained locked to position than opened to opportunity(for endless wealth accumulation of the oligarchic kind).
Besides, the workings of communism was like Machine Politics, the one mastered by the clannish Irish-Americans of yesteryear, a power-game reliant more on organization and loyalty than intellect or merit. It was about connections, backroom deals, factionalism, and cunning. In that pissing contest, Stalin the ‘cutthroat bandit’ from the Caucasus made Jews look like amateurs. Leon Trotsky might have beat him in the SAT exam, but Stalin knew gangsterism like the back of his hand. And without independent legal institutions and media complex to check state power, the Trotskyites had little recourse when Stalin gained the upper-hand.
While all ethnic groups and cultures were respected in the Soviet Union(and Yugoslavia), none could take special precedence at the expense of others, though in more homogeneous nations like Hungary and Romania, an ethno-national-minded communism was possible.
The so-called Russian Revolution, historically momentous as it was, was shockingly quick and easy in its realization. Instead of the revolutionaries triumphing after a long epic struggle against tyranny, they merely filled the vacuum left by the self-implosion of the monarchy and the weak administration that followed. The victory was almost handed on a silver platter to the Bolsheviks who had the advantage of will, discipline, and organization under inspired leadership. Indeed, the Bolshevik seizure of power was so sudden that the real challenge of power came later when, at last, the enemies of the Revolution finally coalesced to besiege the Reds in a Civil War in which victory wasn’t certain for either side for years. At any rate, the sudden victory of the Reds in Russia and the heavy Jewish representation in the ranks left many Americans Jews both admiring and envious, rather frustrated that they couldn’t achieve similar feats in America where Anglo dominance seemed incontestable.
The US was better poised to handle its radicals and dissidents because the power was spread out through time-tested institutions and legal system(in contrast to Russia where power was concentrated at the top, the implosion of which spelled doom for the entire structure like a house of cards); it also had a much larger educated albeit still nascent middle class. Thus, if any sector of the American Order failed, there were others to hold the overall system together.
Also, regular elections lent a sense of popular participation — useful as safety valve — and a means for an unpopular administration to be replaced by a new one. Given such bulwarks against radicals hungry for power, Jews had to opt for a slower but then surer way to attain dominance.
But precisely because of the system’s many protections, those within had more institutional and legal cards up their sleeves to secure their power. The various means that had kept them down could be employed to keep others down.
For example, Richard Nixon, the US president Jews hated most(until perhaps Donald Trump, at least in his first term) had no means to go all-Stalin, let alone all-Hitler, on the Jews despite their seething hostility toward him. Jews were most fearful of Joe McCarthy because, in the name of rooting out communist subversion, the Right sidestepped certain Constitutional protections to purge its political enemies(who happened to be disproportionately Jewish).
Given that the Anglo-American formation of government and institutions was far more functional and resilient than the Russian one, it could better withstand the Jewish challenge in the early part of the 20th century, whereas the Tsarist-then-Provisional system simply crumbled under the weight of crises wrought by a disastrous war; the process was repeated in the early 90s when the seemingly indomitable communist system collapsed in a matter of days.
But, what was harder for Jews to crack in America was easier to hack to their
advantage once they’d passed through the legalistic channels to gain entry into the system. Furthermore, it proved most effective in their inter-ethnic(and racial) conflicts with groups such as the Irish, Italians, Poles, and blacks. For all their resentment against the WASPs, the system established by Anglo-Americans had been sufficiently(if not fully) colorblind, individual-based, and meritocratic to allow outsiders such as Jews to rise to the top. The non-WASP groups tended to be more tribal, clannish, opportunistic, extralegal, and even ‘gangsterish’(like Joe Pesci characters in GOODFELLAS and CASINO by Martin Scorsese), and it was here that the Jewish takeover of legal institutions and law enforcement agencies proved to be pivotal in dealing a crushing blow to their less principled rivals, like the Italians for the control of gambling. Jew vs Italian in a straight-out gangster brawl might not favor the Jew, but Jew + institution could crush the boorish ‘goomba’ like a bug.
In essence, far more dangerous than the radical leftist Jews resolutely set against the system were the Jews willing to play by the rules to join the system. (For sure, Neocons within Conservatism Inc. proved to be more fatal to the American Right than the openly anti-rightist Jews. Kissinger’s remark about it being more dangerous to be America’s friend than enemy applied to Jews as well, i.e. they could do more harm by your side than in standing opposite.)
Many on the Right hoped that Jews would assimilate into the White Norm, even intermarry and become good Christians and patriots. To be sure, some held private fears that such Jews were red-white-and-blue apple pie on the outside but red borscht on the inside, ticking time bombs just waiting to blow up the system from within.
And indeed, some radical Jews, especially of the Saul Alinsky school, strategized in this manner, the so-called Long March Through the Institutions. But over time, even most leftist Jews matured and lost their radical fire. They came to regard the American system as amenable to their agenda, i.e. revolution as prophesied by Marx and the like wasn’t necessary to fundamentally alter society. And others grew cynical with age and came to adopt the David-Mametian worldview that it was all a power game of winners and losers.
Between Zionism and Communism(increasingly characterized by Soviet alliances with Arab regimes hostile to Israel), even leftist Jews began to gravitate toward the Zionist side. No wonder the Democratic Party, though controlled by ‘liberal’ and ‘left-leaning’ Jews, has been a stalwart supporter of Israel(despite its increasingly right-leaning governments). In time, these anarcho-cynical Jews maintained the illusion of radicalism while gaming the system for more power and privilege for the Tribe. Either they dropped the leftist label altogether and acknowledged the falsehood of past delusions OR they refurbished leftism & progressivism into something more accommodating than contrary to their vaunted positions in the system.
Marx’s most important work may well prove to be “On the Jewish Question” in identifying capitalism as the optimal tool of Jewish Power. Granted, Marxist prophecy believed that capitalism would ultimately be the undoing of Jews because their excessive ‘blood-sucking’ would come at the expense of humanity. In time, the masses, led by radicals, would turn against the Jews/bourgeoisie in a revolution that was all but inevitable. Thus, capitalism could only be a short-term triumph for the Jews.
Marx was correct in two respects though history didn’t play out as he predicted. Capitalism led Jews to their greatest triumph, especially via the Anglo-made world. And communism, despite the spectacular success of Jewish Bolsheviks in the early stage, was an effective restraint on Jewish Power given its systemic prohibition of capital. Let the capital flow, Jews come out on top. Remove the capital, and Jews become more like everyone else. Of course, communism turned out to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; it forbade Jewish parasitism but also Jewish(and goy) enterprise, the foundation of prosperity.
The emergence of a figure like Barry Goldwater should have been a wake-up call to the American Right. In a way, the 1964 presidential race was between two ‘Jewites’. The half-Jewish Goldwater and Lyndon B. Johnson, even if not ethnically Jewish(though there have been claims to the contrary), decisively shifted American Policy toward total and unconditional support for Israel and/or ascendant Jewish power. Even though Goldwater, the loser of the race, was written off by historians as the far-right extremist, the kind to use DR. STRANGELOVE as guide for foreign policy, whereas Johnson became associated with progressive reforms(though marred by deepening involvement in Vietnam), both men paved the way for Jewish supremacism or Jewish crypto-rightism(in its supremacist tribalism and ethno-hierarchism).
Even though Israel presented itself as a ‘socialist’ country from birth, its animating spirit had always been a powerful sense of racial identity. Johnson’s unconditional support for Zionism defied ideological principles. He signed legislation against racial discrimination in the US while abetting a nation founded on racial supremacism and discrimination. Perhaps, the bias owed to revulsion of ‘antisemitism’, Biblical narratives of Jews as the beleaguered Chosen, and the emerging consensus about the Holocaust, but he surely knew Palestinians had nothing to do with the plight of the Jews, past or present.
Furthermore, however Johnson may have personally felt about the Civil Rights legislation, as a moral imperative or pragmatic solution, there’s no denying that this ‘liberal’ or ‘leftist’ policy was partly formulated as a quasi-right stratagem by Jews to discredit and disgrace White America and its history/heritage, all the better to exploit ‘white guilt’ toward serving Jewish supremacist ends. After all, the Jewish message to whites was NOT, “because of your past ‘racism’, you must condemn ALL forms of this evil” but instead “you must support OUR dehumanization of the Palestinians.”
Against this stood Goldwaterism that proved to be utterly useless to the American Right and the white race in general. Confronting a unified movement, individualism and libertarianism stand no chance. Besides, Goldwater’s brand of supposed right-wing extremism opposed the new racial policies(disingenuously branded as ‘civil rights’) merely as matters of federal overreach vs local autonomy, or abstract issues premised on individual rights.
Later, Goldwater was to take up the ‘gay rights’ issue on similar grounds, i.e., it’s all about the Individual. Even though Goldwater wasn’t part of the neocon camp nor particularly vocal on Israel, pro or con, his brand of deracinated rightism would go on to do irreparable harm to the white race.
Because of his tough stances on hot topic issues in the early Sixties, he was often mistaken as a red-blooded patriot, but even his seemingly hard-right positions were actually premised on intellectual ideas that could only weaken the essence of the Right. In retrospect, it’s difficult to gauge which ideology, communism or libertarianism, did more harm to the Right.
Besides, libertarianism, which came in two camps, the Big L and little l, was bound to turn Judeo-centric as the Big L controlled the funding and the connections. If little l-libertarianism is focused on the rights and freedoms of individuals(meaning everyone, you and me), Big L-Libertarianism(in the Ayn Rand mode) was about the cult-worship of the Great Individualists, the geniuses, visionaries, and the like. As Jews came to prominence in business, letters, and culture, their kind became the iconic darlings of the Big L cultists. (Even on the progressive side, the prominence of Jews as big thinkers and leaders unconsciously produced a cult worship of Jewishness. For example, Hillary Clinton claims to have outgrown her youthful Ayn-Rand infatuation, but her entire career has been a worship of superrich super-successful Jews and Zionists. Randism in spirit never left her.) Thus, consciously or not, Big L-Libertarianism morphed into a Charles-Murray-style adulation of the Jews as the race of Chosen-Geniuses. In time, it went from an admiration of Jewish intelligence & talents to a veneration of a people so smart-wise-creative-and-inspired as to be deserving of rules of their own making above and beyond the conventions of inferior goyim. The Jew-and-Goy dynamic came to resemble that of Man-and-Sheep. It’s okay for humans to kill sheep. (Gaza sure is one big kosher slaughter house.)
Big L-Libertarian types, along with Scofield Bible morons who worship Jews as the Chosen, see no sense in passing judgement on Israelis killing Palestinians. In their eyes, it’s like someone mowing the grass, euphemism used by Israelis themselves. Or it’s like a chicken farmer killing chickens for the market. Surely, it’s wrong to use the same yardstick for the chicken farmer and the chicken. In a similar vein, Big L-Libertarian types believe that Jews, in having produced more Nobel Prize winners(or Great Individuals), have every right to exterminate bushels of mediocre Palestinians. It might as well be called the Charles Murray Law of Ethics.
Just about the only bit of consistency in the Libertarian camp is regarding all goyim, including the members themselves, as inferior to Jews. Thus, they not only support the Palestinian Nakba but barely resist the White Nakba foisted on the West by Jewish Power. The logic is as follows: “Jews, being so great and awesome, have every right to decide the fate of all humanity. We may plead with Jews to spare us white goyim, but if Jews decide otherwise, we must accept our fate because they’re our superiors in every way.”
Given such logic, there’s hardly any difference among Bible-Thumping Evangelicals, Biology-themed HBD-ites, and Big-Bucks-crazy Libertarians. To be sure, there are little l-libertarians of the Ron Paul camp who understand the madness of all this Jew-Worship, but they hold no sway among the power-brokers.
The American Right fell for the Pan-Rightist Fallacy that various right-wing forces make for natural allies. Mutuality among rightist forces is possible as long as the various powers respect each other’s borders and cultures. It’s no wonder the National Socialists saw promise in the Zionist project. As long as the Jews had their own domain outside Germany, the two peoples, the ‘Semites’ and ‘Aryans’ could get along, respect one another, and do business. The problem was that Jewish power and influence were interwoven across German society, often in contention with German interests. Thus, Jewish Power, be it leftist or rightist or rightist-in-leftist-clothing, was bound to lock horns with German nationalism.
If a right-wing Christian kingdom and a right-wing Muslim kingdom are separate entities with clearly delineated borders between them, they could respect one another’s particular rightism, but if Christian rightists encroach on a rightist Islamic state or vice versa, there’s going to be problems.
This is why Muslim immigrants(who’re culturally more conservative) and the European Right cannot get along. While the European Right can respect and even admire Muslim countries from afar, it correctly assesses that too many Muslims will alter the very character of Western Civilization. Currently, both Russia and China are regarded as essentially nationalist states, but they get along because they respect the border between them and each other’s cultural and historical differences.
Foolishly, the American Right pinned its hope on forging a unity with the Jewish Right within the shared sphere of the West. Unlike the German National Socialists who wanted Jews to develop their own mini-national-socialist state in the Middle East, one with which cordial relations may have been possible, the post-war American/Western Right convinced itself of the viability of partnership between the implicitly white Right and the explicitly tribal Jewish Right. Perhaps, had Jews identified essentially as white and ditched their paranoia and/or hostility toward white goyim, a working arrangement might have been possible.
As things turned out, Jews of the rightist persuasion turned out to be more suspicious, hostile, bitter, and supremacist than the liberal and leftist ones.
The American Right figured, because the Cold War is between the Left and the Right(though some saw it as really between the Leftist East and the Liberal West) , nothing could be more important than defeating the International Left. And because most Jews were in the leftist or at least left-leaning camp, those types posed the greatest threat to the Right and to Western Civilization in general. Therefore, against such a formidable challenge, an alliance with rightist Jews, though smaller in number, was invaluable, especially as the Right could deflect accusations of ‘antisemitism’ on account of it ‘having Jewish friends’.
As things turned out, Jews once again exerted outsized influence beyond all expectations. After all, if Jews as 2% of the US population could attain preeminence, was it so surprising that a handful of rightist Jews came to redefine the American Right? Besides, there was no simple binary between leftist Jews and rightist Jews, especially as both shared a minority-persecution complex regardless of ideology. (They also shared the pride of heritage. The ‘Tikkun Olam’ agenda, though associated with ‘progressivism’, is nevertheless predicated on the idea that only Jews have the special wisdom to make the world a better place. Even as it reaches out to humanity, it retains a special honor for Jews as magic-makers.) Also, there were various shades of leftist Jews. There were the hardline ones who were committed to Marxism or Marxism-Leninism for life. Others drifted to leftism as the better bet for Jews given the circumstances, i.e. far from ideal but the best deal among the bad ones available on the shelf.
Also, the 20th Century impacted Jewish leftists in unexpected and profound ways. Some grew disillusioned and joined with the anti-communist liberals(who still regarded the Right as just as bad if not worse). Others realized that no amount of justice rhetoric could alter the fact of racial and ethnic differences; to put it bluntly, goyim really are dumb, and it’s ridiculous for Jews to seek equality with Dumb Polacks and the like.
Some Jews privately came to realize the truth about blacks as ‘crazy niggers’ on account of genetics but maintained their ‘liberal’ or ‘anti-racist’ bona fides for the sake of political strategy — Holy Holocaust Jews and Sacred Slavery Blacks as fellow victims of White Supremacism — and profitability(as blacks were dominant in pop music and sports.)
Still, one saving grace of the true leftist Jews was that they opposed all forms of supremacism. Thus, they could serve as a check on Judeo-centric supremacism gone hog-wild. Consider that the leftist magazine The Nation routinely criticized and condemned Israeli actions against Palestinians. Even as the Jewish Left was foolish or deluded in its view of blacks and/or racial equality(unsupported by honest assessment of data), it at least lent no credence to the most insane kinds of Jewish supremacism.
Also, as leftism is more defined in its principles than the relatively malleable liberalism, it wasn’t as easy to manipulate toward Judeocentric ends. Consider the New Republic, often considered the flagship of American Liberalism, that provided haven for Zionist hardliners and Neocon types. Over time, there was precious little difference between the Neolibs and the Neocons: One was bagel with cream cheese and the other was bagel with cream cheese and lox.
Despite the simmering tensions between the Neocons and the so-called Paleo-con camp within American Conservatism, the general idea was that it was still better to have Jews on the Right than on the other side. (Some Paleo-Cons mustered sufficient courage to sound the alarm on the Neocons, but their rationale wasn’t very convincing. Usually mentioned was the Trotskyite lineage of the Neocons and their acceptance of the New Deal consensus, as if to imply that the Neocons weren’t true conservatives but actually liberal-wolves-in-conservative-sheep’s-clothing; but the real problem of the Neocons was they were far-right and ultra-supremacist in service to Jewish Tribalism. While Neoconservatism did come with certain Liberal trimmings and displayed stylistic continuity with Marxist radicals, its very core, its heart and soul, was animated by fanatical tribal supremacism. In other words, the problem for the Paleo-cons was that the Neocons were too rightist, even to the point of genocidal madness, as illustrated by the neocon/neolib-driven US foreign policy of the 21st Century. But then, it was less risky for Paleo-cons and others to fault the Neocons for their radical ‘idealism’ than for their tribalism. After all, naming the Jewish factor could result in accusations of ‘antisemitism’, whereas blaming misplaced utopianism was acceptable as discourse. And so, we still have the anti-neocons arguing that the Neocon project failed because of its delusions of ‘spreading liberal democracy’ or the ‘rules-based order’, as if to imply that the Neocons, for all their faults, have been motivated by End-of-History big ideas and a neo-Trotskyite dream of saving the world. The problem with such an argument is that just about every Neocon project or war-making have really been about “Is it good for Jews?”. Neoconism was effectively Jewish Nazism.)
The National Review once opined that the growing presence of fresh young Jews at American Conservative conferences was hopeful indeed. All these Jews with higher IQ, wealth, and connections joining the GOP, what’s not to like?
The answer to that question was simple: With Jews, it had to be their way or the highway. The Neocons weren’t seeking a middle ground with the Paleo-Cons and others with deeper roots in the American Right. They planned on completely purging the American Right of anyone or any idea that was deemed unfit or unacceptable.
Cleverly enough, the Neocons justified the purge as necessary in removing the last vestiges of extremism, ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and etc. Southern Heritage was especially impugned by the Neocon wing. But, this was all a ruse as the supposedly enlightened Neocons then remolded the American Right to fully endorse Judeo-centrism, Jewish supremacism, Zionist imperialism, and endless wars for Jewish hegemony. Neocons said the American South should forever atone for Segregation, all the while demanding total American support of apartheid-like policies in the West Bank and Nazi-like bloodbaths in Gaza. It was bait-and-switch.
Neocons sometimes played loose with ideology, but it was all part of a strategy to maximize Jewish Power via control of both political parties. In the End-of-History mood of the post-Cold War era, with so-called ‘liberalism’ as the last man standing, there was less reason for ideological battles, the corollary to which was the greater opportunity to focus on identity, emerging simultaneously as Identity Politics(of the New Left as ‘Multiculturalism’ & ‘Political Correctness’, albeit superseded by Negrolatry & GloboHomo) and as ultra-Zionist Neoconservatism, and finally as the stirrings of resurgent white ‘identitarian-ism'(despite vilification by the powers-that-be).
In a way, Francis Fukuyama misread the tea-leaves by assuming the essence of History to be a War of Ideas when most of history was actually about conflicts of ethnicity, nationality, territory, greed & plunder. While conflicts were sometimes wrapped in religious or ideological clothing, the actual points of contention were usually mundane or ‘petty’. Much of the actual conflicts during the Cold War was really about identity, territory, and other elementary interests but dressed up in ideology. Consider all the factions in Sub-Saharan Africa who claimed to be for ‘Marxism-Leninism’ or ‘democracy’ when they were really into tribalism. Thus, much of the Actual History of the post-WWII period was subsumed into the Cold War framework, thus lending the impression that Actual History was put on hold while Grand History was being decided by the battle of ideas. But once the Western Idea won out, History as Battle-of-Ideas receded into the background while Actual History re-emerged out in the open as a game of identity. In this battle, those with identity were bound to win out over those without identity, those who were denied the right of identity, and those who rejected their identity.
In a way, Neoconservatism and Political Correctness(to morph into ‘wokeness’) were two sides of the same coin. Both dressed up identity politics, which is inherently rightist, with ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ talking points. Black identity politics is really about “we blacks be da center of da universe, sheeeeeeiiiit” but presented as demand for ‘social justice’, which is laughable as tribal blacks have no concern for anything but blackity-black. And homos are all about their own privilege and status as neo-aristocrats(and demigods to worship) but playact as victims of ‘homophobia’, even as they ram their agenda down everyone’s throat and up everyone’s bung. This was never about equality or ‘equity’ or ‘inclusion’ or ‘diversity’ but neo-tribalism, essentially rightist but packaged in the language of ‘social justice’.
The Neo-Con-game consulted the same rulebook. As JEWISH Conservatives or the Holy Holocaust people, they supposedly reformed the American Right and made it palatable to modernity. Purged were crypto-Nazis or ‘Anti-Semites’ like Pat Buchanan and Samuel Francis, and Russell Kirk to boot. They exerted pressure on Bill Buckley to throw down the gauntlet and purge the likes of Joe Sobran, along with the ‘Arabists’, of course.
In other words, Neocons did pest control on the recondite elements of the Old Right. In truth, however, Neocon Jews harbored racial-ethnic supremacism, megalomania, and contempt on par with the Nazis. Pat Buchanan may have dabbled with historical revisionism in THE UNNECESSARY WAR, but the Neocons, in all their shameless perversity, endlessly invoked the specter of ‘Hitler’ just so their kind could act like little hitlers themselves.
If the Holocaust Narrative holds that six million Jews died as six million mini-christs, Neocon policy champions millions of Jews acting like millions of mini-hitlers, to destroy the ‘New Hitler’, of course. Their nihilism, bloodlust, and deviousness in saying and doing whatever to get what they want is truly breathtaking. The movement culminated in Victoria Nuland dictating policy in Ukraine and triggering a Judeo-Russian War where, incredibly enough, Jews are allied with Ukro-Sub-Nazi morons. And the words and actions of Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, with zero compunction about targeting women, children, and even babies, has bared the true nature of Neoconism or the Jewish Right, at least the one that came to prominence in the US-as-lone-superpower. And the main reason for their animus against Donald Trump? He wasn’t sufficiently enthused about More Wars for Zion.
Bibi Netanyahu is far-right and allied with even more ghoulish far-right Jews in the US. Can anyone honestly say that his ilk has been better than the leftist Jews for America in general and the American Right in particular? Jews like Norman Finkelstein, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, and Katie Halper may not see eye to eye with the American Right on a host of issues but at least they reject Jewish supremacism and the supposed entitlement, divinely ordained or otherwise, of the Jews to treat goyim like trash. They’re not the ones referring to entire populations as ‘Amalek’. At the very least, they are as tough on Jewish moral failings as on those of goyim.
In contrast, Neocon rightist Jews are murderously supremacist toward not only disfavored foreigners but White Americans as well. In their demonic eyes, Western whites are no less subhuman than the Palestinians. The great failure of the American Right, practically and ideologically, was in having fallen for the Neocon shtick. Neocons came over not to serve the conservatives but to use them.
For moral validity, the Right must renounce supremacism, i.e. its core conviction must be nationalist, not imperialist. It must acknowledge other peoples/cultures have interests and aspirations centered on their own identities and cultures. Thus, a sane American Right would have been sensitive to both Jews and Palestinians on Mideastern matters. In totally favoring the Jews, the American Right failed not only ideologically(at the level of principle) but at the practical level as the Jewish Right or Neocons had no interest in give-and-take, such as, for example, the American/Western Right’s support for Jewish hegemony in the Middle East in exchange for Jewish support for conservative and rightist forces for national and cultural preservation. Such a deal would have been immoral but could at least be rationalized on strategic grounds. If you bargain with the Devil, you may lose your soul but still get something in return.
In contrast, not only did the American/Western Right sell its soul by aiding and abetting the Jewish Devil, but the Jewish Right had no intention of tolerating any pride of identity and agency for whites. The fantasy that people like Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, William Kristol, and etc. were willing to give as well as take was exposed as a total bust in the Trump era.
Donald Trump was willing to give Israel everything in exchange for fewer wars and secure borders, but even such a modest proposal was enough for Jews(neolibs & neocons) to rig the 2020 election and give us four years of Biden and total Jewish insanity in all spheres. The Jewish Devil wants it all, and as such, even a Faustian Bargain is out of the question. You lose your soul, your body, and everything, just like what’s been done to the Palestinians. The notion that whites and rightists would be spared the Jewish wrath by letting Zionists run roughshod over the Palestinians has now been fully discredited. Letting Jews treat Palestinians like shit merely emboldened Jews to treat the whole world like shit, a Global Gaza.
But, the Scofield Bible types are hopeless in their ignorance and delusion. As a bunch of wanna-be-Hebrews-or-Ancient-Israelites, any genocidal tirade from the lips of genocidal Zionists is music to their ears. Smite them all, as what’s happening in Gaza is seen through the prism of Genesis. Never mind Christianity’s promise of the New Covenant. As far as the Scofielders are concerned, the New Testament is a bit flaky. They are Old Testament Christians who prefer God’s wrath to His love. And though they’re goyim, they feel as fellow-Jews or, moreover, as More-Jewish-than-Jews as they believe modern Jews have lost their way with secularism and liberalism. In their preference for the Old Testament over the New Testament, their main commitment is to revive the spirit of the Israelites than to be good Christians of the universalist school.
All things considered, the rise of the Jewish Right owed less to the likes of William F. Buckley than to the Liberal Jews(who also shielded the leftist Jews since the ‘McCarthy Era’). So-called Liberal Jews gained the greatest power and influence across industries and institutions, and they remolded the narrative to rehabilitate and even lionize Jewish leftists, Stalinists, and communist sympathizers(at least as martyrs to civil liberty under assault from the Right); but, they also aided the Jewish Right in the project of reshaping the American Conservatism.
While the Jewish Left and the Jewish Right were polarized over ideology, Jewish Liberals were sufficiently fluid and flexible to broker and accommodate both sides in the furtherance of Jewish Power. But then, it helped that the brand of Jewish Rightism that would come to prominence had roots in the Jewish Left(of the Trotskyite variety). This Jewish Right at least understood the Left as its own point of origin.
While William F. Buckley had control over his own camp, one among several representing American Conservatism, the decision as to which faction of the Right would receive favorable attention from the ‘respectable’ Mainstream Media and institutions wasn’t up to him. Such attention was invaluable at a time when there were only three major TV networks and one ‘public’ channel. Buckley picked his compatriots but with no guarantee that the Big Media would pick his particular brand of conservatism as the respectable or official face of the American Right. He understood that in order for his brand to gain wider exposure, it had to pass the smell test of Jewish sensibility, a consideration that surely affected whom he recruited into the movement and purged from it.
Jews got to decide which rightist camp got the spotlight, and Buckley, consciously or not, was primed for the kind of song-and-dance routine to pass the audition of Jewish favorability. In order to remain in good graces with the Big Media, Buckley had to further distance himself from those invested in the Jewish Question. The new thing was the Jewish Answer, i.e. Jews, though misguided in their liberalism, were to be regarded as the answer to every prayer for the American Right that must pray and play for their conversion, religious or political. (The only conversion that actually happened was among Christians who turned into Christ-cucks of Zion.)
More than the National Review crowd, it was the Jewish Liberal Media that elevated the Neocons as the new darlings of American Conservatism. In this transformation, Buckleyites followed than led. While Jewish Liberals butted heads with the first round of Neoconservatives(who began to stir in the late 60s and were plainly visible by the 1970s), it was reassuring that this brand of New Rightism, being either Jewish or Philosemitic, had no chance of resuscitating the dreaded ‘antisemitism’ associated with the Old Right. (Neoconservatives were also useful as a vehicle for outsourcing the anxieties of Jewish Liberals deemed too controversial or disreputable in respectable liberal circles. Thus, Jewish Liberals could have their pent-up frustrations about black crime and radical excesses conveyed by the more ballsy Neoconservatives while claiming plausible deniability: “They said it, we didn’t.” Have the cake and eat it too.)
Over the years, the Jewish Liberal Media sought out Jewish Neocons and gushing Philo-Semites as the new face of the American Right. It was Mona Charen and Fred Barnes. And for all the fuss about red-blooded populist Talk Radio, many of the personalities were either Jewish or Cucks to Zion: Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and etc.
And even the bolder personalities dared not name the real power or address the JQ. So, Glenn Beck ragged on and on about George Soros but for having been a Nazi-collaborator in his youth than as a proud and protected member of World Jewry.
White conservatives/cuckservatives and Jews harbor fundamentally different worldviews. Even though white conservatives are quick to remind everyone, especially themselves, that they’re about ‘principles’ than race, the American Right is of course implicitly white-conscious. Therefore, conservatives really see the world in terms of whites, meaning Jews and Gentiles, versus everyone else. They may not be hostile to most nonwhite groups, but the distinction is between the West and the Rest. The West is white, and it’s mainly about whites and Jews as fellow whites.
Jews don’t share in this worldview. To them, the world is divided between Jews and Goyim, to which whites belong. Thus, whites, like all other goyim, exist to serve Jews. If whites must serve Jews, they can never be equal with Jews. Jews say, whites obey.
Cuckservatives intuitively sense this difference of view, i.e. Jewish-White Equality is futile because of the Jewish sense of superiority. But instead of rejecting the Jews for their arrogance, cuckservatives believe there’s a workable solution: By cucking even harder, whites may finally win over the affection of Jews. Granted, it won’t be an equal partnership but more like the relation between master and dog, but that’s okay since Jews, as the Chosen and top Nobel-Prize winners, are indeed the true Master Race whom the white dogs must serve.
But, are there dignity and honor in cuckery? It’d be like a black guy shucking-and-jiving more than ever to win the approval of white folks. No, the more the black guy acts the coon-and-tom, the more the white community is going to regard him as an inferior. Cucking means acting without pride and integrity, and those who cuck will never earn respect and rightfully so.
Even as we feel affection for dogs, we don’t regard them as equals. Pets lack autonomy and agency. Cuckservatives are like pets to Jews, and no amount of cucking will earn them any respect from Jews. The affection showered on John Bolton by the Neocons is just a bucket of doggy biscuits. Cucking to Jews is like digging a hole deeper to climb out of it.
The Clinton-Dubya era demonstrated the dance steps of the Jewish Liberal-Right foxtrot. In years past, the crucial bond among Jews was between the liberals and the left, notwithstanding the influence of a tenacious Jewish Right. For the bulk of the Jewish community, the political right was too closely associated with ‘antisemitism’ and Christianity; therefore, even Jews naturally inclined toward cultural conservatism often gravitated toward the political left that, at the very least, was anti-anti-semitic if not exactly Philo-Semitic.
Through much of the 20th century, many Jews were on the Left for either ideological or sentimental reasons, e.g. Kirk Douglas the rich Jewish Hollywood playboy producing SPARTACUS and playing the proto-communist rebel-hero.
But over the years, the Jewish Left fell out of favor. Their radicalism of the Sixties tore the country apart, not least by adding fuel to black rage. Communism increasingly came to be regarded as a menace to Jewish-American-Global interests, as well as an ideological dead-end. Besides, the communist bloc had friendly ties with states hostile to Israel.
Therefore, Jewish Liberalism incrementally came to favor the Jewish Right(or Neoconservatism) that was resolutely anti-communist and pro-Zionist(and could infiltrate the Reagan administration). Jewish Liberals also admired the Tough Jew aspect of the Neocons who punched way above their weight. Despite their ideology, they exhibited the kind of zealotry once associated with radical leftist Jews who, following the Sixties, mostly burned out(or grew lazy in tenured positions in academia). The Jewish torch seemed to pass to the Neocons with their tireless formulations about the ‘New American Century’.
As classic leftist ideology grew less relevant by the day among Jews, what remained was Jewish identity, especially as represented by Zionism. And which group among Jews was mostly fervently and unabashedly pro-Zionist? Neocons, of course. That the foreign policy of the ‘Neolib’ Jews of the Clinton Administration so seamlessly overlapped with that of the Neocon Jews of the Dubya administration was a testament to how the two factions were joined at the hip, with figures like Victoria Nuland hopping back and forth from one administration to the other, all in service to the Jewish Hegemonic Project.
As for the Jewish Left, with Marxism on the ash heap of history, it embarked on manufacturing new ‘radical’ agendas, mostly a hodgepodge of incoherent hysterias and moral panics(like the supposed epidemic of ‘college date rape’, all by white males of course), to maintain its relevance.
Over time, the three big thematic kahunas became alarmism about the ‘far right’(that in the Current Year means the basic desire of white countries to survive as a race and culture), Negrolatry, and GloboHomo. The lesser themes are stuff like ‘slut pride’ and #MeToo, oblivious to the likelihood that if women model themselves on ‘sluts’, they tend to attract the wrong kind of attention from horny men.
Question remains as to whether this kind of rebranded Jewish Leftism qualifies as genuine leftism or is really just smoke-and-mirrors faux-progressivism meant to get the moronic goy masses(and some dumb Jews as well) worked up about total nonsense, thereby drained of emotional energy and intellectual sense to address real issues, like the threat to humanity posed by Jewish Supremacism.
It could be that the triple whammy of the Ukraine War(or Judeo-Russian War), Hell in Gaza(which some call ‘genocide’), and Neocon-Zionist clamoring for war with Iran may finally cause an irreparable rift between the Jewish Left(the real kind) and Jewish Liberals, especially as the so-called ‘liberal’ camp is now supportive of censorship, politics of hysteria(such as Russia-Russia-Russia-Scare that would have made Joe McCarthy blush), deep state abuses(for partisan gangsterism), sub-Nazi elements in Ukraine, and the truly far-right lunatic Bibi Netanyahu who oozes with arrogance and contempt.
In other words, Jewish Liberals now have more-or-less completely merged with the blatantly supremacist, imperialist, and even genocidal Neocons. Jewish Liberalism, which used to be a diplomatic mediator between the Jewish Left and the Jewish Right, has opted to throw in its lot with the supremacists and betray just about every principle of liberalism, such as respect for free speech and individual conscience. It has shoved aside the Real Left(such as men like Stephen Cohen) in favor of the clown-show ‘left’ of fat trannies pretending to be ‘women’.
The ‘ideological’ shift in Bill Ackman gave the game away. Supposedly a lifelong ‘progressive’ committed to ‘wokeness’ and combating ‘white privilege’, he instantly switched over to the GOP for its unconditional pro-Zionism. (Conservatives took note that the easiest way to win over Jews is to endorse their genocide. The morality of the Family Values party, folks.)
And the ‘Gaza Genocide’ taking place under Biden’s nose made clear as day there’s no daylight between Neolibs and Neocons. Given these developments and the burgeoning influence of alternative media, the younger generation of Jews, disenchanted with the corruption and hubris of the Jewish Establishment, may be in the process of rebuilding the Left that’s gone astray with inane issues and deep state collusion.
Jewish leftists with integrity and moral consistency believe supremacism to be wrong, not just for whites but Jews as well. If Democrat ‘liberals’ pretended not to notice the supremacism of Jews, Republican ‘conservatives’ signaled that they would gladly transfer the right of supremacism from whites to the Jews, i.e. the Conservative-and-Jewish alliance would rest on white conservatives rejecting their own supremacism but only to better champion the supremacism of Jews on the unspoken understanding that, just as one cannot serve two masters, one cannot serve two supremacisms. Both Democrats and Republicans signed crazy contracts with Jewish Power.
The fact that so many of the pro-Palestinian protesters have been Jewish indicates a serious rift between the Jewish Left(the real kind as opposed to the ‘woke’ kind marching in lockstep with the deep state) and Jewish Liberalism, which is liberal-in-name-only and almost indistinguishable from Neocon-ism.
When, over the decades, the face of Jewish Liberalism has been represented by figures like Abe Rosenthal(who took umbrage at Pat Buchanan’s opposition to the Gulf War, identified as Neocon usurpation of foreign policy) and Thomas Friedman(who cheered on ISIS as de facto agents of Israel against Syria), the ideological divide between Neolibs and Neocons was obviously turning into a charade, all the more telling when William Kristol and Max Boot migrated to the Democratic Party for being more conducive to the Wars-for-Zion policy.
Perhaps, the most emblematic figure of the Neolib-Neocon convergence is Alan Dershowitz who rose to prominence as a pro-civil-liberties Democrat but always reeked of an ethnocentrism verging on genocidal supremacism. Jewish-controlled media spun a far-right Jewish supremacist as a ‘liberal democrat’ on account of his supposed defense of free speech and civil liberties that turned out to be strategic than principled as he spent the better half of his career hounding and blacklisting anyone, Jews especially, who dared defy the ultra-Zionist line.
Jewish grip on the media/academia(and public debate in general) was made worse by the black hole(or discourse-void) between the ‘respectable’(or cucked) Right and the Far Right(as once properly defined as meaning racial supremacism, Neo-Nazi antics, and/or ultra-theocracy of Fundamental Christianity). So, there was Bill Buckley and David Duke(always branded the KKK guy despite his moderation over the years) but virtually nothing in between.
In other words, it was the Buckley Way or the Hitler Way, as if alternative views between the cuck-right and the far-right were simply inconceivable. Imagine positing that there’s nothing between Liberal-Centrism and Maoism.
The Jewish Establishment likely went hard against Pat Buchanan precisely because he embodied something harder than Buckley but softer than Duke. If Buchanan wouldn’t conform to Buckley-ism, he had to be branded as another Klansman(or Nazi).
It explains why William Shockley and James Watson were turned into non-persons. They were thoughtful individuals with rational views on racial differences, but the Establishment simply couldn’t tolerate any ‘rightist’ position that wasn’t either milquetoast cucked or cartoonish-evil-Nazi. It’s no wonder that all those TV talk shows(by Jerry Springer and the like) provided more space to Neo-Nazi types than to any voice that might represent an alternative to both the cuck-wimps and cartoon-nazi-villains.
It’s why the emergence of the Alt-Right was so threatening to Jewish Power as it seemed to reject both Conservatism Inc. and Neo-Nazism, that was until Richard Spencer decided to go full-retard and instigate stuff like ‘Heil-gate’, once again turning a promising right-wing movement into a cartoon.
It’s sort of like how the meaning of ‘racism’ can only mean ‘racial hatred’ or ‘racial supremacism’ but not the wide range of beliefs about race and racial differences.
If the liberal-left discourse was often more interesting, it owed to the permissible gradation of views and ideas from the far left to center-liberalism, whereas a no-man’s-land was enforced between the acceptable center-right and the detestable far-right. It was only with the rise of the internet that young right-leaning people began to discover alternatives that ventured beyond the false dichotomy of gatekeeping Conservatism Inc. and Neo-Nazi lunkheads.
The kind of right that addresses the JQ without Hitler salutes or the kind that seeks respectability without selling its soul to the likes of Ben Shapiro. The fact that Donald Trump, against all odds, won the presidency twice despite the contradictory & sometimes incoherent nature of his statements and policies suggests that something is brewing on the Right that is now beyond the control of Con Inc.(and of course Trump himself).
In a nutshell, post-war anti-communism gravely miscalculated the JQ because (1) the vilification of communism as the greatest threat made capitalism the fallback position, thus blinding the Right to the anti-conservative aspects of capitalism AND (2) the assumption, though often unspoken given the post-war sensitivities about ‘antisemitism’, that communism, being almost synonymous with Jewish radicalism/subversion, had to be countered by strong doses of capitalism, the more naked the better, thereby rendering the Right oblivious to the potential of capitalism to encourage and indulge the worst aspects of Jewishness.
After all, the grossest excesses of Weimar Era Germany weren’t the product of Jewish communism but Jewish capitalism. Capitalism in the Max-Weberian-Protestant-Work-Ethic mode could be utilized toward the formation of a hardworking, socially conscious, and even virtuous society, one focused on productivity, savings, and delayed gratification. However, capitalism in the hedonistic consumer-reveler-centered mode could, like a drug dealer or casino mogul, arouse the beastlier side of human nature obsessed with pleasure and vanity as the be-all-and-end-all of existence. While powerful Jews were mindful not to get high on their own supply(though some of their children did fall through the cracks), they employed capitalism to push the kind of products and services that would degrade goyim into hapless addicts of the latest fads and fashions.
Both the Jewish Left and the Neocons were beneficial to Jewish capitalist power. As long as Jewishness was associated with leftism, socialism, Marxism, or Cultural Marxism, many conservatives and rightists dropped the ball on the baleful influence of Jewish Money and, if anything, argued for more tax cuts, more deregulation of Wall Street, and more pro-rich Big L-Libertarian policies(as if fattening the Jewish wallet would make the Jews nicer and friendlier to the cucked Right). Even today, lots of fools keep characterizing the Jewish-capitalist Democratic Party as ‘far left’ or ‘communist’. So, even as Jews get richer and use their great wealth against goyim, the outcry among idiot goyim is “communism is taking over.” This fixation on ‘communism’ or ‘leftism’ keeps ignoring it was Jewish success with capitalism(indeed often vice-centered kind) that funded and fueled the anti-white agenda.
Neocons were also a boon to Jewish Capitalism by providing moral cover. As the Christian Right had the hots for Zionism that was most ferociously championed by the Neocons who also happened to be in bed with Jewish Capital, it lent the impression that Jewish Money and the Christian Right had shared values, especially via the arbitration of the Neocons, supposedly the GOOD Jews as opposed to the godless ones in the Democratic Party who’d lost their way.
In truth, despite the homilies of shabbos-goy Neo-Cucks like Bill Bennett and Ralph Reed, Neocons fully supported the kind of casino capitalism that spread the culture of vice and vanity all across the country and, of course, fully endorsed the financialization of the economy in Jewish globalist hands, resulting in the 2008 Wall Street crisis in which Jewish capitalists were bailed out(and made off like bandits) under the so-called ‘socialist’(LOL) Obama.
Because the Right associated most Jews with the socialist/communist Left as the arch-enemy, it assumed that the more Jews took to capitalism, the better Americans they would be, with the added benefit of being kinder to the Right.
But, as the nature of Jewish capitalism demonstrated in Russia in the 1990s, the ‘rightism’ of Jews should never be confused with the rightism of goyim. If the White Right puts whites first and if the American Right puts America First, the Jewish Right puts the Jews first, which means policies prioritizing “Is it good for Jews?” regardless of its baleful impact on lowly goyim. Russia sure found out the hard way. And the Jewish Right in the Middle East only care about Greater Israel and have zero concern for Arabs, rightist or not.
Critics of Jewry had warned about the dangers not only of communism but capitalism as lethal instruments in Jewish hands. Fascism fused elements of socialism and capitalism within a nationalist framework to restrain the radical tendencies of both. To a degree, the New Deal, though characterized as the Jew Deal in certain quarters, served as a brake on Jewish Power in the decades following World War II. If FDR was unconscionably asleep at the wheel while certain Jewish/radical elements infiltrated his administration, his checks on capitalism guaranteed greater balance between capital and labor in the coming decades.
As Jewish Power came to be ever more concentrated in the capital side of the economic equation, the weakening of Labor had an inverse impact on Jewish Power, which just grew and grew, with more opportunities for Jordan Belforts of the World who, if could be characterized as ‘rightist’, were so only in their ethnic pride and resentments. The ‘conservatism’ or ‘rightism’ of someone like Adam Sandler offers nothing for Palestinian conservatives or white rightists. Jewish Right means only the Jews are right.
But, the binary of downgrading the New Deal as ‘leftist’(and tainted by Jews, or at least Bad Jews) while idealizing ‘free markets’ as rightist(and favored by Good Jews like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand) blinded many rightists and conservatives to the warnings and troubles ahead: American capitalism in its ever less fettered form would empower and embolden Jewish megalomania and contempt like never before, and the result has been the lost opportunity of the 21st century.
How interesting that just when Russia and China dispensed with binary-thinking, it became the default worldview of the US and the West. “My way or the highway.” Under Soviet rule, it had been about good communism vs evil capitalism, a simple binary. It was even more so in radical Maoist China.
If communism was the god that failed and if capitalism is the end-of-history solution for everything, it could only do wonders for Russia in the 1990s, but no. Reality wasn’t a simple case of this versus that, a single answer to all problems. As Vladimir Putin gained in power, Russia abandoned the binary approach to its problems. There was no going back to communism but no blind faith in capitalism either. There was something to be said for both private enterprise and statism. China did likewise, albeit rather mutedly as it was still headed by the Chinese Communist Party. Even so, the Chinese remembered the madness of Maoism and sensed, especially during the Tiananmen Square incident, that American capitalism, far from being benign, could be weaponized to destabilize China for an eventual globalist takeover, rendering it into something like a giant Taiwan or Hong Kong than an independent country.
Until Donald Trump and MAGA, albeit unwittingly, arrived on the scene and shook things up, American Conservatism tended to see everything in terms of binaries, which is far from over as evinced in ongoing fulminations against ‘communist’ this or ‘leftist’ that. For too long, the GOP pretended as if big bad Russia is a continuation of the Soviet Union. And listening to the likes of Steve Bannon, one would think that China’s rise and challenge to the US-dominated order is ‘communist’ in nature when, in fact, the success owes largely to market dynamics and private investment. Furthermore, the current statism in China has nothing to do with Stalinism or Maoism and owes more to policies developed by Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.
It’s no wonder so many got suckered into the Iraq War, as Butt-Tucker Carlson admitted guilty-as-charged. Always the simple binaries. Capitalism good, socialism bad; Americanism exceptionally good, anti-Americanism totally bad; Jews good, Arabs bad; USA-USA-USA and support the troops all the way; free markets, the solution to everything, and all regulations bad. In the Clinton-Dubya years, a kind of singularity was achieved between two parties as both totally endorsed the Ownership Society that blew up into the financial fiasco of 2008.
After all those years of American Conservatives supporting every capitalist agenda and every foreign war, the end result has been the super-rich favoring the Democrats, pushing the ‘woke’ agenda, and wasting more US dollars abroad.
And the gratitude that American Conservatism got from Jewish Neocons was their hissy departure to the Democratic Party, not out of any real principles but the blood-lust for more Wars for Zion. The hope that the American goy/white Right would gain the world(if only as junior partners of the Jews) by lending total support to capitalism and Zionism(supposedly favored by ‘good’ right-wing Jews as opposed to those ‘bad’ left-wing self-loathing Jews) proved to be one of the biggest ideological busts in world history.
It’s like the restaurant owner in GOODFELLAS thinking he’ll be protected if he throws in his lot with the Good Gangster Paulie against the Bad Gangster Tommy, only to discover that a gangster is a gangster. Tommy gave the restaurant owner many a sleepless night, but it was Paulie who ultimately cleaned him out. Likewise, Jewish leftism/socialism was a constant hassle to the American Right, but it was the Jewish Right that really made a mockery of American Conservatism, leaving behind a ‘principled’(LOL) husk of a movement managed by the likes of Rich Lowry the soyboy cuck.
Tommy-Jews and Paulie-Jews have been like the Scylla and Charybdis to the American Right, but in the end, the Paulie-Jews were more formidable. They’re like Bill Ackman who turns on-and-off the spigot to the ‘woke’ mob. In time, he will surely move back to the Democrats and fund the anti-whites all over again, leaving conservatives feeling like fools and suckers. And yet, there are still people on the Right who want to bet everything on the Hail Mary pass that, if whites cuck real hard just one more time, the Jews will have their Damascus moment and make nice with the White Race.
There was likely no conspiracy between the Jewish Left and the Jewish Right, between Jewish socialists and Jewish capitalists, but the end-result was as if they orchestrated the whole thing because it turned out so beautifully for the Tribe. The American Right had its wary eyes on the Jewish Left while believing the Jewish Right to have its back, when, in fact, the Jewish Right was picking its back pocket and donging its bung.
So, Gore Vidal, though on the Left, understood better the enemies of Americanism than Bill Buckley did.
