Ironically, Limbaugh paved the way for the triumph of the New Liberals who should now be called Uberalls as they stand for Shlomo-Globo hegemony uber alles. Maybe, Limbaugh should be called a 'Limberal' given he unwittingly lent a hand to the Globerals and Uberalls in their total usurpation of power. How was Limbaugh a tool in this?
He was a total cheerleader for US corporations, 'free trade', 'private enterprise', Wall Street, Las Vegas, and money-money-money on the supposition that those are intrinsically 'conservative' forces. His was a pro-rich message though his main appeal was to the rubes. Thus, he helped create the situation of "What's the Matter with Kansas", i.e. so many American social conservatives who were have-lesses supporting policies that favored the have-mores and have-lot-mores in the mistaken belief that Big Money was on the side of Americanism.
Perhaps, Limbaugh's blind spot could be forgiven as his formative years were the Cold War when global conflict according to the US Narrative boiled down to God, Enterprise, & American Patriotism versus Godless Communism & Anti-Americanism. Also, when Rush Limbaugh was young, the face of capitalism was General Motors and good ole boys making things in factories. And the GOP was powerful in California — none other than Ronald Reagan won twice there as governor and dominated in 1980 and 1984 — , and the initial high-tech start-ups had many libertarian-leaning individuals who preferred GOP's pro-entrepreneur policies.
Limbaugh was blind, willfully or otherwise, as to how much things had changed in American Capitalism with the ascendancy of boomers(among whom Jews were especially powerful). And had he inspected matters more carefully, he would have realized that Eastern Bloc communist nations were, in more ways than one, culturally and socially more conservative than the Liberal West(that, under the power of PC, became both less conservative and less liberal, rejecting both traditional values and civil liberties in favor of the Tri-Supremacist Idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos enshrined as the Holy Three). Limbaugh clung to Cold War formulations of the Left vs Right, and his continuing influence after the Cold War turned out to be corrosive. In his twilight, he warmed to Donald Trump, but it was too little too late(and besides Trump turned out to be a clown).
In the 1990s, a boomer civil war broke out between Rush Limbaugh(and Newt Gingrich) and Billy Boy Clinton(and Jews securing their position as the new ruling elites). With the defeat of George H.W. Bush, the so-called Greatest Generation's fall from power(and grace) was swift, and the boomers, biggest generation in US history, took total power(though Clinton did appoint some of the older generation). Bob Dole was useless in 1996, and the death of Richard Nixon marked an end of an era.
According to Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his crowd represented the Radical Sixties, Socialism, and Anti-Americanism. But the real conflict wasn't about capitalism vs socialism but about trying to win over Big Capital. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats had pretty much given up on Big Labor and fixed their gaze on Wall Street, Big Tech, and other Big Money players as the main prizes. It was as if both Limbaugh and Clinton in drag were doing lap dance for Bill Gates and the like. They were both going 'me so horny, we sucky sucky long time'.
In time, Boomer Big Money went with the Democrats, something American Conservatives were reluctant to face until the likes of Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson finally began to gripe about traitorous Chamber of Commerce and 'woke capital'. But even now, so many American Conzos yap about 'socialism', 'communism', and blah blah. Right, the mega-billionaires of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Hollywood, Wall Street, and etc. are all a bunch of 'communists'. And those vain homos and trannies funded by the super-rich represent what? Leninism and Stalinism?
Bill Clinton, a sleazebag but an astute observer of human nature, understood that the rich aren't only materially greedy but morally vain and status-anxious. As long as Democratic policies were overly punitive on the wealthy, many among the rich would reluctantly stick with the stuffy-and-square GOP as the pro-business party. But once the Democratic Party became reasonably pro-business, many(even most) rich folks would come over to the Democrats(even if GOP remained more pro-business) because the Democrats control the gods and own the 'cool'. Especially with Jewish control of academia and media, the gods of the US became the Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and increasingly Holy Homos. As the Democratic Party was the home of most Jews and blacks, it held the moral high ground. And as Jewish Power made homos ever holier, the young generation increasingly went with the Democrats as the happy globo-homo party.
Of course, the GOP had given up 'racism' long ago, but why would blacks accept racial equality from the GOP when they can get racial sanctity from the Democrats? Some Jews, as 'Neocons', did join the GOP because it was even more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party, but it was a matter of inches(and besides, the Neocons were merely using the GOP without offering much in return: "I eat your lunch, and I eat my lunch."). If the Democratic Party was 200% for Israel, the GOP claimed it was 210% for Israel. It hardly made a difference. Also, despite GOP's ultra-hardline support for Israel, many American Conservatives opposed or or were at least less enthused about Jewish-favored policies in the US, such as gun-banning, more mass-immigration, anti-white rhetoric, Christianity-bashing, and promotion of globo-homo. Indeed, GOP's extreme obeisance to Israel and Zionism was really a crutch, a desperate compensation for its disfavor among most Jews. If anything, it betrayed GOP's anxiety as the party of disdain among Jews. In a sane world, those attacked by Jews should attack them back, but as Jews became holy in the US, you had to praise them and seek their approval EVEN when they attacked you. As the GOP couldn't win favor from Jews on domestic issues, it went full-steroids on Israel. GOP gushed as if Jews are the very best, and yet most Jews stuck with the Democrats. If indeed Jews are the best yet most remained with the Democratic Party, didn't it imply that Democrats are morally superior? After all, it seems a happier home for the Very Best.
Anyway, as the party of the three most 'sacralized' groups(of Jews, blacks, and homos), the Democrats had a decisive moral advantage over the GOP, and this state of affairs hasn't changed after four years of Donald Trump whose message was, "I love Negroes, even as they riot and loot! I love Jews even as they ram me in the arse! And, Trannies can use women's room at Trump Tower." Rich people love money but are also anxious about their reputation, and as the Jews/Democrats controlled the gods, most rich folks moseyed on over to the Democratic Party. Besides, it was also the party of big Hollywood stars and rock stars, thus more fashionable and 'cool'. In contrast, GOP was associated with 'racist' redneck Neo-Confederate South & 'homophobes' and Nashville hillbillies. (Its moralism came down to Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza yapping about how the Democrats are the 'real racists' because the KKK members were historically Democratic.) And when the Jew-run media made Trump and 'Deplorables' out to be Worse-than-Hitler and the new nazis, most rich folks(shallow and vain) wanted nothing to do with it. And the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney know only one trick: Try to win back the rich with even more tax cuts and other cucktivities.
Limbaugh of the Cold War mentality thought that the triumph of global capitalism was synonymous with victory for conservatism against Godless Communism and leftover radicalism from the Sixties, but the success of everything he'd championed came to mean the death knell of American Conservatism(and also of American Liberalism as the current power is anything but liberal in the traditional or even radical sense). The great irony is that Limbaugh lost precisely because he won. The Big Money that he so idolized won many times over, and its power led to censorship of conservatives, deplatforming of patriots, denial of financial services to rightists, defamation of people like him, and the rise of global-gangster-fascism(as opposed to good humanist fascism). Limbaugh and the dittoheads assumed that Big Capital was at war with Big Government, and the triumph of the former would ensure more liberty, more freedom, and more patriotism. Actually, the result was the fusion of Deep Pockets and Deep State. Also, Limbaugh and his ilk hoped that Jews could be wooed over to Conservatism because Jews are rich and GOP is 210% pro-Israel(than merely 200% that the Democrats are). They failed to realize that Jews have an agenda all their own. Jews weren't looking to pick sides but take over both parties and manipulate them to Jewish supremacist ends.
In the end(and from the beginning), Limbaugh was more style than substance, and Trump turned out to be no different. For all his maverick playacting, he cared more about money, success, fame, and celebrity than integrity and truth. Though he stood up to the GOP on occasion, he was more often than not a reliable cheerleader and whore for all its destructive policies.
Could Limbaugh have made a difference? Yes, but he missed the chance. Looking back, the most prescient presidential candidate of the last fifty years was Ross Perot whose campaign took on both the GOP and the Democratic Party as the tweedle dee and tweedle dum of globalism and 'free trade'. Though Perot was far from perfect and a rather unstable personality, he was more right than wrong about the dangers posed to American sovereignty by the rise of globalism and the New World Order. Because the GOP was more invested in 'free trade' than the Democrats back then, Perot was hit harder by the Republicans. Limbaugh, a Reagan Romantic of the Cold War mindset, joined with the GOP in mercilessly mocking not only Perot's looks and personality but his warnings and policies. Rush, the attack dog of the GOP, assured all the dittoheads across the fruited plains(soon to become tutti-fruity plains) to denounce Perot and go with George H.W. Bush, 'free trade', and New World Order policies.
Thus, Limbaugh missed the boat. Another chance came with Patrick Buchanan's remarkable speech at the 1992 GOP convention where he spoke for the common man and the American Worker threatened by globalist 'free trade'. Again, Limbaugh reliably sided with the GOP and repeated all the talking points about how Walmart and the like are the wave of the future, and the American Worker had nothing to fear and nothing to lose and had everything to gain. Or, maybe they can learn to code and become big earners in High-Tech.
And of course, 'true conservatives' know that capitalists are all such swell fellows, mostly patriots and natural conservatives(or at the very least libertarians committed to small government and liberty). They would never betray the GOP for all it has done for them with lower taxes, de-regulation, and the like. Limbaugh and dittoheads were fooling themselves.
While capitalists are surely people of talent, drive, ambition, creativity, and even vision, the world of money isn't exactly one of integrity or loyalty. As it's mainly driven by materialism and status-anxiety, loyalty and integrity are the last thing on the mind of capitalists. Capitalism is useful and productive but shouldn't be the core of any meaningful identity, ideology, or value system. Like Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER 2, "all our people are businessmen... their loyalty is based on that..." One may admire businessmen for their ability but never mistake it for integrity.
If Limbaugh had taken a nationalist-populist stance in support of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, perhaps he would have been booted off 'conservative talk radio' that, more often than not, was a propaganda wing of Zionists and the GOP, much like most of so-called MSM is little more than Ministry of Information for the Democratic Party and ADL. Still, he would have been a man of integrity, and had he overcome the obstacles with a populist message, he and his following could have served as a formidable counter-force against globalism pushed not only by the GOP but the Democrats.
But, by working with the GOP to crush people like Perot and Buchanan, Limbaugh unwittingly strengthened the future Democrats who would turn out to be the main beneficiaries of 'free trade', deregulation, Big Tech monopoly, and anarcho-oligarcho-tyrannism. Limbaugh banked on the false hope that triumph of New Capital would ensure dominance of the GOP and American Conservatism. And most dittoheads fell for the myth that the power struggle was about American Capitalism & Conservatism(and Neocons & Israel) versus International Socialism & Liberalism(and all those 'Anti-Semites' eager to throw Israel under the bus) when, in fact, the real tug-of-war between GOP and the Democratic Party was for the 'hearts and minds'(or wallets and vanity) of the rich donor class.
The sad irony is that the rich capitalist oligarchic class won bigger than ever(exactly as Limbaugh and dittoheads wished), and it was this very class(especially dominated by Zio-Globalist Jews) that waged total war on American Nationalism, the white race, Christianity, and populist-conservatism. But American Conzos learned nothing. Again with Obama's win in 2008, there was more nonsensical talk about 'socialism'! True, Obama had links with certain radical figures from the Sixties, some of them Jewish, but most of them had moved on from communism to Zionist-capitalist-supremacism. (Besides, Neocons had Trotskyite backgrounds.) Wall Street was bailed out under Obama, the puppet of the Jews, and Jews got even richer when Main Street took it up the arse. And it was Big Capital that funded globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense. It was the capitalists who promoted 'gay burgers'. And it was the capitalists at Chick-Fil-A who, despite so much support from the conservative consumers, caved under Jewish Capitalist pressure and became Dick-Fil-Ass. And while uber-capitalist banks were shutting down accounts of conservatives and rightists, some of the biggest corporations were pumping many millions, even billions, into groups like BLM and SPLC. It was super-rich Hollywood Jews and Silicon Valley Zionists who pumped record cash into Georgia to ensure Democratic Senatorial wins. Joe Biden raised record money in 2020 thanks to Big Capital and super-rich Jews. And Big Capital conspired with the Deep State and Big Media to turn 2020 into a hellhole with Covid nonsense and BLM nuttery just to punish America for having elected Trump. So, the notion that capitalism is automatically conservative was a boomer myth, a byproduct of Cold War mentality.
But the kind of 'conservatism' set by Limbaugh and dittoheads failed to see the big picture because it was stuck on framing the world in terms of capitalism = conservatism versus socialism = liberalism. What's-the-Matter-with-Kansas was a case of "What's the matter with Limby-Dim and the Dittoheads?" Now, it's true that Limbaugh's reach and influence waned in the age of the internet, but much of the talking points remained. So, Steven Crowder the chowder-head still thinks the big enemy is 'socialism'. Andrew Torba, though laudable as founder of Gab and defender of free speech, gripes about 'communism', ROTFL. (China may be ruled by the CCP, but China gave up communism long ago... or haven't they heard? CCP today is about as Maoist as the current Democrats are Pro-Confederate and Pro-Working-Class.) And so many even in the Dissident Right speak of THE LEFTISTS. Anyone with sense would have realized long ago that true leftism is deader than conservatism, though it may not seem that way on the surface as radical 'wokeness' seem to be everywhere. But it's all just labels over trivia and trifles. Jewish supremacist capitalist-Zionism hides behind the 'leftist' label to create the false impression that its side is about 'equity' and 'justice' when it's totally about supremacism, hierarchy, hegemony, and privilege. If the Democrats are really about equal justice for all, what's with all their 'Muh Israel' catechisms and submission to Zionist Jews and total support for More Wars for Zion?
Alt Right could have introduced something new, but idiot Richard Spencer and his retardo crew decided to larp as Nazis and fall into the enemy's trap, which made it even harder for Trump to try something different.
At any rate, one thing Perot got right was going beyond the stunted worldview of left vs right. The Reform Party was a third party that appealed to both rightist and leftist sentiments. Though Nazism 2.0 turned out to be insane with its imperialism and wars, Nazism 1.0 was essentially sound precisely because it combined rightism with leftism. National Socialism was about German Pride but also about the German worker, the backbone volk of the nation. Perot instinctively understood this, and free-thinking Democrats and Republicans were willing to give him a chance.
It attempted a counter-convergence against the convergence happening within both the GOP and the Democratic Party. After the end of the Cold War, the establishment elites of both parties were converging on 'free trade', globalism, the gods of PC, and total sucking up to Jews. For all the bitterness between Billy Boy Clinton and Newt Gingrich, they were totally agreed on More for Wall Street and More for Big Money. Perot's challenge envisioned a different kind of convergence. Not among the elites but among the masses. The American People, instead of being divided by and manipulated with the false dichotomy of 'left' vs 'right', would converge as a broad mass of patriots in defense of national sovereignty and economic justice. Convergence of the people against the convergence of the elites. If not for Perot's instability and the dirty tricks played by both parties(especially by the GOP), it's possible Perot could have changed the course of US history. And Limbaugh could have been part of something truly remarkable but he opted to be the lapdog of the GOP and cheered on the Walmartians.
A third party is useless if it appeals only to one side. Another 'liberal' party will merely take votes away from the Democrats, ensuring victory for the GOP, and another 'conservative' party will shave votes from the GOP, ensuring victory for the Democrats. The only chance for a Third Party is to win over disillusioned people from both sides. Also, its message must be both left and right. After all, there is much that is good about leftism(without which Western progress is inconceivable) and much that is good about rightism(without which there is no civilizational continuity and stability). Conservatism allows for tradition, caution, and continuance. Liberalism allows for novelty, experimentation, and daring. It's like how evolution works. Without mutations, organisms would have remained the same. And yet, most mutations are harmful and must be rejected. Without leftism, there is just moribund conservatism, and many civilizations grew weak and weary as a result, like Ancient Egypt and Byzantium. The West made great leaps because of the revolutionary spirit. And yet, without the stabilizing gyrational force of conservatism, leftism can turn cancerous and crazy, mistaking every novelty as the 'most evolved' truth. Imagine an organism where the mutations take over. It will turn into Elephant Man.
Looking back on 2016, it would have been better for Trump to run as a third-party candidate. Because he ran as a Republican, he was compelled to play the 'rightist', thus needlessly alienating many people with leftist inclinations. Had he run on a combination of nationalism and socialism, he could have done so much more. Of course, had he won as a third party candidate in 2016, he would have been squeezed by both parties in Congress for four grueling years, but many more Americans would have been with him. Being alone with the people isn't the worst thing, and his tragedy would have been heroic. Instead, as a sham 'rightist' in a cucked GOP, the tragedy of 2020 was a clown-show, a farce.
Two realities decide the fate of America: JEWS CONTROL THE GODS and JEWS GIVE YOU MONEY. In the end, despite all his bluster, Rush Limbaugh bowed to the Jewish-controlled gods and took their money as Talk Radio Industry was controlled by Uber-Zionists.
In my wild youth, I spent a season in hell as a devotee of Arthur Rimbaud... I fancied myself a top-flight bohemian... and my defiance of all the niceties that kept the common folk in bondage to the workaday grind. I had boarded a drunken boat, and, like Rimbaud, made a bad habit out of shocking the bourgeoisie. Or so I thought. What I mostly encountered in response to my pretensions was rolled eyes... If I could go back now and kick my 18-year-old self in the shins, I would gladly do so. I wish someone had at least slapped me with their gloves or laughed in my face. That nobody did so is because, well, it’s harder than it looks to shock the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, as it turns out, are pretty nice people... The bourgeoisie politely smiled through the hippies, the yuppies, the Seventies and the Eighties, Studio 54, David Bowie, the gross gyrations of Madonna Louise Ciccone, the new domesticity of Ellen and Rosie and Elton John, the copulating of David Crosby and Melissa Etheridge, the proliferation of the sperm bank, wardrobe malfunctions, Jim Carrey, the Movable Train Wreck commonly referred to as Johnny Depp... Young Jason Morgans of the present, take heed. People have been trying to do this since Leonardo da Vinci. No, since Sappho. It’s a phase you don’t need to go through. There’s nothing romantic about tilting at accountant-shaped windmills. In a world in which shocking the bourgeoisie has become the most conventional, most predictable, most stultifying form of utter conformity, I dare you to be different... Like learning. Like culture. (Remember that “culture” implies cultivation, not laziness.) Like devotion. Like charity. Like discipline. Like rock-bottom time preference. Like sacrifice. Like truth. Like love. Rimbaud died a sad death and so did Verlaine. They were, in the end, big losers. This wasn’t at all shocking—anybody could have seen it coming. But because we’re all busy trying to shock one another with bathroom humor and pierced Adam’s apples, we tend to miss the obvious truth staring us in the face. Épater is bourgeoisie. Now, young squire, put down the tattoo needle and hie thee to a library.
Jason Morgan defends the bourgeoisie and advises young people to think twice before making fools of themselves as rebels against bourgeois values and norms. On the surface, it's mostly good advice, especially in our degenerate age. One of his proposed alternatives to wasting one's years on anti-bourgeois pain-in-the-assery is the search for truth, but it seems Morgan himself ignores too much truth in his opinion piece that comes across as a bit smug, even glib. So, what facets of reality has Morgan overlooked or mischaracterized in his defense of the bourgeoisie against vapid decadents and vain poseurs calling attention to themselves with their 'enfants terribles' schtick?
First, it's pointless for a mature older person to give advice to one's 18 yr old self, especially in a modern democracy where youths have the freedom of 'self-actualization'. Indeed, if his current self could really go back in time to advise his 18 yr old self, the latter would look upon his older self with equal distress and skepticism. It'd be like the two selves meeting in the sci-fi movie LOOPER. All we can really hope for is that young people eventually grow out of their often foolish but sometimes inspired phase of searching for identity, meaning, and place for themselves. The problem for society is not the phase itself but the inability or unwillingness of so many people to eventually morph into sober adults.
In some cases, it seems like adults, especially as they enter middle age, revert to a kind of juvenilia as if to get their second wind of youthful excitement or to stave away(with growing desperation) the fact that one will never be young again. Especially given all the pop cultural fantasies of narcissism that so many people are inundated with since childhood, many feel cheated as they grow older as their fairy-tale wishes didn't come true. At the very least, they once had youth(and the dreams of a better future) in their younger days, but as it dawns on them that they will even lose youth itself, many grow desperate and go out of their way in self-indulgence to make up for all the things they missed out on. I'm reminded of the mother played by Jennifer Connelly in AMERICAN PASTORAL. A woman who'd been mature and responsible for most of her adult life suddenly turns into vain glam-girl as she enters middle age and is freed from having to worry about her troublesome daughter.
It's no big deal and no great shame for young people to make asses out of themselves. When a person is 20, he has no personal references as an adult. 5 yrs earlier, he was only 15, and 10 yrs earlier, he was only 10. So, even though he's all grown up physically and mentally, there is still something of the child in him, and it takes several more years before he can emotionally mature into an adult. So, Jason Morgan shouldn't be too hard on his younger self. The kid was just trying to find himself, not always in a good way, but we can't expect young people to become adults overnight.
What is truly alarming about our society is that so many people never grow out of their youth phase emotionally, intellectually, and culturally. They are stuck in teen-mentality. Why do so many adults get so excited about superhero movies? Why do so many older women have funny-colored hair? Why are men and women in their 40s and 50s getting hideous tattoos? Why do older women put on 'pussyhats' and make total asses of themselves? This perpetual youth-mentality began with the boomers of the Counterculture, and its impact is truly dire. Instead of older people imparting knowledge and wisdom based on their life experience on younger people, they are so eager to gain approval from the young by trying to appear 'hip' and 'cool' and 'with it'.
Second, Morgan's put-down of Arthur Rimbaud makes little sense. Rimbaud isn't remembered simply or mainly because he was a bad boy who snubbed normality and the bourgeoisie. It was because, whether one likes his lifestyle or not, he was a brilliant and original poet. Cases like Rimbaud demonstrate why we must make a distinction between genuine strangeness and poseur weirdness. Rimbaud was a genuine weirdo, an eccentric. It wasn't just an act. Likewise Vincent van Gogh really had personal demons, some of which served as his muse to create great works of art. Luis Bunuel was not a phony. He had a genuinely strange vision of the world. David Lynch isn't a fake either. His strange visions are real. David Bowie was half-poseur, half-poet. Much of his act was BS glamour-puss nonsense, but he was a singular musical talent who heard and created voices and sounds no one else did. Morgan says he's for 'culture', but so much of culture was made by genuinely strange people who stood apart from social norms. Same goes for religions. The great ones were founded by people who rejected normality & conventionality and ventured off to find a deeper truth, often risking madness or death(to themselves and/or others).
The real lesson is that anti-normality isn't enough for art and creativity. The problem is too many fools fallaciously think that, because such-and-such great artist(ancient or modern) was a strange or 'subversive' individual, putting on a bad attitude or doing something outrageous means one is special in talent and creativity. Most of contemporary art is garbage because it's all premised on the conceit of 'outrage', 'subversion', or 'cynicism'. Indeed, most 'creative' people today are either normal people who strain to be 'different' or genuinely messed-up people without talent or originality. But they comfort themselves with the notion that, just because many great artists in the past were not appreciated in their time, they too must be geniuses or visionaries who have yet to be discovered and prized.
In contrast, artists like Rimbaud, along with Van Gogh and Edgar Allan Poe, really had different ways of seeing, sensing, and feeling things. And it is often from such people that art and culture arise. While strangeness or different-ness per se doesn't guarantee creativity — most weirdos and messed-up people aren't artistic — , it is what lends depth and shade to intelligence and talent. Indeed, compare filmmakers Sydney Pollack and Stanley Kubrick. Pollack was a very intelligent director who mastered the A-B-C's of film-making, yet even his best works don't come anywhere near the masterpieces of Stanley Kubrick. What made the difference? Kubrick had a genuinely strange and 'different' take on world and psyche. Franz Kafka was another person who didn't lead a happy life, but his works are among the towering literary achievements of the 20th century that will haunt, provoke, and inspire humanity as long as literature exists. Many artistic types didn't lead happy lives. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died young in depressing circumstances. Beethoven's final years were dark and gloomy. Many Jazz and Rock greats died too young. Sam Peckinpah crashed and burned. And yet, they left lasting works that have entered the pantheon of arts, culture, and entertainment.
Could they have achieved such had they all been respectable bourgeois types? While bourgeois values are good for most people, notable achievements in arts and culture(and even in science, technology, and business) are made by people with certain dark obsessions and compulsive need to make a difference. The real problem seems not the existence of such individuals but the vulgar popularization of such types as a 'cool' ideal for most people to emulate. I don't mind Rimbaud being Rimbaud, leading a dark existence of unhappiness but in the process producing works that have entered the canon of poetry. The problem is people who are all-too-normal becoming so enamored of the hipsterism of being 'different' or 'edgy'. Look at Art Schools. They are filled with spoiled bratty middle-class kids who go out of their way to be 'subversive' and 'rebellious'. It's all an act. They've bought into the cult of artist-as-glamorous-weirdo. (Some do have mental issues but are generally without any talent.) Truly strange people don't have to try to be strange. And truly talented people don't need the crutch of arbitrarily violating rules as easy call for attention. The fact that ideology plays such a big role in the art world is a sure sign that most artists are privileged bratty middle-class types without genuine strangeness. That's why they rely on ideology to supply them with the cachet of being 'radical', 'revolutionary', or 'avant-garde'.
This is why, despite modernism having burned out and its ideals rendered meaningless over the years, many middle class brats play dress-up with retro-rebellion so as to pretend that the cultural revolution is ongoing. Some people may get the wrong impression from the movie AMADEUS that Mozart was specially talented because he was so exuberant in his vulgarity, irreverence, and uproarious antics. In fact, there is no guarantee as to whom will be favored by the muse. It could be an extrovert, an introvert, a rationalist, a spiritualist, a rich person, a poor person, a kind person, a vicious person, a lout, or a saint. Still, it's generally true that what all great artists have in common is they have a way of experiencing and sensing things in a way that strays off from conventionality and normality. Even if the artist happens to believe and uphold social norms and conventional values of mainstream society, he has an inspired and imaginative way of seeing things that are denied to most people. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE may be an All-American movie about the virtues of small town values, but it is a work of individuals of special talent and vision all-too-rare in the Narrative Industry.
Third, does anything like the real bourgeoisie exist anymore? Morgan speaks of impetuous young ones making asses of themselves for attention and notoriety(a good thing these days apparently), but can we really speak of the (respectable) bourgeoisie vs the anti-bourgeoisie when 80% of Americans support 'gay marriage'? When so many middle class suburban soccer moms have bought into the notion of 50 genders? When ugly rap is the biggest musical genre in the country? When even supposed conservatives embrace 'LGBTQ' celebration? Perhaps, the so-called 'bourgeoisie' roll their eyes at silly 'outrageous' antics not in mockery but in agreement? It could be they're signaling, "Why do you make such a fuss with degeneracy when we are fully on-board with it as the New Normal?" Even at libraries, we see fat, hideous, staff members with green hair and tattoos. There have been so many cases of female high school teachers having sexual relations with students. American conservative politicians receive most donations from the vile gambling industry. So much for 'family values'. Even though hardcore pornography is readily available to young ones via the internet, no one makes a pip about how to deal with the problem.
Morgan speaks of the bourgeoisie as mostly nice people who patiently suffered through the comings and goings of various culturally degenerate pop cultural idols and celebrities, but did it ever occur to him that members of his favorite class actually consumed, enjoyed, and embraced so much of this junk culture? Many in the 'respectable' middle class don't so much suffer fools gladly as support them eagerly. Look how the 'bourgeoisie' took to 'gay pride' and entire downtown districts being shut down for globo-homo celebration. Consider how the so-called 'bourgeoisie' are A-Okay with all the foul TV shows and trashy commercials that spread decadence and degeneracy. If there was a true bourgeoisie, they wouldn't suffer fools so gladly. They wouldn't be so 'nice' and, if anything, would take measures to resist the overflow of cultural sewage. What we have is not the bourgeoisie but what David Brooks called 'bobo' or 'bourgeois-bohemian' culture. Brooks' idea is that the aspirational class wants wealth & privilege, status & approval, and the cachet of being 'different' & 'subversive'. Especially following the social revolutions in the 1960s(though the process was well under way since the Romantic Era of the 19th Century), being chic & trendy counted more for status & approval than the older mode of respectability did. Thus, we live in a world where even the seemingly respectable 'bourgeoisie' want to be thought of as 'edgy', 'cool', and 'hip' than as 'respectable', which is considered 'lame' and 'square'.
And yet, the fall of the bourgeoisie owed to something within bourgeois mentality itself. It was an element of artifice. At its core, the bourgeois mindset was less about truth, courage, and virtue than social approval, status anxiety, and cultural conformism. True, the bourgeoisie could practice real virtues and stand for worthy principles, but the core animating force was not courage and conviction but anxiety and confirmation. It's like a dog can be led to do good things, but the main impetus is not moral reasoning but the eagerness to please the master. To please the master, a dog can be made to do good things or bad things.
Likewise, even though the bourgeoisie could be led to do good things and stand for sound principles, they could just as easily be swayed in the other direction. Either way, the bourgeoisie were motivated mainly by status-anxiety and hunger for confirmation by those deemed as 'social betters' either economically, culturally, intellectually, or etc, though those considerations were almost always interlinked. After all, many of the top 'intellectuals' tend to be those favored by those with money.
For this reason, anarchists, rebels, mavericks, and free-thinkers loved to target the bourgeoisie. It wasn't necessarily out of envy and resentment for bourgeois wealth and privilege. It was the sense that, even when the bourgeoisie were doing the right thing, they were acting not out of real understanding, true conviction, and genuine virtue but out of status-anxious sense that it was the 'right thing to do' according to the prevailing social norms. Ironically, this very quality of the bourgeoisie made them so malleable and useful to the avant-garde and enfants terribles who loved to insult and mock the bourgeoisie for their obsession with respectability. After all, if the bourgeoisie were really philistines with airs of respectability and hadn't a real clue as to the real truth, meaning, or culture, they could easily be fooled into supporting whatever was deemed as the New Reigning Fashion. While anarchists and modernists felt much animus toward hardcore reactionaries and religious fanatics, they felt a grudging respect for them to the extent that such people had true convictions that could not be shaken or shucked by New Fashions. Indeed, this is the difference between someone like Pat Buchanan and David French. Buchanan, agree with him or not, has core convictions that he won't surrender for social or status expediency. In contrast, all these 'cuckservatives' are typically neo-bourgeois in that their main animating force is being approved by the reigning dogma, ideology, or 'idology'(as the West went from ideological to mainly 'idological' worship of the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos). Thus, there is an artifice at the center of bourgeois mentality. Even though we may associate the classic bourgeoisie with virtues such as work ethic, thrift, sobriety, self-control, and good manners, was it really a matter of real conviction and commitment, or were most bourgeois folks just going along with such norms because they were deemed most proper by rules of prevailing respectability? Given the fact that bourgeois norms changed so fast, indeed to the extent that it was the bourgeoisie that was funding and patronizing all those avant-gardists and modernists in the 20th century, one wonders if there was anything substantive, let alone eternalist, at the core of bourgeois thought.
As modernism and radical modes of thought and expression became the new fashions in the Late Modern Era, most bourgeois types seemed to fall in line, pretending to like 'modernist' whatever without real understanding or appreciation of them. This was especially beneficial for vain and cunning homos who could toy with neo-bourgeois status anxiety to manipulate people with money into patronizing or investing in things of dubious value. At their core, the bourgeoisie was about money and stuff, but mere money and stuff don't lead to moral meaning, cultural understanding, or spiritual depth. Also, as people don't live on money alone, they crave respectability or some kind of social confirmation. But how can the bourgeoisie know what is good, right, and true if they are, at the core, mere status-anxious cultural philistines? This is why the modernists and avant-gardists had a grand time proto-trolling the bourgeoisie into investing in and patronizing all sorts of arts, expressions,and ideas that were so anti-bourgeoisie. It was like fooling the Emperor into believing he's wearing clothes when he's naked.
Over time, modernism's assault on the bourgeoisie was so overwhelming — albeit with the full participation of the bourgeoisie and their children who were led to believe that people like Andy Warhol meant something — that the notion of middle class respectability and bourgeois ethos was flushed down the toilet. Then, is there no more bourgeoisie since the bourgeoisie themselves came to adopt anti-normative ideas and expressions as the New Normal? Yes and no. Bourgeois culture in the traditional and classic sense are gone for good. And yet, the bourgeois mentality is very much alive because today's so-called bobo's(coined by David Brooks) are animated by the artifice of status anxiety. (Maybe they should be called 'boogiwazi'.)There is no other way to explain the Globo-Homo-mania spreading like wildfire among the elites and wanna-be elite class. How could something that absurd and vile be adopted, even with gushing enthusiasm, as the greatest thing since sliced bread or baked buns? It's because most affluent people are moral voids, cultural idiots, and spiritual zombies. They have deforested minds and uprooted souls, and what animates them the most is status anxiety and eagerness for social confirmation. As such, they are easy dupes of those charlatans, grifters, and con-men who promise them the quasi-neo-respectability of being 'hip', 'cool', or 'woke' with the latest batch of fashionable posturing, such as passion for tranny nonsense.
And the 'conservatives' aren't much better. True conservatism is supposed to be about deep understanding of nature(and human nature), eternal truths of spirituality, and commitment to morality. But American Conservatives have been easily sold on the Mammon of Libertarianism, the mindless supremaicsm of Yinonist Zionist Supremacism, blind worship of the Warfare State, and even 'gay marriage is a conservative value'. In that sense, the most artificial and vapid aspect of bourgeois mentality is very much alive. Today's progs and so-called 'radicals' would like to think of themselvse as 'free thinkers' and 'rebels', but the fact is 99% of those dolts adopted all their ideas and values from corporate media and indoctrination-industrial-complex to satiate their status anxiety and need for social confirmation. Just think. Why would anyone who really cares for justice and truth vote for Hillary Clinton, the Deep State tool, warmonger, and corrupt bitch?
But then, look at the state of the GOP. Totally foul. Your average conzo, like your average libby-dib, will ultimately make up his or her mind on the basis of status anxiety and social confirmation. Look how easily the children of the Bushes and McCains all jumped on the 'gay marriage' bandwagon. Look how S.E. Cupp, the so-called 'conservative', wept with joy over Supreme Court forcing 'gay marriage' on the whole nation. Why such rapid change of heart? Because they have no real heart, no real soul. There is void at their core except for the status anxiety for the neo-respectability of hipsterism, hedonism, and 'wokeness'. As Jews and Homos control the media and decide what is hot and what is not, most people(as brain-dead minions of Pop Culture and Political Correctness) just learn to go along and get along.
For any serious observer of American Power, it should be obvious that Jews are the ruling elites, or the Real Supremacists. Indeed, all this Jewish kvetching about 'antisemitism' or 'antisemitic tropes' is pretty amusing when, if anything, their own behavior and deeds do most to validate those 'tropes' or 'stereotypes'. Do a little mental experiment:
Could one argue that Jews are the biggest ‘anti-Semites’ because Jewish behavior and actions validate ‘antisemitic tropes’?
Antisemitic Trope: Jews control the media and spread propaganda.
Well, Jews do control the media and spread much fake news(esp against Russia, Iran, Syria, Christians, and patriotic white people). Now, why are Jews perpetuating and validating an ‘antisemitic trope’ by acting it out? Why do they control the media and abuse it much?
Antisemitic Trope: Jews use white nations to wage Wars for Israel.
Well, Jews do use the US military and financial system as hammer against any nation hated by Israel and Jewish supremacists. Just ask myriad peoples of Middle East who've been gravely affected by Jewish stranglehold of US foreign policy and financial power. Now, why are Jews acting in a way that perpetuates and validates an ‘antisemitic trope’?
Antisemitic Trope: Jews are trying to demographically replace whites with non-whites in the West.
Well, Jews are totally for Open Borders in US, EU, Australia, and Canada... just like they push Open Borders on West Bank: Jews in Israel and from around the world can freely invade and settle in West Bank, but Palestinians in West Bank cannot freely enter Israel(formerly Palestine prior to Nakba pogroms). Zionist caravans pour into West Bank endlessly to grab more land. And Palestinians cannot say NO, just like whites in the West can't say NO. In the US and EU, non-white immigration-invasion, or the Great Replacement, has the full blessing of Jewish supremacist power. Jews brashly demand open borders for goy nations, especially prosperous white ones. Now, by acting thus, why are Jews validating an ‘antisemitic trope’?
Antisemitic Trope: Jews control banking and use deep state connections to favor and bail out banks that are too big to fail, or Too Jewish To Fail.
Well, there were numerous examples of Wall Street banks, many of them controlled by Jews, getting off scot-free after the 2008 financial meltdown(that was mainly caused by globalist banks). Jews remained above the law because of the collusion of Jewish media, banks, courts, and deep state. Now, why did Jews act in a way that only perpetuated and validated an ‘antisemitic trope’?
Antisemitic Trope: Jews use popular culture and advertising to subvert the morality of goyim and addict them to vice such as drugs, pornography, sexual degeneracy, and Homomania.
Well, Jews do control Hollywood, gambling, and pornography. Jews played a huge role in organized crime in US, Western Europe, and Russia. Certain Jewish-run pharmaceuticals have concocted drugs that were meant to be addictive to white people and cause White Death. Most homo-supremacist organizations are funded and led by Jews, and they spread decadence all over the world. Now, why are Jews acting in ways that perpetuate and validate an 'antisemitic' trope? And so on and on.
(Btw, imagine Germans spreading the notion of 'Anti-German trope' and then denouncing anyone who mentions Germany's role in World War I, World War II, and the Shoah as examples of 'Anti-German tropes' that spread hurtful stereotypes of Germans as vile warmongers, imperialists, and mass killers. Ridiculous, eh? Well, that is how Jews play the game by throwing hissy fits about 'Antisemitic tropes'. Even if something is TOTALLY TRUE on matters of Jewish power and its abuses, it must not be mentioned because it is 'offensive' as an 'antisemitic trope'. Ironically, Jewish condemnation of 'antisemitism' cannot exist without Jews stereotyping all whites and all of white history as pathologically prejudiced. Indeed, the biggest canard of all time is the stereotyping all whites and white history as 'antisemitic', which would suggest that Jews were always pure-as-snow and whites were dirty-as-mud in their dealings with one another. Jews invoke 'antisemitism' not so much to prevent prejudice against Jews but to promote prejudice against all whites as 'anti-Semites'. The notion of 'antisemitism' is an 'anti-white trope' that would have us believe that whites have especially sick and demented souls that just want to target and attack totally innocent people. In fact, Jewish-white relations were fraught with suspicions and hostilities on BOTH sides. If whites should be careful not to blame Jews for everything, Jews should be careful not to blame whites for everything. But as the game is played, Jews wield the whip tirelessly while whites grovel in pathetic atonement. If anything is pathological, it is white slavishness to Jews in the current order.)
It seems that the first step we must take to stamp out the evil of ‘antisemitism’ is to persuade or compel Jews to stop perpetuating and validating so many ‘antisemitic tropes’ by deeds and action. The way Jews are going, they are serving in the capacity of the Biggest Anti-Semites because they carry out so many deeds that only go to further perpetuate and validate ‘antisemitic tropes’.
Anyway, the US is a Jewish Supremacist state, and Jews make a big fuss about 'white privilege'(along with Russia threat, Muslim threat, Yellow Peril China threat, etc.) as misdirection so that the duped masses won't notice Jewish power. Jews rule America, and there are basically four kinds of peoples on this issue. (1) Those who know(and most Jews know the truth) but won't admit it or discuss it lest they lose their jobs and status in hyper-competitive world of 21st century globalism. (2) Those who still don't know because they get all their news and ideas from Jewish-controlled media and academia. (3) Those who know and praise it as the greatest blessing. Whether it's Joe Biden thanking Jews for spreading the wonders of Homomania or Christian Zionists worshiping Israel & Zionism as the greatest things since bagel and cream cheese, they know and bow down low. (4) Those who know the truth and have long ago realized that Jewish Power is in vile and pernicious supremacist mode and is indeed the greatest force of evil in the 21st century.
Therefore, on the matter as to why the Power hates Tucker Carlson so much, we-in-the-know must understand that it is Jewish Power that is the main source of hostility against him. Sure, there are plenty of non-Jews who hate Carlson but, having no minds or agency of their own, they are little more than barking dogs, hardly different from John McCain growling at Russia, Syria, Iran, and Libya at the behest of his Jewish masters.
So, why does the Power hate Carlson so much? Is it because Tucker Carlson has gone way too FAR RIGHT and is now beyond the pale? No. Ironically, Jewish fear has to do with Carlson turning LEFT-RIGHT, especially in class terms. In American discourse, libertarianism and ultra-capitalism are often labeled as 'far right'. Many people in the Dissident Right may disagree and argue that libertarian principles and 'free trade' ideology have little to do with true rightism or conservatism, BUT the current terminology, especially among leftist-progressives, insist that ultra-capitalists are greedy, cold-blooded, uncaring, heartless, and ruthless members of the Far Right. Another group that is often labeled 'far right' are social conservatives, the kind of people that Chris Hedges labels as 'Christo-Fascists'. Many on the so-called Left have long argued that the GOP is a den of far-right capitalists of greed and far-right moralists of intolerance. Given that 'far right' is often used to describe Neo-Nazis and the like, one might think Jews(who are mostly on the 'left') would shake with fright over far-right capitalists and far-right moralists because they are so purist in their ideologies or worldviews. One bunch of guys are all about the wallet, and the other bunch of guys are all about the Bible(to thump people with). You might think Jews would fear such groups less IF those groups became less 'rightist'(or fervent in their narrow obsessions) and took up some leftist ideas for balance and equilibrium. After all, such moderation would make them less 'far right' or even turn them left-right.
And yet, this is what the Jews fear most. Jews prefer that GOP remain 'far-right'-capitalist or 'far-right'-moralist because such purism has a fracturing effect on the goy populace. Besides, Jews can easily handle libertarians and hardline Christians. After all, despite most Jews being on the 'left', they are the richest and most talented capitalists in the world. So, libertarian pro-capitalism means more money and power for Jews. Whether Jews are on the 'left' or the 'right', they are the Apex Predators of globalist-capitalism, and so, libertarian economic policies are a great boon to them. But, GOP libertarianism is also useful in this regard: Even as Jews benefit the most from 'free trade' and 'free market' policies, they can posture as caring-and-compassionate 'progressives' who are pushing against the cold-blooded greed of men like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan of the GOP. Jews, as top capitalists, gain most from 'free trade' but then, nominally as 'liberals' and 'progressives', pretend to be pushing against the heartless greed of the 'far-right' GOP. Furthermore, libertarians are such soulless toadies of power and privilege that they can easily be bought by Jewish Money.
As for hardcore Christians, Jews know that such an anti-intellectual and anti-rational bunch of folks won't gain much power and influence in academia and media; it's like Jews fear idiot Muslim fundamentalists less than modern secular Arabs who've mastered science and engineering to build nations that are somewhat comparable to Western ones. Jews may despise hardcore Christians but don't fear them. Also, because such Christians tend to be dupes for Israel-as-God's-country-and-closest-ally-of-America, they can easily be manipulated into expending most of their energies into praising Israel(and taking the blame as to why the US can't be fair to both sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict).
Above all, Jews appreciate 'far-right' capitalists and 'far-right' moralists because they are incapable of creating a broad united front that might challenge the elites. 'Far-right' capitalists are all about MORE for Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Big Money. Even if most Americans love money, they will never be rich and will not warm up to pro-rich policies. Thus, 'far-right' capitalism has only made it nearly impossible to form a broad American coalition against the ruling elites. Guys like Rush Limbaugh appealed to the masses and talked like 'one of them', but his main message was 'free trade' and 'it is glorious to be rich'. Even as he railed against 'Chi-coms', he was full of praise for Walmart that could not have been possible without 'free trade' with 'Chi-coms'. So, even as he had many fans, more and more of them grew disgruntled with him as either an out-of-touch or one fat lousy heartless bastard. So, Limbaugh proved to be a huge bust as 'free trade' globalism continued to erode away at the Middle Class. He spoke of the 'fruited plains', but the New Order was more that of fruits-and-planes. In the 1990s, when Patrick Buchanan spoke up for the American working class, Limbaugh joined with the other 'free traders' in denouncing Buchanan as a 'populist' than a 'conservative'. (But, what was 'free trade' conserving by shipping tons of US industry to Mexico and China, and then by outsourcing even white-collar jobs to places like India?) One of the great ironies of American Politics is that Jews, who made most money as ruthless and greedy capitalists, got to play the role of caring-and-compassionate 'progressives' while much of White Middle America, increasingly struggling and demoralized, was sold, at least for a time, on the gospel of 'you can have it all' in the era of Communism-Defeated and Capitalism-Triumphant. Imagine the fox playing the role of defender of hens while hens dream of becoming foxes.
'Far-right' moralists were also useful to Jewish Power because their moralism(often simplistic and/or single-issue, such as abortion) made it difficult to create a broad coalition, at least not in the age of decadence and degeneracy brought upon mainly by Jewish Power. Things were different in earlier times when America used to be far more Christian and/or moralistic. Back then, huge numbers of white people could be brought together under the common tent of Jesus and Justice(that is real justice, not bullshit 'social justice' of today about how men with penises & testicles are 'women'). But it's difficult to unite people around moral issues in a decadent society where so many guys get their cues from rap music and so many girls prioritize orgasm over organism(which is why NY now allows abortion up to childbirth). Actually, things are now worse than merely decadent and degenerate because neo-satanism has persuaded so many idiot minds that decadence is the new sacredness, or 'sacradence'. Not only do most people neglect true morality but they wave the banner of degeneracy as the New Morality and demand inquisitions upon those who insist on remaining true to their moral and spiritual convictions. Notice how rabid & virulent The Outrage Mobs(or TOM), with minds infected with Jewish globo-homo filth, employed pseudo-moral hysteria and lawfare to destroy Christian bakers who refused to bake 'gay wedding cakes'. (And even as those bakers had their lives destroyed, there wasn't a pip of support from the supposedly conservative Republican Party whose main gesture is to look over the shoulder to see if the Jewish Master is displeased. As Jews spread the message far-and-wide that the 'gay agenda' is a go and will happen and must happen, the GOP just cucked like a bunch of pussies that they are.) Because Jewish influence degraded so much of society, it's nearly impossible to unite the people around moral issues. Paradoxically, precisely because Jews spread immorality and filth all around, they value the 'purism' of 'far right' moralists. Jews know that in a foul and filthy world(of New Normal morality where the highest value is penis inside a poopchute or penis-and-balls cut off to make for a fake vagina), the words of moralists will have limited appeal among the vast population made up of cynics, decadents, or New Normals(who can only get 'morally' worked up for lunacies like 'homomania' or 'pussy march'). There was once a time when a man like William Jennings Bryan could rouse up the masses; today, you're more likely to find people who get all 'godly' over the 'divinity' of Bruce 'Caitlyn' Jennings. Because of its limited appeal in an age when white boys grow up to rap thug music and white girls grow up 'twerking' in imitation of Miley Cyrus(and where college-educated women's idea of culture is SEX AND THE CITY and CAPTAIN MARVEL), Jews know that 'far-right' moralism will only serve to alienate the masses. Just as it was impossible for Abraham to appeal to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, it's nearly impossible to reach out morally to most people in the Age of Degeneracy.
It also doesn't help that 'far right' moralists tend to be mentally-limited and culturally incurious Bible-thumpers who are more into holier-than-thou-ness than roll-up-the-sleeves good work backed by good words(just like most 'social justice warrior' types tend to be in it for virtue-vaping and virtue-vanity than for anything that resembles true justice). While most 'far-right' moralists are good people, Jew-run media have sought to portray them in the worst way possible, especially by providing favored coverage to groups like Westboro church that protested military funerals in opposition to the homo agenda. I suspect this 'church' has been a 'false fag' operation to create the impression that Christians who oppose the 'gay agenda' are unpatriotic. Indeed, few things are more offensive to the American Right than people harassing military funerals. By highlighting the Westboro church Jewish-controlled media created the impression that those who oppose the 'gay agenda' are also unpatriotic and hate the military.
Anyway, why all this hatred for Tucker Carlson? Is it really because he is so hopelessly far-right and extreme? Or, is it something else? Indeed, are Jews angry at Carlson precisely because he rejects both 'far-right' capitalism and 'far-right' moralism? After all, why did Jews hate Donald Trump so much in the 2016 campaign? Jews tried to paint him as 'far-right' or even 'literally Hitler', but weren't they angry with him precisely because he wasn't 'far-right' on economic and moral issues? As Kevin Michael Grace argued numerous times, "'conservatism' needs to die" because (1) moral issues are too divisive in our degenerate age and (2) Republicans mouth moralistic platitudes but, as essentially 'paycheck conservatives', do NOT intend to take up the fight because their main priority is to stay inside the Beltway.
Furthermore, economic issues of 'small government' and 'lower taxes'(often demeaned as 'far right') have lost their luster as the US(and rest of the West) went from National Capitalism to Global Capitalism. In a National Economy, one could argue that the middle class and small businessmen have something to gain from less regulation and lower taxes. And if bigger government meant more welfare for bums, limited government might appeal to the working class as well, which is why many blue-collar folks voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Also, during the Cold War, even most of the American Working Class stood with capitalism against communism, which is one reason why the American Left eventually lost interest in the 'reactionary' and patriotic Archie-Bunkerite white working class.
Anyway, that was then, this is now. Cold War is long over though there is its shadow in the so-called 'new cold war' concocted by Jews who hate Vladimir Putin for having said NO to Globo-Homomania. And contrary to Neo-Liberal economists who argued for capitalism and market dynamics, it turned out that Big Capital in Wall Street, High Tech, Big Media, and Big Pharma closely colludes with the Deep State to own and control just about everything. Consider the Wall Street bailouts for banks that were 'too big to fail'. Contrary to the libertarian notion of capitalism = liberty versus big government = tyranny, the result has been a Convergence of Big Money and Big State, with the main glue being the 'chatechisms'(or secular catechisms of the chattering classes) of Jew-Worship, Afro-celebration, and Homo-fanfare(and babytalk about 'diversity', 'inclusion', and 'hate'). Today, we have Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Big Banks working with Big State to censor dissidents, especially of the White Liberationist and BDS movements.
But then, it was the Great Betrayal that led to the Great Awakening. Many ordinary conservatives were told that they must support capitalism against Big State to have liberty, but they found out that Big Capital is only too happy to work with Big State to deny platforms and financial services to people based on race, creed, and ideology. The silver lining of this betrayal is that scales began to fall from the eyes of Americans(mostly on the Right but also on the Left, especially those who champion the Palestinian cause) who came to realize that monopoly-crony-capitalism of the globalist era is not pro-freedom and protective of individual liberty. Indeed, for thinking people who know how to decode Globalese, the official terminology of PC and Zionist-US hegemonism is mostly smoke-and-mirrors.
Just consider the following globalist terms decoded by the trutherizer:
Liberal Democracy: It really means Tribal Oligarchy. If the US is really about spreading 'liberal democracy', why is it so blindly supportive of Zionist imperialism and the Occupation of West Bank? Why is the US so cozy with Saudi Arabia while so hostile to Syria, a secular Arab nation that has Westernized in many walks of life? Diversity: It is really Division or divide-and-rule. Jews promote Diversity in goy nations to pit goy against goy, thus creating cracks through which Jewish Power can drive its wedges. When Jews say 'Diversity is our strength', they really mean 'divide-and-rule over diverse goyim means more power to us Jews. Inclusion: It's really a euphemism for invasion. How can any community, order, or society survive without borders and exclusion? If Israel opened its borders and welcomed any number of peoples in the spirit of 'inclusion', it would be wiped off the map in no time as plenty of poorer folks from Africa and Middle East will come to partake of greater wealth in Israel. Also, 'inclusion' is used as mind-trick by elite institutions that have no real intention of being truly inclusive. Take Ivy League universities. If they really want to be 'inclusive', they should go for open admissions and include anyone on the basis of lottery. Of course, open admissions would destroy their academic reputations, and so, these institutions mouth platitudes about 'inclusion' and let in token numbers of 'diversity' via 'affirmative action programs' to create the impression that they are open to all. Hate Speech: Rabidly and virulently hateful Jews who look upon goyim as cattle simply cannot tolerate speech that is critical of Jewish Power. Jews love to be radical and critical toward others, but they simply cannot take counter-criticism and push-back. So, Jews will use 'critical theory' against their enemies but will not abide by counter-critical theory that throws it back at Jews. Jews can dish it out but they can't take it. When people judge Jews by the same criteria that Jews use to judge others, Jews get all sourpuss and kvetch about 'hate speech' and 'antisemitism'. Jews have the personality of the Jewish God, the perfect Being who judges mankind but forbids mankind to judge Him. So, when Jews say 'hate speech', they really mean 'blasphemy' and 'burn the heretic that dares to challenge our power'. Indeed, this is why Jews got SPLC and ADL to pressure Amazon.com to ban THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE by Kevin Macdonald. For Jews, 'critical theory' is a One-Way street. They can drive down the street to run us down, but we better not drive down the other way to run them down. Far Right: Jews keep changing the goal-posts on this. Notice that current Israel is more 'far right' than any European nation(even any of the Visegrad nations), but the Jew-run media just refer to Israel as 'right-wing'(when not praising it as the 'only liberal democracy in the Middle East) whereas white nations that only to preserve their peoples and cultures are smeared as 'far right'.
If there's going to be Convergence at the Top, there might as well be Convergence at the bottom. The Convergence at the top is called Globalist Neo-Liberal Consensus, and it was mostly completed from the Clinton Era to Obama Era. The basic idea was to synthesize the GOP 'free trade' & de-regulatory supply-side economics AND Democratic Party's Globo-Homomania narcissism as the 'new progressivism'. The so-called 'right' would have to dump Social Conservatism and the so-called 'left' would have to shed Big Labor & class politics. In economic policy the GOP line since the Reagan Era would prevail, and in social policy the Democratic line would take the lead, e.g. on stuff like 'gay marriage', the Democrats would all be obligated to push it through whereas Republicans would all be obligated to just shut up and not oppose it. And as Big Media and Hollywood use the J-Ray(Jewish Ray) to sway the masses, there was no need for the GOP to worry about a massive moral backlash from the base. As even most Republicans are hooked to Pop Culture as their main culture, they were bound to come around to bending over to Homomania as well(as if one of the hallmark signs of virtue is to flash one's adoration of 'gayness', along with for Jewishness and blackness). In a way, one could argue that both the 'conservative' and the 'liberal' elites betrayed their base by, respectively, ditching social conservatives and class politics. But then, some of the pressures for betrayal came from the masses themselves as the majority of Americans had grown corrupted and gross from influence of mass education and mass media. Most lower-class 'conservatives' became vulgar morons whose culture consisted of watching THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW and getting tattoos. Also, the rise of mall-churches turned Christianity into something like a Rock concert or personality cult. Such debased conservatives who took their social cues from Jewish-run Hollywood and TV came around to rapping, interracism, tattoos, and even Homomania. Being dumb, these 'conservatives' were incapable of thinking for themselves and relied on the terminology cooked up by PC globalists. So, EVEN IF Conservative elites had tried to defend True Marriage, there wouldn't have been much support from the base, and if anything, there might have been considerable pushback as sick and degenerate US is a nation where 80% now support 'gay marriage'. As for the 'liberal' base, their main passions consisted of various 'identity politics', Homomania, vanity displays(like slut pride), or irrational worship of Magic Negro. Even their economic issues were more about politics of theater or 'entitlementality' than true social justice. Workers in the past struggled for just pay and benefits for their labor. In contrast, the theme of OCCUPY WALL STREET was, "the banks are getting free money, so give us free shit too." Just like it is now difficult for a social conservative leader to appeal to the 'conservative' masses, it's difficult for a true economic leftist to appeal to the 'liberal' masses. Most people have been corrupted, from top to bottom, and much of what passes for morality is playing with shopworn symbolism than dealing with reality.
Jewish Supremacy, the dominant power in the US(and the world) loved this Elite Convergence because it severed the Democratic elites from their base and severed the Republican elites from their base. As the Democratic Party became the hothouse of 'identity politics', unity was impossible among the various groups, and the Democratic goy elites mainly focused on serving Jews and homos at the top. Not only do Jews hold the purse strings, but it's easier to serve one lord at the top than the contending mobs below. One might have expected more unity in the GOP, still mainly the white and Christian party, but even many of the 'conservative' base had fractured along variations of soulless libertarianism and mindless Evangelicalism. As a 'family values' party whose biggest donor was Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson(and in a world where 'conservative' spiritual values are represented by a flaky and/or scandalous Catholic Church, Mammon-worshiping Cult-Christianity of Mormonism, and brain-dead 'zombitry' of Christian Zionism), it was difficult to ascertain what American Conservatism stood for. Naturally, GOP goy elites, just like their counterparts in the Democratic Party, found it much easier, not to mention more profitable, to serve the single master of Jewish Supremacism than bother with the various confused factions of social conservatism, fundamental religion, and puritanical libertarianism. With both Democratic goy elites and GOP goy elites effectively severed from their own bases, Jews(and their homo partners) think they have it all: The combination right in their hands. And Jews want to keep it that way.
But what if there is another kind of Convergence? If the upper 'left' and upper 'right' converged(as Michael Lind warned in The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution) by neglecting their own bases(thereby turning American Politics into a game of 'winners' and 'losers'), what if the neglected Democratic base and neglected GOP base began to converge into a kind of left-right populism. Though people like Pat Buchanan have been much mentioned as heralds of resurgence of populism, Michael Lind had also sounded the alarm and offered counter-proposals with books like The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics.
Now, mass-convergence is far more difficult to pull off than elite-convergence. Elites tend to be concentrated in key institutions and industries in a handful of big cities, college towns, and government. Most of the elites in the US are to be found in Ivy League schools and places like Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and top law firms. Though there is growing diversity among the elites, shared privilege is a great glue and, besides, there is the Jew-glue that bonds all the elites together. If there weren't a dominant elite group in the US, there might be more conflict at the top, like in THE GODFATHER when the Five Families figured that the Corleones are slipping in power and make their move. It was when the Corleone family reasserted their dominance at the end of the movie that the other crime families got back in line.
Jewish Dominance is like the Corleones of American Power. It is The Power around which the lesser elite-powers revolve. It is telling that the Golden Age of American Liberty and Freedom was from the 1960s to the 1980s when elite power was shifting from Wasps to Jews. Not only were Wasps losing grip on society but Jews had to champion maximum freedom in order to subvert the existing power structure. It was after Jews gained dominance that they suddenly began to roll back on liberties lest other groups challenge Jewish Power as the Jews had once challenged Wasp power. Because there is a dominant elite in the US, all the lesser elites are agreed that they must kiss the Jewish Hand to be accepted into the Power Club.
In contrast, no such well-understood norm or gravitational center exists among the masses. Not only are masses separated by vast differences -- what do oil workers in South Dakota have in common with hillbillies in West Virginia, Negroes in Georgia, or Mexicans in EL Paso? -- , but there is no common set of rites and rules that can pull them into a unity, all the more so because the US has grown racially, culturally, and socially more diverse and divided than ever. Also, if privilege at the top tends to pull together the affluent and connected, relative poverty tends to divide people at the bottom into warring factions, especially if they are diverse and without leadership(not least because the goy elites of both parties mostly neglect their own bases and spend most of their time sucking up to Jews).
That said, great numbers of people can be brought together in times of great crisis. It happened in both the US and Germany in the 1930s as the result of the Great Depression. But then, it was possible because both the US and Germany were largely white, gentile, and Christian. Germany was brazenly anti-Jewish, and even though FDR loathed National Socialism, he wasn't all too keen on Jewish power even though there were certain powerful Jewish figures in his administration. Back then, Wasps were solidly in command and control, and Jews had to think twice about pushing their tribal agenda too powerfully(which they were able to do more effectively through the presidency of the lackluster and clueless Harry S. Truman). Anyway, things got so bad that a sufficiently broad swath of Americans were able to unite from north to south and east to west to keep FDR in power for 12 yrs as the People's President. And even though the National Socialists came to power with only third of the vote in Germany, their successes in the years prior to the tragic World War II led to support from the overwhelming majority of Germans(and Austrians who clamored for unity with Germany). Even though the New Deal is remembered as 'leftist'(or even 'far left' by some) and National Socialism is remembered as 'far right', both were actually a kind of unity of left and right. The New Deal era, as recounted by chunkhead Ross Douthat, was remarkably socially conservative, a hangover and backlash from the wildly decadent excesses of the speculative 1920s that came to be known as the 'Jazz Age'. FDR used his quasi-socialist policies to shore up the American Family. Socialist novelist John Steinbeck wrote of strong families and need for moral fiber and mutual support.
As for National Socialism, it won over many of the German middle and working classes because it didn't only stress national unity and social values(which were pretty solid except for the pathologically radical notions about race and Aryan supremacism) but provided massive work programs and universal healthcare. Such unity of leftist and rightist themes & policies were possible because both Germany and the US were ruled by white gentiles and were overwhelmingly either German or white-American in demographics.
According to Jewish Historiography of the 20th century, FDR was a godlike savior of the free world whereas Hitler was the most evil 'far right' vermin that ever lived. But, such view was an accident of history, at least to an extent. Would Jews have been so reverent of FDR if not for his role in the war against Nazi Germany? Keep in mind that, for a few decades following World War II, many Jews were equally reverent toward Stalin as the great vanquisher of Hitler's empire. But over time, Jews came to loathe Stalin and Soviet Union as anathema to True Jewish potential and interests. And even though it took longer, Jews now feel the same way about FDR and the New Deal, which is why they are eager to use a turd-boy like Tahenisi Coates to smear FDR as a 'racist'. (LOL. What past politician, by today's standards, was not a 'racist'?) Back then, Jews saw FDR as enemy of Hitler and counterbalance against the American Right that was even more suspicious of Jewish power than the American Left was. But, once Jews gained supreme power in the US, they felt less love for FDR and the New Deal, which was essentially about unity of white gentile elites and white gentile masses; it was left-nationalism. (There were gains for blacks in the New Deal, but the main priority was about white elites making things a bit easier for the troubled white masses.) Jews hate this idea because Jewish supremacist power depends on white elites serving Jewish super-elites than connecting with the white masses. To prevent white elite and white mass unity, Jews exploit the issue of 'racism' and 'white supremacism', which now means privileged whites showing ANY concern for white people(such as whites in South Africa being raped and slaughtered by feral blacks). Of course, it won't look good for Jewish super-elites to say, "You white elites must ignore your own people and instead serve us Jewish overlords." Jewish supremacism would be bared and exposed. So, what moral cover do Jews use to perpetuate their supremacism? Jews invoke Diversity and argue that white elites should represent and serve EVERYONE of ALL COLORS than favor their own race. But it's all just a con-game because it is IMPOSSIBLE for white elites to represent so many different groups with conflicting interests. So, what is the only game that is left for the white elites? Serving Jewish interests at the top. It's a dirty but brilliant bait-and-switch con-trick. Jews shame white elites about 'white supremacism'(which can mean the slightest white sympathy for other whites) and pressure them toward serving Diversity, but as Diversity is impossible to serve or govern, white elites just end up serving Jewish Power. Indeed, if Jews are really all about Diversity and serving ALL groups equally, why did they use their muscle to criminalize BDS, silence Palestinian-American voices, and condemn Ilhan Omar for her criticism of Zionist supremacism that led to Wars for Israel and oppression of Muslims? Jews tell white elites to bypass the white masses and toss the ball at Diversity, but the chaotic hands of Diversity always lose the ball that just bounce off them and land on the Jews. Diversity is just Jewish smoke-and-mirrors trick or deflective tool to make white elites serve Jews than white people.
Then, it should be clear why Jews hate Tucker Carlson with such virulence. Even though Carlson is savvy enough to not name the Jew(as such is career suicide in US media and politics, especially for whites), his message, far from being 'far right' in capitalist or moralist terms, strives for a synthesis of rightism and leftism, of a new unity between the Beltway elites and the masses. It is that kind of unity that Jews fear most. Jews had no reason to fear the 'far-right' capitalism of Paul Ryans of the world as (1) capitalism is a boon to Jewish wealth and power and (2) politics of wealth, especially in the age of globalism, tend to alienate too many people. As for 'far right' moralism, we know it tends to alienate too many Americans who are addicted to hedonism, drugs, and abortion. One of the problems of Patrick Buchanan was his stridently moralistic Catholic conservatism, which just rubbed too many Americans the wrong way as 'taking my rights away to indulge in fun'. In contrast, Trump who mostly ignored moral issues and ran on protecting the American Worker miraculously managed to arrive at a populist formula that led him to the Presidency. (Even though Trump won by razor-thin margins, he probably would have won much bigger IF the media had been fair to both candidates. What Jews feared most about Trumpism wasn't its purported 'far-rightism' but the fusion of leftism and rightism, as when Trump denounced neo-imperialist wars and spoke in defense of Middle America, promises that turned out to be rather hollow for various reasons.)
Now, can Tucker Carlson goad the elites to care about Traditional White America? Jews claim to care about Diversity, but if we judge them by what they do than what they say, everything they've been doing for the past 40 years has been little more than serving the agenda of "Is it great for Jews?" Black underclass has gotten worse, and browns from Latin America are mired in menial jobs. White middle class is just barely holding on, and the white working class is in dire straits. Only the elites and the upper-middle class of the New Economy are doing fabulous or well. Contrary to Jewish claims(what they say), Jews use their power in the US to make America serve Jewish supremacist interests both here and abroad. Just ask the Palestinians. Even though Jews are on the 'left', they despite most gentile progs for being so dumb. How can Jews respect any people who so easily fell for Russia Collusion Hoax(that no Jew privately believes in) and Homomania(which Jews privately know to be a proxy cultural weapon of Jewish globalist hegemonism)? Jews use the easily 'triggered' dumb goy progs as barking dogs and little else. If anything, while moronic and insipid Outrage Mob types dye their hair green and growl at 'white supremacists', Jews continue to amass more fortune and gain more trophies to shore up Jewish supremacism. (Alt Right had a chance as a White Liberationist movement opposed to Jewish Supremacism, but instead, Richard Spencer got together with a bunch of 14/88 types and turned the movement into neo-white-supremacism. Instead of stressing the moral urgency of white emancipation from Jewish supremacism, the message was "We want to replace Jewish supremacism with white supremacism and conquer the whole world again." Talk about dumb.)
Anyway, Tucker Carlson's ideas are, as yet, confused and inchoate. He senses something profoundly wrong with the current system and the need for new political alignments & configurations as the old dichotomies of 'left' and 'right' no longer make any sense. He stares into the crystal ball and sees all sorts of signs of danger, but he isn't sure what must be done, what can be done and how. Indeed, American Politics is like Macbeth meeting for the first time the witches who offer prophecies laden with traps. Is Traditional America hopeless and lost forever, what with white elites having been reduced to cucks of Jewish/Homo elites and with white masses having been relegated to cuck-status vis-a-vis blacks, 'white guilt', and Diversity? Was Trumpism the last hurrah of White America before its inevitable demise into just another 'minority' group?
Or, is there something portentous in the election of Muslims to US Congress, a perverse but real sign of hope? While White American Conservatives, with neo-crusader instincts, feel closer to Jews and Israel than to Muslims, might there be an awakening among white Americans of all stripes that JEWISH SUPREMACISM is the main enemy of ALL humanity? Many on the Dissident Right are well-aware that Jewish power uses white Christians to smash Muslim nations and then uses Muslim 'refugees' against the white world. Also, there is grumbling among many Trump supporters who notice that Trump hasn't done much for White America but has gone to hell and back for Israel and Jews, incredibly the very people who've heaped most abuse on him. When white people see Trump surrounded by Jews and doing the bidding of the very people who did most to insult and abuse him, they don't see a proud national leader but a cucky-wuck. It seems unlikely at the moment, but if White America is lost forever as a majority power, could it be that white Americans can ally with Diversity against Jewish supremacist power and white cuck-elites who betrayed the white masses to get their thirty pieces of silver?
Also, Diversity is realizing that Jewish Power is the ultimate White Privilege. Not only did Ilhan Omar speak about Jewish money, but many among the Democratic base came to her side despite harsh words from the upper echelons of the Party that are totally beholden to Jews. With Diversity waking up to Jewish power and with white people realizing WHO really ordered the white cuck-elites to stab them in the back, could there be a diversity-and-white-mass coalition against Jewish Supremacism? Diversity will be motivated by envy & resentment, and white masses will be fueled by want of revenge. A unity of emotions: Envy + Vengeance = War on the Globalist Elites. The best thing would be to save and preserve White America and White Europe, but if such are lost, then the only card left for whites is the Samson Option. Pull down the pillars and destroy Jewish supremacism and white cuck-collaborator elites too. It's like what Lady Kaeda pulled off in RAN(by Akira Kurosawa). Her family dynasty was lost forever, but she could get revenge on the family that destroyed her own.
In the heated exchange between Patrick Little and Nicholas Fuentes, the latter says an election has no meaning unless it is to win. Perhaps it was rhetorical flourish on Fuentes’ part to belittle Little as a pathetic electoral Loser, because Fuentes surely knows that elections mean different things in different contexts. Fuentes would be right in the case of Patrick Little IF there was any real chance of a Republican winning the Senate seat in California. But there is NONE. So, the next Senator of California will be another Democrat. Republicans have about as much chance of winning a state-wide seat in California as a fish has of surviving in the desert. So, I don’t begrudge Little’s use of candidacy mainly as a platform to inform people of the Jewish Question. Also, if indeed California is the future of America, Little’s reaching out to non-whites serves as a template for what-is-to-be-done by whites. Ideally, the US should remain a white-majority nation, a part of Western Civilization. But if Jews do succeed in engineering the US to become a new Brazil or Venezuela(to the point where White Power will be permanently broken), then the only option left for whites is to get revenge on Jews by forming any possible alliance with People-of-Color against Jewish supremacist power. If Jews amassed great power and destroyed white America by directing the rising tide of color to hate and blame Whitey, then whites must return the favor once the US is lost to them forever. Indeed, I’ve argued that the GOP should fold its tents, and all whites should just join the Democratic Party. Turn the US into a one-party state and then form ANY kind of alliance with any group to bring down the Jew. Make the Jew taste his own medicine. If Jews pushed the Narrative that ‘whites are evil cuz of white privilege and must atone by siding with people of color’, then whites should indeed side with people-of-color and expose Jews as the real rulers, elites, and tyrants of not only the US but the world. After all, just do the math and add up the numbers. Jews are 2% of the US population but control how much of finance, foreign policy, media, academia, gambling & other vice industries, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Real Estate, sports franchises, Big Pharma(the harma), and etc.? So, if the future of the US is California, whites cannot regain White Power & Dominance again but they can, at the very least, get sweet revenge against Jews by, ironically, playing the Jewish rule-book. Jews have insisted that everyone, ‘good’ white and people-of-color, must unite against Evil White Privilege. Okay! Since Jewish Privilege is the Ultimate in White Privilege, then all white goyim should side with blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims against Jews. Whites should demand NO special treatment for Zionists over Palestinians. After all, if favoring one group over another(especially one with far less power) is a form of supremacism, then US media and foreign policy are totally supremacist in favoring Israeli-Zionist death squads over Palestinian women and children being gunned down out in the open(with the blessing of US whore politicians who take 30 pieces of silver from Judeo-Nazi globo-pimps). So, given that Patrick Little or any other Republican has zero chance of winning the Senate seat in California, I have no problem with Little using his campaign as a platform to raise the JQ and wake up peoples of all races and backgrounds as to which people have the Real Power and are doing most harm to the world. On that score, Little deserves more respect than any Cuckservative GOP candidate who did little but sing hosannas to Israel DESPITE THE FACT that Jews have been at the forefront of the War on White. GOP’s cuckservative whores and wussies deserve no respect. Pat Little did nothing wrong in using his campaign to spread a message. He had no chance of winning the election so he decided to speak what cannot be spoken in American politics.
Another reason why Fuentes is wrong is focusing so much on ‘winning’ is that certain ideas take time to sprout, grow, and bloom. When Pat Buchanan ran in 1992, he knew he had slim chance of winning. And he knew he could have gotten more support from donors if he’d championed globalism and ‘free trade’. He didn’t. Instead, he spoke up for the American working class. He was attacked by the Media for his ‘fascism’. For much of the decade, people like Rush Limbaugh derided Buchanan as a ‘populist’ than a conservative. Buchanan failed to win once again in 1996 and lost big in 2000. And for his opposition to the Iraq War, he became a total persona-non-grata in the Republican Party. So, it seemed as if Buchanan was the biggest loser in US politics. But precisely because he stuck to his guns, stood on principles, and carried on with core conviction, his ideas eventually bore fruit with the rise of Donald Trump and populism(that, among the base, now has more positive connotations than ‘conservatism’ that came to conserve nothing). Also, Buchanan’s 1992 speech, which had been denigrated as one of the biggest mistakes ever, is now seen by many as one of the great political oratories in US history by some people. The speech would surely resonate with many Americans if they heard it today. So, when Fuentes just dismisses anyone who fails in political campaigns as irrelevant ‘losers’, he’s being glib and shallow. He is also betraying himself because he also could have won much more in the media if he’d taken the 30 pieces of silver from the likes of Ben Shapiro or some well-funded Establishment operation. But because he chose the honest and courageous path, he has to build up his reputation from the margins. The easy path has been denied him, so he has to take the longer and harder uphill path with a machete. Along the way, there will be lots of poison ivy, snakes, and other dangers, but it’s never meant to be easy for those with principles.
But in one respect, Fuentes is right and Little is totally wrong. It’s one thing for Little to court controversy and take tough stands on sensitive issues, but it’s quite another for him to spread lies, talk nonsense, exaggerate his importance, turn it all into empty theater, and, worst of all, go 14/88. It’s a cliche but true: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. Just because Jewish Power is now the worst evil in the world doesn’t mean that all enemies of Jews are good people. Farrakhan has been blasting Jewish influence & corruption, but he is a son-of-a-bitch himself. And even if past ‘anti-Semites’ may have had sound reasons for their antipathy, it doesn’t mean everything they did was justified. Some of those pogroms in Ukraine spiraled out of control. And the Nazism constituted a kind of Teutonic ideological pathology no less demented than Jewish globalist supremacism. We should all know this by now. Sure, the Soviets achieved the awesome feat of defeating Nazi Evil, but the Soviets also committed lots of evils. The US did noble things around the world but also terrible, ugly things. Jews did a lot of good as well as lot of bad. The good can be bad, the bad can be good, and most peoples and nations are mix of both. It makes no sense to go the David-Duke path where just about the ONLY GOOD JEW is Gilad Atzmon who happens to be especially harsh on his Tribesmen. Even if we have every right to be very angry with current Jewish Power, we can still keep our heads and not fall into the trap of praising insane ideologies and movements just because they were ‘woke’ on the JQ. We tend to think in terms of ‘enemy of our enemy is our friend’, but the ‘friend’ can turn out to be just as bad or even worse. Remember how the Ukrainians initially welcomed the Germans as liberators(from Soviet tyranny), only to discover that the Nazis considered Ukrainian Slavs to be a bunch of ‘subhumans’ to be treated even worse than under Stalin. But for whatever reasons, Little has decided to take his anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish-supremacism into Neo-Nazi territory. He claims that the Shoah didn’t happen. He says outrageous things like how Germans treated Jews better than Japanese were treated in internment camps during WWII. Sure, we can find anecdotal evidence where a handful of Jews were treated better because they bribed the Germans. Or for propaganda purposes, Nazis created a few ‘potemkin concentration camps’ where Jews were treated rather well to make ‘documentary’ films to show to the world. But then, Soviets did the same thing. Judging by communist documentaries of the USSR, one would have thought that workers and peasants were living in a socialist paradise of plenty and bliss. Patrick Little, who is now so skeptical and cynical about Jewish claims, is willing to swallow every BS peddled by crazed Neo-Nazis and their ilk. But the essence of truth is not a matter of black or white, night or day, this or that, especially when it comes to something as grand and complicated as history. Just as it’d be stupid to say everything about Nazism and Hitler was bad, it’s wrong to be totally anti-Jewish on everything. And just as we must be careful not to fall for Jewish BS(about Iran, Russia, Syria, Palestinians, white people, the ‘far right’, etc), we must be careful not to fall for nonsense endlessly peddled by Neo-Nazi types. Granted, Neo-Nazi psychos have no power whereas Jews have immense power around the world. But lies are lies, nonsense is nonsense, and we need to stand on the side of truth. What matters is not 'Jews are good, whites are bad' or 'whites are good, Jews are bad', but 'people, Jews or whites, must make an honest effort to be good on realistic terms.'
Because Patrick Little spouted off Neo-Nazi talking points, he disgraced himself. Worse, he associated all the necessary and compelling points he made about Jewish Power and Zionist influence with crazy 14/88 ‘Hitler did noting wrong’ nonsense. Before Little let down people like Fuentes, he disappointed and alienated people like Ryan Dawson. Dawson was looking forward to a sane discussion about Jewish power and what’s happening in Israel/Palestine, but it wasn’t long before Little veered into utterly crazy talk about how Nazis treated Jews like guests at Waldorf Hotel. It got repulsive, and in a subsequent video, Dawson reiterated the importance of not losing one’s head and lurching into cuckoo banana territory. Just like outlandish theories about 9/11 undermine intelligent skepticism of the official narrative, insane anti-Jewish vitriol undermines necessary exposure and criticism of Jewish power. Just because Jewish globalists now act like Judeo-Nazis doesn’t mean we should be praising the Old Nazis. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And it is for this reason that Fuentes was correct in not associating himself with Little.
Though I don’t think Patrick Little is a fed-larping-as-‘far-right’-dissident, he might as well be just that whenever he spouts off about how ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’. On the issue of Shoah, Little makes the same ‘mistake’ as those in the Holocaust-Desecration cult who extrapolate one falsehood about the Narrative to nullify the entire event. For example, even experts now admit that many accounts of what happened at Auschwitz can no longer be supported by evidence. And there have been Jewish charlatans who fabricated tales for attention or fortune. And certain confessions made by Germans were under the duress of torture. But that doesn’t mean the main event didn’t happen. Surely, there were plenty of men who exaggerated or told tall tales about Gettysburg or Normandy, but that doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen. Skepticism is a good thing, but why is it that so many people who become skeptical of the Jewish Narrative become easy suckers for other extreme Narratives? It’s as if, having been soul-cleansed of one sacred narrative, they crave another one that fills them with certainty. Because truth is often complex, multi-faceted, and ambiguous, people who come to reject the Big Lie easily fall for another Big Lie. They break free of the Lie but still retain the craving for some all-encompassing truth that had been satisfied by the former Big Lie. It’s like people who lose religion often turn to secular cults with a fanaticism that mimics religious fervor. Isn’t it ironic how secular progs are more rapturous and delirious in their celebration of Homomania than many religious people are in their worship of God?
Anyway, regardless of whether Patrick Little is a ‘fed’ or not, his antics are reminiscent of the flaming lunatic named Sinead McCarthy. Though initially greeted as a lively, funny, and irreverent voice of the Alt Right with her parodies and passionate views, she soon turned totally nutter and argued in favor of Flat Earth Theory, as if to Westboro-ize the movement. It was then that people began to suspect she is really a nutjob or an infiltrator whose game is to make the Alt Right look bad by having their views be associated with nonsense like Flat Earth and other silliness. And yes, she also went 14/88 and then began to attack most Alt Right people as either ‘fags’ or worse. Little is nowhere near that level of insanity, but his campaign, at least when it came to Hitler-Nazis-Shoah, clearly went off the deep end. Granted, there are plenty of Judeo-Nazis who are no less crazed. People like Max Boot would have us believe Putin is ‘new Hitler’ or that Iran poses some ‘existential’ threat to the world. Ben Shapiro is a Jewish supremacist hypocrite who berates even the slightest hint of identity and interests among white people but demands that all whites rally around Zionism. And who can forget Madeleine Albright who said it was worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi kids or Sheldon Adelson who called for nuking Iran, a nation that has no nukes? Insane. But we shouldn’t be countering insanity with insanity. Judeo-Nazis are evil but so were the original Nazis.
Sadly, even people who should know better in the movement keep flirting with or pushing 14/88 garbage. Kevin MacDonald has done important work on the JQ. Also, we can forgive his past associations with men like David Duke and Don Black because, having been pushed to the fringes, he had no choice but to form alliances with people of shared interests. After all, the conservative De Gaulle formed an alliance with French Communists in the Resistance against German Occupation. But Kevin Macdonald now has enough name recognition to be pushing Neo-Nazi radical nonsense on Occidental Observer. How can MacDonald scoff at accusations of ‘supremacism’ when he allows pro-Hitler garbage on his website? Now, the problem is not nuance or complexity when it comes to the discussion of Hitler and National Socialism because, after all, positive things can be said about them, as of communism and other radical movements. The problem is gushing endorsement, which some writers at Occidental Observer have clearly made of National Socialism. Never let your hatred of a**holes turn you into one.
On the JQ, Fuentes has broached the topic without going cuckoo bananas. He named the power and discussed what really happened with USS Liberty and other instances of Zionist spying, theft, and sabotage. And he did it without the ‘Heil Hitler’ nonsense. Because Pat Little veered into nonsense territory with 14/88 garbage, he got stuck in the ditch. Sure, he will continue to have back-slappers on 4Chan who love to egg on any self-destructive loudmouth, but that’s no way to be a serious and mature person.
If Nehlen imploded because he wasn’t smart and feisty enough to handle the controversy and firestorm — even at his most outrageous, there was something soft, passive, and Mr-Rogersy about him — , Little’s problem seems to be he’s too bright and aggressive for his own good. Intelligence is a great asset but not when it lacks patience, balance, and probity. Instead of carefully weighing and digesting everything he’s learned in the past few years, Little just takes them as literal truths, immutable and invincible, and lets his mind run free to draw any conclusions that cast Jews in an evil light. Little has mental energy that was rarely evident with Nehlen, but he ingest ideas like he vapes on that stupid pipe of his. He’s read this and that, so he knows best, and there is nothing more to know. He’s like a born-again(or born-to-kill-again) Evangelical except with Damn-the-Jews as his new-found faith.
Personality counts for a lot in human affairs, and the strengths of Little’s personality are also his deficits. He can be tireless, which is good, but to the point of zealousness. He can be combative but to the point of being insulting and arrogant. He can be engaging and articulate but to the point of sophistry. Of course, none of this matters if he is indeed a ‘fed’ just larping as ‘right-wing dissident’ whose main objective is to associate legitimate criticism of Jewish Power with neo-Nazi desecration and mockery of all things associated with the great tragedy called Shoah.
