Commentary on "John Wayne Did Nothing Wrong"(by Jim Goad)

https://www.takimag.com/article/john-wayne-did-nothing-wrong/

Judging by today’s crazy standards on ‘gender’ issues, just about every actor, artist, director, and etc. in the not-too-distant past was a ‘homophobe’ and definitely a ‘transphobe’. Or, more accurately, 'homo-disdainer' and 'trans-ridiculer'. Even 90% of Liberals in the 60s thought homosexuality was deeply problematic. Even most Liberal publications dared not to broach the subject. Psychology department was convinced homosexuality is a mental disorder. Susan Sontag's piece on Camp was controversial(even in an ultra-liberal magazine like PARTISAN REVIEW) because it discussed homosexuality. So, there was nothing strange about what John Wayne said on that issue.

As for Wayne’s ‘white supremacist’ view that blacks need to undergo further civilizational process before fully partaking of democracy, is it really all that outrageous? After all, how is it all that different from Samuel Huntington's theory that Third World nations would do better to undergo process of modernization under iron-fisted Enlightened Autocrats before gradually transforming into functional democracies? If anything, even many Liberal political scholars came to the same conclusion. Many social scientists and political scholars came to believe that sudden democratization can actually do more harm than good among peoples who are as yet culturally and economically unprepared to take on burdens of electoral politics(that can only work with rule of law and civic responsibility). Such dictator-supremacist theory became quite vogue in political science departments. That is why many came to appreciate Deng over Gorbachev following the implosion of the Soviet Union. Deng maintained Party supremacy and worked on economic development, whereas Gorbachev favored political reforms. Russia did even worse in the 90s when it fully went ‘liberal democratic’ without the institutions and attitudes necessary for a functional liberal democracy. And after the Rwandan disaster, the West enthusiastically supported the iron-fisted autocrat that kept tight order in that troubled nation.
Denial of democracy in such nations doesn’t seem to bother Westerners. Indeed, Obama aided Egyptian military against democracy headed by Muslim Brotherhood. The idea was that Military supremacism was better than democracy in a nation that was, as yet, not ready for democracy and freedom. Also, after the debacles of Iraq and Libya, many(on both left and right) came to the conclusion that some nations are better off under the supremacism of an Iron-fisted leader than with experiments in ‘liberal democracy’. While democracy may be ideal for modern nations, not all nations and peoples have the values, habits, knowledge, and developmental levels to make democracy work. They just aren't cut out for it. In such cases, iron rule is often preferable to democracy. Indeed, that was precisely why Fidel Castro’s Cuba got favorable press from American Progressives during the Cold War. They admitted he was a dictator and that Cuban politics was about One-Party Supremacy, but they also emphasized that Cubans were better off under a tough ruler than many people in willy-nilly Latin American democracies where ‘leaders’ are are little more than shills of transnational corporations and organized crime. It’s oft-been duly noted that blacks in Cuba lived healthier lives than blacks in freer Latin American nations(and even in the US).

So, John Wayne’s views were along similar lines. There was not ONE America but TWO Americas. White America was sufficiently advanced for full democracy, but blacks had yet to attain full civilizational outlook to function properly in a free and democratic society. They had to undergo a process of modernization, not unlike peoples in pre-democratic developing nations, before they could take part in democracy.
Granted, this line of argument was somewhat disingenuous because whites had had lots of time to civilize blacks since the end of the Civil War but mainly used political muscle to keep blacks down and marginalized. But then, as we’ve witnessed since the 1960s, even with best intentions of progressive whites, liberated blacks tend to use their freedom to act wild and destructive than sound and constructive. With blacks, you can’t win. If you keep them in line with an iron hand, you are the oppressor. But if you give them freedom, they run wild and degrade society.
Indeed, even Wayne’s civilize-the-blacks idea wouldn’t have worked in the long run because black problems are less cultural than biological. Blacks evolved in Africa over 100,000s of years to be warriors, hunters, and jivers. With freedom, even civilized blacks eventually revert to their ugabugery.

Now, there may have been another reason why Wayne argued for denying blacks full freedom. Though he didn’t say it, he surely noticed that blacks are more muscular, more macho, and got bigger dongs. As a famous tough guy, he couldn’t honestly say, “We white guys will lose our manhood and our white women to the muscular and bigger-donged Negroes if we give them full freedom.” He had too much pride. But in fact, his ‘white supremacism’ was really a crutch against the threat of black supremacism. The 1970s movie MANDINGO with Ken Norton shows that black men are tougher than white guys, and white women get jungle fever the moment their eyes set upon some big Negro with more muscle and bigger dong. So, biology is black supremacist when it comes to raw manhood. Nature favors black manhood over white manhood in the thumping-and-humping department. But Wayne, like most white men of his period, had too much pride to speak honestly and say, “What I’m really freaked out is about black supremacism over us white guys. Did you see Woody Strode? I’m a big strong guy, but he’s twice as muscled and probably has a dong twice the size as mine. And that’s why we need segregation cuz integration will mean black supremacist manhood turning us white guys into a bunch of wussy white boy cucks.”

But it would have been better for the white race and the truth if he had said as much. All stable and lasting orders are based on truth, not fantasy.

Symbiotic Relationship between Cosmo-Prog Elites and Materialist Non-Whites - White Politics and Ideographics - California’s Failure of Democracy under Tribe-and-Bribe Rule

It’s odd…

In order for White Libs to push their Cosmo-Prog agenda, they must rely on blacks and non-white colonizers for votes. But many of these non-whites are not into Cosmo-Prog agenda.
They vote for Democrats only because they want Open Borders(so that more of their kind can gain access to the material wealth of the US) and Federal programs(without which blacks would be totally lost). It’s purely mercenary, not ideological.

It’s like the European proggy ‘left’ depends on Muslim and African voters who don’t care about the cosmo-proggy agenda, especially pertaining to Gay Rites and Queertianity. Oftentimes, these non-whites are even less proggy than native ‘rightists’ and ‘conservatives’ are. Yet, they vote for the Proggy party because it offers them access to the material goodies of the better-managed West.

What will result from all such twisted symbiosis? Virginia and France turn more proggy because the Prog elites win with votes of non-whites who generally aren’t proggy. These non-whites vote for the Prog party not for ideals but for free meals. They just want more Open Borders and Bigger Government. Their reasons are tribal, material, or mercenary.

But I guess the Progs don’t much care. They figure Asians, being docile and subservient, can easily be turned onto Proggy values via education, and this is indeed happening with dog-like East Asians and even Hindus to some extent. As for Mexicans, they will never amount to much and remain as docile labor force at the lower rungs of society. They will supply the votes to put progs in power, but progs won’t offer anything to Mexicans but open borders and tortillas. When it comes to macro social and political policy, Jews and Homos will get to decide.

Still, at some point, the system could easily break. And we see inklings of this in California. Especially with declining white power, there’s bound to be more bitterness among progs and people of color. And in Minnesota, Somalians and Progs are not seeing eye to eye on lots of things despite their united front against Conservatives(who are mostly cucks anyway).

Basically, white elites, affluents, and educrati(the edu-indoctrinated class) want to lord over non-white ‘immigrants’ and serve Jewish uber-elites.
White businesses find non-whites more docile, and white educrati find non-whites ‘nobler’ for PC reasons of ‘diversity’ and ‘anti-racism’.

Meanwhile, white masses demand that white elites serve White America. But white rulers don’t want to rule over whites. They want to serve rich Jews who call for a New People.

White masses want white elites to represent and lead them. They hope, but it’s not happening.

This is why Alt Right can play an important role. It is about creating a New White Elite class who will listen to white masses and lead them. And this New White Elite will not collaborate with the Zionist-Globalists.



But try talking sense to whites who’ve been brain-cancered into thinking it is a GOOD THING that whites will be minorities in their own nations. It’s part of their mantra.

It’s like all those idiot college students cheering Clinton’s speech that extolled a future in which whites will no longer be a majority in America.

What morons. A few slogans — "Diversity Is Our Strength" — repeated like nursery rhymes in their heads, and they really believe in the mantra. ‘Diversity’ and ‘Inclusion’ are their ‘charm of making’.

With whites especially, ideographics matter. Whereas non-whites tend to overwhelmingly vote one way(Democratic), whites are more divided by ideology. Jews made it this way by vilifying white identity. So, while blacks, browns, yellows, Hindus, and Muslims are urged to vote for their tribal-political interests(on the assumption that the Democratic Party is better for them as racial or ethnic groups), whites are denounced and demeaned if they show any racial consciousness. So, white conservatives can only be implicitly white while white Progs are stridently anti-white. While whites aren’t allowed to be pro-white-conscious, they are encouraged to be aggressively anti-white-conscious. Any white person who denounces her own race as wicked and ‘racist’ are favored by the Jewish Power. So, there is more ideological divisions among whites since white identity is taboo. So, white politics is ideographic than demographic. Many more whites than non-whites group together along ideology than identity.

The ideology of too many whites is anti-white. They see anti-white betrayal as a virtue. They’ve been educated in such manner since cradle by Jews who control media and academia. Look at white states like Maine, Minnesota, and Vermont. Demographically white but ideographically anti-white.

In a nation where ‘racism’ is seen as the worst evil — and even most on the Right use ‘racism’ as pejorative — , too many whites think that any white identity or interest is ‘racist’ and evil.

Despite demographic changes, GOP could have won Virginia if whites stuck together. But they didn’t. 41% of whites voted for Democratic and more Diversity.
(Granted, even white conservatives may welcome Diversity because they feel immigrants are preferable to blacks, socially and economically.)

Prog elites make a distinction between Democracy vs Populism, arguing that nationalist-populists are actually an hindrance to true democracy and political pluralism.

Okay, so let’s look at the political result of a state that totally destroyed the power of populist-nationalists through mass invasion and PC lunacy. Let’s see how democracy thrives under such conditions. Let’s consider California! So, just how democratic is that state? Isn’t it a total one-party dictatorship. Doesn’t it have the biggest division between rich and poor. The most strident restrictions on free speech? And Antifa goons running amok and attacking people with differing view?

Are we to assume that all of the US will be more democratic if it follows the California model?

California is about Tribe-and-Bribe. The ruling Jewish Tribe brought over tons of non-whites and bribed them with welfare and chain migration IF they vote Democratic and hate on Whitey.

Tribe as ruling elites, white cucks and Asians as their managerial class, and everyone else as helots too divided by race, culture, and faddish ideologies to ever form a common front. And Progs more allied with Hollywood and Silicon Valley than with working class and middle class(that continues to move out of Ca). What wonderful democracy they have in California.

Fascist-Democracies are the Best Bet for the Future

A Facist-Democracy in Action

Though ‘democracy’ is pegged as a quintessential ‘Western Value’, the fact is most of Western History was not marked by democracy or even republican forms of government. Most Greek city-states were not democratic in the manner of Athens, and even Athens underwent profound changes in its forms of governance. Roman Republic soon gave to imperial rule, and the long stretch of Western European history from the Fall of Rome to the early 20th century was characterized by feudalism, aristocracy, theocracy, and monarchy than by ‘democracy’.

Does this mean that most of Western History was not ‘western’ since it wasn’t ‘democratic’ and 'liberal', supposedly the quintessential attributes of the West?
Furthermore, Byzantine and Russian Europe hardly experienced any democracy at all except in the late modern period. And huge swaths of what had been Byzantium came under Turkish, Kurdish, or Arab rule where democracy is either non-existent or practiced differently from ‘Western’ standards. If a people-and-culture are defined by a set of ideas, are they no longer that people-and-culture if the ideas were to change? If we say the samurai system and ethos are the indispensable essence of what it means to be Japanese, then are we to assume that the Japanese stopped being Japanese once they abandoned the samurai order and embarked on the path of Westernization? While it is true that samurai culture and mindset left a huge imprint on Japanese history, isn't the core essence of Japanese-ness the story of Japanese people in their homeland? Likewise, while it's true that political democracy & individualism originated and came to fruition in the West, the core essence of the West goes far deeper than any philosophy or set of ideals. More than anything, it's about the people, the land, and their sense of history REGARDLESS of whatever ideas or values they may have espoused. Thus, barbarian Vikings were no less a part of the West than Republican Romans. And Spanish living under autocratic Franco were no less part of the West than Swedes living under Social-Democracy. France was just as much a part of West under monarchy as under revolutionary populist ideals. So, the notion of distilling the entirety of the Western Experience into a bottle of 'democracy' is rather glib and shallow.

Also, there is no need to fetishize democracy. The historical lesson of democracy has been as much about failure as success, doom as well as hope. Democracy, by its ruthless autistic-logic, has often led to rootlessness, confusion, decadence, and demise.

For democracy to thrive and ensure survival of the civilization it serves, it must be fascist. This is why the fascist-democracies of Iran, Israel, and Turkey face more secure futures that the decadent-democracies of the West that are now prone to spouting such sentiments such as “there is no such thing as French Culture” or “Great Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’.” In Iran, Israel, and Turkey, the democratic institutions serve, respectively, Iran-ness, Jewishness, and Turkishness. Democracy serves than dissolves nationalism. (A fascist-democracy allows liberal freedoms and free elections BUT enshrines the core fascist themes into the Constitution whose primary function is to secure the survival and well-being of a particular ethnos on a specific territory justified by a certain narrative. The danger of autocracies is the power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few that grow increasingly paternalistic and corrupt. The danger of democracies is the people become fractured into atomized individuals succumbing to appetites and alienation, thus allowing cynical elites to gain plutocratic power behind the scenes. In contrast, a fascist-democracy provides direction & meaning to freedoms that ultimately go to preserving the ethnos and mythos. Thus, people do enjoy freedoms and choices as individuals but are inculcated from cradle to find meaning as organic members of a larger community of blood-and-soil. Too many people tend to see politics in terms of right-wing aristocracy vs left-wing democracy, but democracy can be made to serve nationalism via fascism, which also allows for compromise between capitalism and socialism.)

America’s rise to prominence owed to its being a fascist-democracy, a land of liberty and freedom bound to powerful sense of racial identity, cultural heritage, and core moral values. A democracy without fascist themes to keep it loyal to a people & culture will eventually dissipate because an idea serving an idea(instead of something specific and tangible) will grow weak and decadent. In time, the people are made to value the idea more than the realness of their own existence as ethnos and culture upon a territory. Thus, French people no longer believe their political system exists to defend and preserve the French nation. Instead, the French people and nation now exist to serve the Idea that, in a state of abstraction, becomes universal and is no longer specifically bound to the national interests of France as blood-and-soil. (While the cosmopolitan ideal of the French Enlightenment is not a new one, its corrosive impact had been tempered in the past by nationalism, traditionalism, and chauvinism that favored the French over their colonial subjects who, furthermore, had little chance of moving to France. Today, it's so easy for millions of non-whites to invade white nations every year. What had been the privilege of the affluent has become the tangible dream of countless mobs in the Third World. The practice of cosmopolitan universalism went from rich & educated white Europeans traveling to exotic places to millions of Africans and Muslims arriving in France and UK to shake their booties to rap and shake down whitey for free gibs.)

Just imagine the future of Israel if Jews were to adopt the autistic-logic of abstract democracy over the current fascist-democracy. Israeli democracy would go from freedom & liberty for Jews in a proud Jewish State to ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ for all of humanity that may want to migrate to Israel to enjoy ‘universal rights’. Since the Iron Law of Human Organismic Behavior is “poorer folks move to richer folks”, Israel will soon be swamped by Africans and Arabs from less developed parts of the world.

That is precisely what is happening in the decadent-democracies of Europe, and if current trends are left unchecked, the future of Europe will be doom and demise.

A fascist-democracy uses freedom and liberty to protect and strengthen the people & culture of a nation.

A decadent-democracy offers freedom and liberty to foreign invaders to take over and destroy the native population that has been demoralized and deracinated by PC. If some native people do remain idealistic and passionate in a decadent-democracy, it's only in welcoming racial and national suicide in the name of serving the ideas of 'democracy' and 'openness'... and 'diversity', another essential 'Western Value' recently discovered or invented by PC. It goes to show that 'Western Values' are really dictated by whomever wields the power to control the narrative. Deracinators or 'Deracists' are the biggest danger to the Advanced World.

Democracy. From People-Replacing-Bad-Elites to Elites-Replacing-'Bad'-People.

The new 'vibrant' Paris

Most Western democracies are now oligarchies controlled by Jewish globalists and their cuck-collaborators.

If American Democracy had truly been responsive to the people, it wouldn't have allowed massive invasions from the Third World. To be sure, if white Americans in the 60s had been more mindful of elite agendas than so resigned to complacency and leisure, they might have read the writings on the wall and taken steps to prevent their ethno-demographic demise.

As it happens, politicians rely on money from big donors. So, even though they’re elected by votes of many little fishes, they do the bidding of few globalist whales. Furthermore, the little fishes can only choose from candidates handpicked by the whales.

When leaders and elites are bad, they should be removed by democratic process. That’s how true democracy should work.
But in the Current West, the opposite has been happening under the New Democracy.
Whore-politicians and entrenched deep state managerial class, in coordination with media and academia run by shills of globalism, work to replace the masses with New People, the invasive immigrant-colonizers. Replacism is the name of the game. As whiteness has been associated with evil and wickedness, white majority in European and white-made nations are seen as 'bad' or 'deplorable'. The only good white people are those who welcome replacement by non-whites. White people who want to keep white nations white are 'bad'. Anti-white whites are 'good', pro-white whites are 'bad'. So, if in the past, American democracy was about white people replacing bad leaders with good ones, today it's about 'good' globalist 'progressives' working to replace 'bad' white people with good non-whites.

Just ponder the full implication of this madness. Democracy is supposed to be about the people replacing bad leaders, but now it's about the entrenched elites replacing entire peoples. In a sane world, the people should replace elites than elites replace people. After all, the former is so much easier and more elegant to pull off. In contrast, replacing entire populations with new ones is a massive undertaking that turns the world upside down.
Wouldn't it be better(and so much easier) for Germans to replace Merkel & her ilk than for the latter to replace Germans with masses of 'New Germans'?
'Demo' in 'democracy' means the people. So, Democracy means rule by the people. But New Democracy is a demo-clashy where the existing people are made to clash with new ones who eventually take over. Jewish globalist elites use the demo-dialectics to bring about the synthesis of 'New Americans' who, having no clear identity and roots in America, can easily be manipulated and controlled by fashions of the Current Year. Diversity will turn whites into cucks indoctrinated with 'white guilt'. They will regard most of White History as tainted and redeemable only by Diversity and cuckery. And non-white hordes as 'New Americans' will feel no allegiance or appreciation of White American Heritage.

As inequality grows and more power/wealth amasses at the top, the elites now have the power to replace the people than the people have the power to replace the elites.

Worst of all, because virtually everyone is educated and entertained by media and schools controlled by globalist agenda, even the white masses have come to welcome their replacement as the greatest goal of freedom, democracy, and 'western values'. Consider all those white people who voted for globalism with sincere conviction that the Great Replacement is a moral imperative of the white race.