Macro-Centrism is Ideal on Most Matters, but Only Micro-Centrism is permitted in Jewish-Supremacist West — Whites are Soul-Slaves of Jewish Power — If the Democratic Party is Proudly Anti-White, shouldn't the Republican Party be Proudly Anti-Jewish?

It would be nice to have centrism, but the only kind of centrism that works is macro-centrism, the Goldilocks Rule. But in an order where Jews control the gods and the money — they have both the sacred cows and piggy banks, the golden calf — , we can only have micro-centrism. But micro-centrism is pretty useless as it's centered on a very narrow Overton Window.

If we could be macro-centrist, we can choose the warm between very hot and very cold. Earth has life because it's positioned ideally from the Sun. It's not too close, it's not too far away. And in most human affairs, the macro-center is usually ideal. It's like we want something between totalitarian tyranny and anarcho-chaos. We don't want ultra-statism, but human nature isn't suited for total freedom either. People want something between slavery and savagery. Slavery ensures order but erases freedom. Savagery allows freedom, but it's law of the jungle. In a sane, sound, free, and rational order, most people will choose the center. They don't want the far right or the far left. They don't want a theocracy that burns heretics at the stake, but they don't want radical atheist tyranny where the religious are persecuted and sent to Gulag either. Most people want an order where people are free to believe or not to believe. Let the atheists not believe, and let the religious worship. Most people say no to both ultra-libertarianism and Leninism. Most people want something between pacifism and militarism. Pacifism is too weak and naive, and militarism is overly aggressive and addicted to war. Most people want national defense and a military that is powerful but also ethical.

For there to be macro-centrism, there must be no sacred cows. The only sacred cow that has proven historical worth is nationalism, but a centrist-nationalism at that, one that is neither imperialist nor isolationist. In an order defined by sacred cows, the range of options is severely limited. For instance, in a theocratic order, all must worship God, and heretics must be purged/persecuted. Thus, there can only be micro-centrism, one between ultra-theocracy and moderate-theocracy. But either way, the system is theocratic and repressive towards atheists and those who worship the 'wrong' gods(or belong to banned sects). This was true of the ideocracy of communism where everything and everyone had to be communist. One couldn't choose between extreme communism and extreme capitalism, thereby arriving at the macro-centrism of something like a social-democracy or mixed-economy. Communism was the law of the land, so only micro-centrism was possible, the one between ultra-communism and moderate-communism. But even moderate-communism, though not as murderous and tyrannical, supported the eradication of private property and enforced statist control over most things. It was like choosing between extreme-hot and very hot than between hot and cold. Or between icy cold and very cold. Micro-centrism is choice within an extreme order. It's the middle between very extreme and pretty extreme.

In regards to Jews, Homos, and Negroes, a macro-centrist position would be best. This would acknowledge Jews as a talented and special people in history but also a problematic one. With this centrist position, Jews would be given their due and allowed to be high-achievers. But especially because they're bound to accumulate more wealth and influence than other groups, they would come under close scrutiny and criticism. It would be a centrist position between demented Antisemitism that sees nothing good about Jews and/or blames Jews for everything AND retarded Philosemitism that sees nothing bad about Jews and/or blames goyim for whatever's wrong with Jews. Such macro-centrist position would reject both pathological Nazism and pathetic Pozzism. Nazism brought about hell-on-earth, but the current 'pozzed' cucky-wuckery is doing irreparable harm as unchecked Jewish Power is growing as cancerous as radical Teutonism unchecked.

But Macro-Centrist position on Jews is impossible in the US because Jews control the gods and made themselves sacred and worthy of worship(and even compulsory to worship). Thus, only a Micro-Centrist position is possible as the perspective on Jews is limited in range from totally gushing mouth-open worship to slightly critical respect & reverence. As Jews are sacred cows, it's heretical to express any view truly critical of Jews as a people, power, or culture. Thus, the range of discussion about Jews is from 110% pro-Jewish to 98% pro-Jewish. Thus, only micro-centrism is possible, which would be 104% pro-Jewish. Perversely enough, the most pro-Jewish voices tend to be from white 'conservatives' whereas the slightly critical voices are from white 'liberals', blacks, and Jews themselves. This seems rather odd considering that Jewish Power is most hostile to American Conservatism, but it makes sense given Jews are like the gods. If Jews are indeed divine and godly, then those disfavored by them must go the extra-mile to prove their worth at the feet of Jews. It's like a slave rebuked by the master will make an extra effort to win back approval. Dogs are the same way. The dog that is punished by the master will try harder to earn affection and prove it's a GOOD dog.

If Jews didn't control gods and weren't sacred cows, White Conservatives would have a sounder approach toward them. Jewish Power would be handled rationally. If Jews are anti-white, then whites shouldn't support Jews or Jewish causes. If Jews want white support, whites would negotiate for Jewish support for white interests. A free man bargains with a free man. Man makes counter-demands on Man: "I scratch your back, you scratch my back." It's give-and-take, not take-and-take. That's how a free and independent man deals with another free and independent man. But, a slave isn't allowed to bargain with his master. The master commands, the slave obeys. The current Jewish-White relations resemble that of master-and-slave than man-and-man. Actually, it's worse. After all, a slave can be soul-free even if body-bound. A soul-free slave serves the master in body but not in spirit. He sees the master for what he is: a tyrant. He obeys but doesn't respect, let alone worship, the master. In contrast, worship is about soul-slavery. Man doesn't merely obey God or gods but worships Him or them. Even when God or gods seem unjust, He or they must be revered because He or they are divine and far above man. When Solzhenitsyn was a slave in the Gulag, he was soul-free. The state controlled his body, but his spirit was his own. And this could be said of many who toiled in Nazi captivity. Body-slaves but not soul-slaves. But what we now have in the US is truly sick and dangerous. Whites are soul-slaves of Jews, and as Jews control the gods and demand that all goyim worship whatever Jews favor, whites have also become soul-slaves of homos and Negroes. Whites now fly 'gay' flags in churches and wash the stinky feet of cackling lip-smacking blacks. When blacks attack whites, whites no longer react with righteous rage but tell themselves that they've been justly punished. Negrovah(or negro-jehovah) has the right to smite thee!

A sane macro-centrist position is possible for blacks and homos. In regards to blacks, one can choose the middle road between cursing them as wildass savage looney-bin bunners who should be chained and made to pick cotton AND worshiping them as awesome magical black christs who suffered nobly and deserve worship for their prowess with song-and-dong. One can acknowledge the tragic history of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the contributions to America by black labor and creativity. But at the same time, one could argue all of history has been tragic — how many Germanic barbarians were killed by Roman legions, how many Persians perished at the hands of Mongols, how many Poles died in World War II, etc? — and black suffering was hardly unique.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact of racial oppression and discrimination in US history, it must be said the current black problems owe more to evolution than history. Does anyone really believe US would have the same racial problems if it had enslaved South American brown natives or Chinese to pick cotton? Them folks are physically smaller and weaker than whites; they are not naturally aggressive like blacks. In a sane and rational order, a macro-centrist position on blacks would reject both the idea that black savages should be enslaved and the idea that blacks had a uniquely tragic history and are worthy of worship because they can bellow louder, dunk the ball better, and go wild with buns/dongs. (One wonders about the state of American Culture when it proudly promotes 'twerking', a black bun-dong dance, as a signature achievement, and one wonders about the world that readily welcomes such a thing.) Macro-centrism on blacks would place responsibility on both whites and blacks to improve matters. Whites should know the history of slavery & racial discrimination and show some sensitivity in that regard. And blacks would admit that their American experience was as elevating as well as degrading. Sure, they were called 'ni**er' and made to pick cotton, but they also went from savagery in the Dark Continent to considerable cultural advancement under whites. Indeed, even black moral denunciation of white moral failures is premised on Western Morality that concluded slavery to be not only wrong but evil. Blacks bitch about reparations, but compare blacks in America to blacks who remained in Africa. Even if blacks got less than whites in America, they got much more than blacks in Africa got on their own.

Also, if whites must try to be fair with blacks, blacks must also realize that non-blacks have good reasons to fear blacks. Indeed, their reasons aren't much different from black reasons for fearing other blacks. Blacks know fellow blacks commit the most crime and cause the most trouble. So, if blacks feel this way about other blacks, why wouldn't non-blacks feel the same way(especially as they're physically weaker than blacks)?

But such macro-centrism isn't forbidden because blacks are sacred cows. Thus, the only range of discussion regarding blacks is between Magic Negro Worship(whereby even a lowlife moron like George Floyd is consecrated as a saint) and "We Conservatives LOVE blacks, and Democrats are the real racists." So, even as blacks, with the encouragement of Democrats, were burning down cities and wreaking havoc, there was the pathetic Donald Trump singing paeans to George Floyd the black angel. Or, Conservatism Inc. was pretending that the main instigators of violence were Antifa or Communists. And when BLM riots got too crazy even for Democrats, there was talk that, gee, maybe it was Russia that was fueling the violence. With Negroes as sacred-cows, only micro-centrism is allowed, i.e. seeking a middle path between seeing blacks as awesome dudes and seeing blacks as just the most wonderful folks. It's between blacks-as-gods and blacks-as-angels. So, what about the reality of blacks acting like thugs, louts, and lunatics? As blacks must be regarded as gods or angels, their violence must either be ignored('teens' or 'youths' did it) or morally justified as righteous punishment upon a 'systemically racist' and 'white supremacist' nation. Man argues with Man, and Man negotiates with Man, but Man cannot argue or negotiate with God or gods. Before the gods, man must grovel, plead, and make offerings of appeasement. There aren't enough blacks in America to conquer-and-bonquer White America, so why are whites acting this way? It's because they've been made into soul-slaves of blacks under Jewish Rule. Jews control the gods, and they used the media/academia to sanctify blacks into angels/gods. The result is so many whites sucking up to blacks. MLK is now bigger than god and jesus. It's like the only choice is between extremely hot and very hot. There is no warm middle between the hot and cold views of blacks. Imagine someone who insists we must judge him as anything between awesome and great. With 'awesome' and 'great' as the two opposites, what would be the middle, the (micro)centrist position? Very great or Almost awesome. What about him being bad, dirty, lowdown, lousy, and vile? Forget about it!

Same goes for Homos. The macro-centrist view of homo is surely ideal. It would be between seeing homos as a bunch of totally dangerous & demented degenerates who should be stoned to death like the Good Book says AND celebrating & revering them as angels-on-earth radiating with holiness & wisdom(because, of course, sodomy, aka homo-fecal-penetration, is oh-so-wonderful and tranny-penis-cutting-and-vagina-mutilation is so very edifying). In truth, homosexuality exists in nature. Some people are born that way, and it's not a matter of mental illness that can be 'cured'. So, the sensible thing is to let homos be homo and do their own thing. But, at the same time, let's not pretend 'homosexuality' has EQUAL worth with real sexuality. A dong up the bung is not real sex and never created a single life. Also, if homos are so sure their form of 'sexuality' has equal value, then let them create their own children via homo-fecal-penetration or lesbian-poon-grinding. (But then, we are way past pretending homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality. We must pretend it is higher and superior, even holy and 'spiritually' uplifting. Your average proglodyte is more likely to find personal 'meaning' in praising the homo than by praying to God.) Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon but a natural abnormality, like dwarfism and Mongoloidism(aka Down's Syndrome). Nature, like everything else, is often defective. It's like some kids are born deaf or blind. But we don't celebrate such things. So, why did we end up celebrating homosexuality? One reason is the obsession with power and success. Homos have certain traits that drive them to achieve more on average, especially in fingerish fields such as fashion and nimble creativity. Homos also tend to be more vain, and this fuels their ambition and drive. The other reason is Jewish Power that has decided to use the World Gayry as agents of World Jewry. (Homo advantages are understandable. Deficiencies in nature often lead to advantages in other areas. Blind people develop more acute sense of hearing and smell.)

Now, we can give homosexuality its due as many of the great artists and achievers in history have been homo. There's no reason to go around shouting 'God Hates F*gs'. But whatever advantages homos may possess and whatever civilization may owe to homosexuality, there's no getting around the fact that homosexuality, especially among the man, is gross and sickly. A male reproductive organ up the fecal organ? Dong meets Dung? And it makes no biological sense, especially considering sexuality is about reproduction? Homos may have an edge in creativity, but it's not the same thing as creation. It's like no painting of a flower or sunset, however well done, can match the real thing, which was created by the cosmos or by God(for those who believe).

So, we can arrive at a sensible macro-centrist position on homosexuality. But under Jewish Rule, homos are holy, another bunch of sacred cows. It's gotten so that we can't even blame the AIDS disaster on homo behavior. (How can we when we are told everything associated with homos is so wonderful? Out-of-control homo behavior lead to disease and death? What are you, a 'homophobe'?) In the past, especially prior to the boomer takeover of power, the US had a sane position on homosexuality. Most Americans came to accept the real science on homos. They were no longer seen as Sodomites fit for stoning or mentally-ill people scarred by childhood trauma(based on Freudian theory) but as people who just happen to be born tooty-ish with weird 'sexual' leanings. Most Americans came to accept this and were willing to let homos be homos, and leave it at that. But as Jewish Power became ascendant in the US, Jews pushed for political rhyming between Jewish Power and Homo Power. Filled with megalomania, Jews weren't satisfied with Macro-Centrism that saw Jews as humans than as devils or gods. Jews insisted on being seen as gods, and to buttress the conceit of the special-minority-elite as sacred cows, they chose homos as their partners-in-crime. So, just as it became increasingly difficult to speak frankly about Jews and their power, the same happened with homos. We could no longer regard homos as a people(with flaws) between the extremes of 'sodomites'(fit for stoning) and heavenly angels shimmering with 'rainbow' colors. No, homos had to be seen only as the latter. So, instead of a middle position between mindless anti-homo nuttery and mindless pro-homo nuttery, the permitted range of discussion became Democratic Party's ecstatic celebration of all-things-homo and GOP's craven & sullen silence & utter lack of opposition to the homo agenda. In time, the homo-thing became such a sacred cow in America that even the GOP began to jump on the bandwagon and argue 'gay marriage' is a 'conservative value' or a creature like 'Lady Maga' is glorious to behold. Today, the micro-centrism on homo-and-tranny matters is between 'homos are godly' and 'homos are great'. Even feminists are so cowed by the transcendental trannies that, at most, they plead rather pathetically, "Pretty please, no trannies in women's sports." They don't dare to argue that trannies are NOT women.

It would be nice if everyone can come down to ground and be human again in America. That way, Americans-as-humans, whites-as-humans, and conservatives-as-humans can argue, negotiate, and compromise with Jews-as-humans, blacks-as-humans, and homos-as-humans. But Jews, blacks, and homos insist on being gods, thereby not to be judged like other groups. In truth, man is half-devil, half-saint. He is half-animal, half-angel. He is good and bad. This is true of all groups, though racial variances manifest their goodness and badness in different ways.

If Jews, blacks, and homos were regarded as human like the rest of us, they'd have the angelic side but also the demonic side. They can be good, they can be evil. It is extreme to see them as all-evil or all-good. So, the sane position is to see them as capable of both good and evil, as are all peoples. Germans and Aztecs could commit mass-murder, but then so could Jews and blacks(like the Zulus and Hutus). Seeing a people as all-evil is dangerous and can lead to attempted mass-murder of them. But seeing a people as all-good is also dangerous as one would naively lower one's guard against their potential evil. Why are dogs so defenseless when their masters decide to eat them in Asia? To the very end, dogs look up to humans as good decent rightful masters, just like Winston Smith died in 1984 loving Big Brother. Dogs emotionally trust humans as wise and good. White people in the US are now like dogs. Jews openly celebrate the Great Replacement of white people, but white people are also told in no uncertain terms that it is 'antisemitic', 'paranoid', and evil to suspect Jews are capable of such a thing. And most whites just go along like good little doggies. It's like a Chinese man loudly preparing to make dog soup while the dog looks up at him with love and trust.

How did Jewish Power become so evil? Because macro-centrist view of them has been forbidden. We can't consider or see the evil side of Jews. We must only see the good side. It'd be like seeing only the good side of Germans and never regarding their dark side. Such fuels megalomania, an ethnic diva mentality.

Worse, if Jews must be seen as only good, it leads to the tendency to look upon certain others as only bad, and this is happening with 'whiteness'. It is taboo in America to see the dark, evil, and wicked side of Jewishness but then equally taboo to see the good, noble, and decent side of whiteness. The very act of praising or admiring whiteness is now deeply suspect in America and the West. FBI is called to investigate signs that say "It's Okay to be White." If Jews are god than man, then whites must be the devil than man. In truth, both Jews and whites are Man, with both devilish and divine natures. But with Jews choosing to hog all the goodness, they must push all the badness onto whites. Thus, even Jewish evil becomes labeled as 'white'. So, never mind all the power, wealth, and privilege that Jews got. That ain't 'Jewish Privilege' but 'WHITE Privilege'. And the same logic applies to black badness. When blacks act vile and do terrible things, just blame it on whites. No matter how badly blacks act, just pretend whiteness somehow made them do it. Blacks loot and burn a city? History of 'white supremacism' drove blacks to desperation(to steal high-priced gym shoes). Blacks attacking people in the streets? Don't blame blacks as they're holy. Blame whiteness instead. So, when blacks attack Asians in the US, what do Asians do? They march against 'white nationalism'. But then, what do whites do when Jews defame and demean them? They blame China because Asians, unlike Jews-blacks-and-homos, are still in the category of Man, and that means they can be bad as well as good... though there is a tendency among Conservatives to vilify China and Iran as the source of all evil because, having been made into the White Devil by the Jewish gods, they seek to regain their humanity by demonizing another people. Of course, they can't do a tit-for-tat with Jews — Jews demonize whites, whites demonize Jews — because they've accepted the premise that Jews are gods. So, when robbed of their humanity by Jewish gods, they seek to regain their humanity(and approval of the Jewish gods) by pointing their fingers at the 'real enemy'. After all, if China or Iran is the Real Satan, then maybe whites aren't so bad after all and even qualify as human than remain the devil. It's all so pathetic.

As long as Jews control the gods, nothing good can come of America.

P.S.

Democratic Party is an openly anti-white party, and white people in it are expected to join in on the anti-white rhetoric and policies. Only whites who attack whites are welcomed into the party. Democratic Party is totally controlled by Jews.

If those are the terms by which one major party operates in the US, then the other major party should do likewise but against Jews. It must be openly anti-Jewish, and Jews in it should be expected to join in on the anti-Jewish rhetoric and policies. Only Jews who attack Jews should be welcomed into the party.

Then, things would be more fair. Anti-White party with self-loathing whites versus Anti-Jewish party with self-critical Jews.

But currently, there is the Jewish-controlled Democratic Party that demonizes whites and there is the Republican Party that never defends whites but praises Jews to high heaven.

Furthermore, would most Republican voters support a GOP that is openly anti-Jewish in the way that most Democratic voters support a Democratic Party is openly anti-white? No, because most Republican voters are also under the spell of Jews who control the gods that say Jews are holy and whites are unholy. Jews fixed it so that, in minds of both progs and conzos, Jews are divine whereas whites are demonic. So, even the GOP praises Jews and feels reluctant to even half-way defend whites.

Two great sins in current America are OFFENDING JEWS and DEFENDING WHITES. Offending Jews is akin to offending the gods, and Defending Whites is akin to defending the devils. Jews fixed it so that Whiteness = Nazism.

Whites must break free of the Jewish spell.

THE BETRAYAL OF BRETT KAVANAUGH AND AMY CONEY BARRETT by The Red Elephants - Vincent James

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAUST & FASCISM by Cultured Thug