For the Jews, championing Free Speech was always a tactic than a principle. They(and their goy minions) were for when it served their interests. But now that the power of Free Speech challenges, defies, and exposes their corruption, hypocrisy, abuses, and supremacism, much of courageous and honest free speech is defamed as 'hate speech' that must be shut down. Of course, the powerful globalists know full well that the hysteria about 'hate speech' is really a mind-control tactic to restrict the discourse, but bottom-feeding Antifa dummies(and druggies) are too stupid to realize they are being used and abused as justice-junkie goons and SJW attack dogs.
It seems as though Neo-Stalinism is coming off the rails in US colleges, at least some of them. Why? Unlike Stalin who had iron-grip and total control over his minions, Neo-Stalinist professors do not. The Chinese Cultural Revolution spiraled out of control, but even so, Mao had the ultimate authority to rein in the Red Guards when he decided enough was enough. So when things got out of order, he mobilized the military to restore order in the cities and sent the radical youths to the countryside(ostensibly to serve the people). In contrast, Neo-Stalinist or Neo-Maoist college professors can't control what they've unleashed. Their power is too weak(and their will too wussy) to act as a lid on the pressure cooker of nutball agendas.
Also, there is a lot of unspoken resentment among the nutball radicals on campuses. Even though they do not candidly articulate their feelings, the contradictions can be sensed. Our world has come to be about winners and losers. Globalism and mass immigration/diversity has made it increasingly difficult for the Grand Middle Class to define the Core of Americanism. It is now about the winner class and the loser class; naturally, there will be many more losers than winners. This being the case, the natural thing would be for radical leftists to challenge and attack the winner class that is hogging the wealth and prizes. And in an earlier time, this would have been the case when the upper classes were more conservative, 'reactionary', rightist, and Wasp. And anti-homo, anti-statist, and even 'antisemitic'. Back then, the upper classes were attacked by the Left as the bastion of right-wing white-supremacist privilege.
But such political attitudes have diminished with the rise of boomers. Especially with Jews taking elite power from Wasps, leftist politics came to be less focused on class and more on minority-identity. By such logic, the rich Jewish minority now has more victim points than poor white gentiles. 'Minority Rights' doesn't make a distinction between billionaire Jews or fancy neo-aristo homos AND ghetto blacks or lettuce-picking Mexicans.
Likewise, 'white privilege' doesn't distinguish between 'poor white trash' and someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. If anything, precisely because rich whites can buy off the opposition by funding 'progressive' causes, they are less targeted with ideological animus than are the white working class or poor folks who tend to be more nationalist(as globalism been a bane for them).
With Jews as the new elites, attacking the rich is no longer ideologically kosher. Why, anti-wealth politics might be deemed as 'antisemitic'! Also, as the rich classes now fund Globo-Homomania and Diversinoma(Diversity-as-Cancer), they are praised as engines of 'progress' by the incestuous media and hype-machines controlled by people in the same club. So, nutball proglodytes go easy on George Soroses, Michael Bloombergs, Tim Cooks, and James Camerons of the world. Millennials are the Generation of Harvey Milk and Starbucks Coffee. Now that elite colleges are virtually entirely 'progressive' in an increasingly status-obsessed world(of 'winners and losers'), the future winners will be the main beneficiaries of PC-as-shield. According to the Official Dogma, how could they be 'bad people' when they are for 'gay marriage' and 'trannies in women-sports and the ladies room'? It is now easier than ever for the rich class to be 'leftist' or 'progressive' because the main organs of classic leftism have been removed and the void has been stuffed with issues amenable to manipulation by the rich. While the rich always had problems with demands of labor and class conflict, they need not concede much by pandering to the new themes of Zionism/Jew-worship, Globo-Homo, Magic Negro, and Diversity. As Jews are the richest people in America, being pro-Jewish now means being pro-wealth. As homos have neo-aristocratic flair and cater to the rich/powerful, they hardly pose a challenge to the privilege of the upper classes. The black issue can be dealt with by elevating token blacks like Oprah and Obama to the very top. Thus, even though most blacks remain mired in the same old problems, the symbolism of the 'first black president' and Oprah-as-billionaire-mammy(and MLK & Mandelas as new gods for the white race) creates the impression that the rich class is 'inclusive'. Even though they don't live close to most blacks, they rub shoulders with fancy blacks who are hyped by the media, thereby creating the impression that the upper class Jews & whites are totally 'anti-racist'. As long as they can afford fancy blacks to grace their parties and occasions, they can fend off the accusation of 'racism'. As for Diversity via More Immigration-Invasion, this is clearly in favor of the rich classes that can keep wages low; furthermore, their 'inclusion' of foreigners as new nationals is used as moral ammo against 'xenophobic' nationalist who come under the most competitive pressure by never-ending immigration-invasion. In a homogeneous society, the have-lesses have moral advantage over the have-mores by pressing for more equality. In a heterogeneous society, the have-mores claim moral advantage over the have-lesses by pushing for more diversity. As newcomers always apply more competitive pressure to the lower/middle class than to the upper class, the latter obviously has far less to lose. Of course, no one explained why More Diversity is more just. Where is the justice in allowing ceaseless flows of foreigners to take over one's own nation?
The culmination of all the ideological transformations has resulted in political schizophrenia. The NATURAL position for progressives would be to attack the winners as hoggers of wealth and power. But in the New Order, the winner class has rebranded itself as bobo-hipster-proggy. Even in the 1980s, there was the hatred of the Reaganite-Thatcherite yuppie. Consider the vapid yuppies of Oliver Stone's WALL STREET and Mike Leigh's NAKED. And AMERICAN PSYCHO was meant to expose the crass soullessness of yuppie mentality(though its author, Bret Easton Ellis, has been accused of being a soulless zombie himself). In the post-Counterculture era of 'Reaganomic 80s', the boomer professionals were so immersed in success and money that they neglected politics and ideology. But over time, especially under Billy Boy Clinton, the cultural elites formulated a way by which the new affluent class(to be labeled the 'creative class') could both reap the rewards AND shroud themselves with proggy 'righteousness'. One way was to turn leftism from Mayday to Gayday, from one of class politics to ass 'frolitics'. This worked like magic because homos are so vain, fancy-pants, and love to serve the rich. So, with homos as the dominant face of 'new progressivism', the main theme became amenable to Jewish elites and rich boomers.
This robbed progressivism of the opportunity to bash its traditional nemesis. If indeed progressives are supposed to be leftist and for egalitarianism, their natural enemies should be the rich class, especially those in the financial sector, vice industries, and inheritance jackpot. But the rich class — the likes of Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, etc. — has come to own 'new progressivism' that went about prioritizing the destruction of anyone who refuses to bake 'gay wedding cakes' and objects to men in dress & wig to wee-wee in the Lady's Room. This does NOTHING to challenge the power of the rich. If anything, the oligarchs in Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley are cracking up that proglodytes in the US and EU can be worked up into a frenzy over silly issues about homos and trannies. Or 'slut pride'.
Surely, proglodytes in colleges, especially lesser ones, are really envious and resentful of students in better colleges majoring in prestigious fields with far greater prizes down the road. Those specializing in medicine, business, computers, science/technology, corporate law, and such will reap the most rewards. Those in humanities, history, arts, education, and especially various 'schools of resentment' will gain the least success. Many will be burdened with huge student debts with college degrees that are useless in the market place.
So, naturally, a college graduate with degree in Crazy Negro Studies or Bitchy Grrrl Studies will face a less promising future than someone with a degree in computers or finance. Since politics is driven by envy and resentment(though such emotions are masked as 'justice'), proglodytes should direct their ire at the Mark Zuckerbergs and Sergei Brins of the world. But because prog losers were taught from cradle that the true meaning of 'progress' is all about Diversity, Homomania, and fighting 'racism', they can easily be directed to bark up other trees, indeed far smaller ones. Because today's rich elites make all the correct-sounding noises about More Immigration, More Homo Celebration, and More Magic Negro Worship, the loser proglodytes feel obligated to praise and support the rich progoligarchs. "They may be stinking rich and greedy, BUT at least their hearts are in the right place. Besides, gee whiz, without the rich oligarchs using their monopoly-muscle to do the right thing, the Nazis, KKK, White Supremacists, Racists, Homophobes, and Misogynists may take over and kill all of us!" Thus, the all-powerful globo-homo-shlomo oligarchs are seen as the 'lesser evil' or 'necessary evil', the bulwark against the rising tide of 'white nationalism'. Just like the rich class, during the Cold War, fooled Middle America into supporting its greedy agenda with scare tactics of "It's either us or the communists!", the rich class today fools proglodyte masses into supporting monopoly capitalism with scaremongering tactics of "It's either us or the fascists!" The Jewish elites who advise the oligarchs understand the dynamics of radical psychology and how to manipulate it. They know that proglodytes must still scream, rant, and holler about something. After all, the entire millennial generation has been raised on the Trigger-Happy Politics of Outrage. It's about me-hugging self-righteous displays of holier-than-thou virtue, a neo-puritanism. Since they cannot attack the rich and powerful(who are morally shielded by their support of globo-homomania), they look around and strike out at easy targets, like wussy professors or an odd conservative on campus.
But then, these wussy professors brought it on themselves by favoring Neo-Stalinism. Now, by 'Neo-Stalinism', I don't mean they are ideologically Stalinist in the Marxist-Leninist sense. I highly doubt if most so-called leftist professors in our time want forced collectivization of agriculture or mass executions of 'class enemies'(though some of them, especially Jewish ones, seem to fantasize about mass murder of white males and mass-rape of white women, mostly by blacks and Portnoic Jews). By Neo-Stalinism, I mean the favoring of machine politics over individual brilliance. Even though people with individual brilliance can be totalitarian and tyrannical in their outlook, they tend more towards free discourse than less brilliant people do. Why? Because the brilliant have confidence in their ability to argue and win the debate. This was why Leon Trotsky failed against Josef Stalin. Trotsky himself was autocratic and ruthless, but he was less totalitarian-minded(at least within the Soviet hierarchy) because he thought he could win with wit and brilliance. Stalin was smart and experienced, but he couldn't match wits with Trotsky or other top Jews. So, the ONLY way Stalin could win was by building up machine politics. He organized an army of cadres who were dim but obedient. They were loyal to him like dogs and attacked anyone he set them upon. George Orwell in ANIMAL FARM has the Stalin-Pig Napoleon get his way every time by threatening to unleash his attack dogs on any beast who naysays his authority.
The really smart intellectuals on the Left tend to be less totalitarian. Christopher Hitchens had confidence in his ability to take on anyone and win or at least hold his own. Steven Pinker also has self-confidence. But a lot of academics and intellectuals are really hacks or colorless. They lack brilliance or the nerves to match wits on a one-on-one basis. So, they prefer the Stalinist machine-politics way over the Trotsky my-brilliance way. They'd rather create an army of anti-intellectual(or at best pseudo-intellectual)goons who will learn and obey than think and notice. They are more 'taboosters' than taboo-busters. They would rather have obedient goons than free-thinkers. The danger, however, is that goons can get out of control(especially if they are Crazy Negroes, as with BLM fiasco). Unlike Stalin and Mao who had the means to clamp down on radical 'adventurism', the Neo-Stalinist professors are helpless when their own goons bark and bite at them for being insufficiently 'woke'. (To be sure, even many smart Jews now seek to shut down free speech in favor of Neo-Stalinist control of society, and the reasons are twofold. Some smart Jews feel that Donald Trump's victory is a harbinger of anti-intellectual Pitchfork Politics of yahoos who think and act as a Mob. They feel that such people are incapable of free & open debate and are impervious to evidence & logic to boot. The white mobs are mere dry wood for radical 'white nationalist' flames, and so, better to dampen them before they catch fire. But another bunch of smart Jews fear free speech because they sense that no amount of their wit and brilliance can argue against obvious truths such as Jewish domination of America, Zionist imperialism against Palestinians, facts about race, there being only two sexes[than 50 genders], black crime, and etc. While smart people can outwit and out-talk the less smart, just like adults can fool children, there is a limit to sophistry, however brilliant it may be. Just like kids eventually find out and learn to trust adults less, goyim have a reached a point where, via free and open exchange of ideas and information, they could arrive at the truth about Jewish Power and its hidden agendas. Thus, even smart Jews increasingly dread free speech because they fear that even their wits and brilliance cannot keep duping the dimwit goyim forever.)
Now, is PC really the most powerful force in the US? We tend to associate PC with puritanism, but hedonism exerts greater force in the West, and current PC is a strange combo of neo-puritanism and wanton puerile-ism. After all, why did Jews, Homos, and Negroes become so powerful? There is the Shoah thing, slavery thing, and AIDS thing(caused by homos themselves) to be sure, but most people don't think of such things 24/7. Most people seek pleasure, and the fact is Jews, blacks, and homos won out because of their dominance of hedonics. Jews control comedy, wit, entertainment. Blacks got music, sports, and sex culture. Homos are into fashion, vanity, and celebrity culture. 'Celebristianity' is the new christianity. Once basic needs are met, people mainly live for pleasures: Consider the exponential rise in gambling, video games, pop music, pornography, celebrity mania, drugs(with meth having killed countless poor whites), homo bacchanalia almost all year round, dances such as 'twerking', and etc. So, it seems Poo-C counts more than PC. (Poo-C meaning 'pussy' and poo-ride of homos.)
We can see the power of hedonics in US politics as well. Since the 1960 election, the rule of hedonics led to the more hedonic candidate winning. The more-hedonic-candidate is one who seems more 'fun'. That's why John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. Though Lyndon B. Johnson wasn't 'fun', he was more fun than Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon wasn't fun, but Hubert Humphrey wasn't the life of the party either. And George McGovern, though the leader of the debauchers, was a dull guy. Jimmy Carter was more fun than Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan, former actor, was more fun than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. George H.W. Bush, though not fun, was still more fun than the bloodless Michael Dukakis who had nothing of Zorba about him. Billy Boy Clinton was lot more fun than Bush and Bob Dole. George W. Bush, aka Dubya, was more fun than square Al Gore and droopy John Kerry. Barack Obama was more fun than Mr. MaGoo McCain and Mormon Mitt Romney. And Donald Trump was more fun than Hillary Clinton. (Maybe Bernie Sanders would have beaten Hillary if he told more jokes like a Jewish comedian.)
"...Sailer Strategy: the divisive but influential idea that the GOP could run up the electoral score by winning over working-class whites on issues like immigration..."
Everything in politics is 'divisive'. If we want unity, why have TWO or more parties? Why not a one-party system like China? Or Japan which has effectively been one-party state in the postwar period.
Also, Democratic Politics has been more divisive because of its stress on identity politics catering to non-whites for special consideration/treatment.
Now, if Democrats accepted non-whites and if Republicans rejected them, one could argue that Democrats strive to unify all Americans whereas Republicans divide Americans between whites(okay) and non-whites(not okay). But that is not American politics. Democrats win over non-whites with special favors that are often detrimental to whites, especially those of lower classes. Blacks are offered 'affirmative action' in admission/hiring, Hispanics are offered 'affirmative immigration'(aka tolerance of illegal immigration), and 'progressive' PC blames all problems on White Conservatives(while lionizing White 'progressives' as the 'good whites' who heroically play the role of 'white knight' in defending the 'poor huddled masses' of non-whites). Also, homos were handed the supremacist power to alter the meaning of marriage, a privilege denied to Polygamists and Incest-sexuals. Democrats also play sexual politics by driving a wedge between white women and white men. Feminist ideology teaches white women that white men, at least those who refused to be cucked, are the source of all evil. Indeed, it should be obvious by now to all honest observers that the so-called Second-Wave Feminism was less about 'liberating' all women than about driving a wedge between white men and white women. The agenda was conceived with an understanding between Jewish men and Jewish women that the best way to weaken the white race was to break the sacred/sexual bond between white men and white women. Divide and Conquer the white race by setting white women against white men and then by urging them to identify more with Jews, homos, and non-whites. Also, by pushing feminism, both high-IQ Jewish men and Jewish women would come to dominate many of the elite institutions and industries, therefore leaving fewer positions for white men. The fact that Jewish feminists are now totally supportive of pornography indicates that these Jewish-driven agendas — Second-Wave Feminism, Legalization of Pornography, Promotion of interracist Jungle Fever, Globo-Homomania, etc. — are really about "Is it good for Jews?" While people like Betty Friedan and other Second-Wavers may not have been consciously working for Jewish Interests, the fuller picture of the agenda has emerged over the years, and who can deny that Jews benefited the most? And why do Jewish feminists support pornography and why were most of them silent about White Slavery in Israel that lured and exploited thousands of Slavic women? Why if indeed Jewish feminists care about ALL women equally? Because, when push comes to shove, whether it's Jewish feminists or Jewish 'male chauvinist pigs', all their orchestrations and manipulations inexorably lead to more power/wealth for Jews and more impoverishment/dispossession/humiliation for whites whom Jews regard not as full-fledged human beings but as commodities like wheat, corn, and pigs.
The GOP party line has been more unifying in opening the party to all comers on the basis of colorblindness. (One exception is with Jews. Both parties go of their way to favor Jewish interests and Israel uber alles. Jewish supremacism is the real supremacism in the US, but it goes unaddressed because Jewish power controls the media. New York Magazine certainly doesn't address it for what it is: supremacism.) If the GOP must not favor whites, it must also not favor non-whites if it is to be colorblind. Favoring one group over another leads to the divisiveness, which is why the Democratic Coalition threatens to become a Demolition among various races and classes. Ironically, even as Progs accuse the GOP of being divisive, the bogeyman of the Evil White Male is the ONLY factor that keeps the Democratic Coalition united. They are united by hate of Whitey as scapegoat for everything that is wrong. Such is their 'intersectionality'.
American Politics is not about anti-white vs pro-white. It is about anti-white vs anti-anti-white. GOP hasn't been pro-white in anything for a long time. It is just less anti-white than the Democrats. But even this anti-anti-whiteness is pretty weak, with Bush II having pandered more to blacks and Hispanics, indeed much more than to whites, his voter base. Indeed, American Politics puts white gentiles(unless they happen to be homo, tranny, or members of the elites) in moral deficit vis-a-vis other groups, especially blacks and Jews. This is why even the GOP feels this need to suck up to Jewish supremacism and Magic Negro cult.
American Politics says it's okay for non-whites to be pro-identity, but it is wrong for whites to be pro-white. GOP's line is generic pro-Americanism. Even so, it is not explicitly anti-white like the Democratic line has become over the years. The PC narrative is that non-whites flock to Democrats because the GOP won't have them. In truth, non-whites flock to Democratic Party because they get special favors than mere equality, which is what the GOP offers. If one side offers equality while another side offers bribes, why wouldn't you go for the latter? More free stuff. (East Asians may pay a price from policies such as Affirmative Action that favors blacks and browns over yellows but, being so status-obsessed and conformist, most ideologically servile East Asians in the West would rather be associated with the Democrats who rule the biggest/richest cities and elite college towns.)
But then, things get weirder because, even as the Democratic or 'progressive' line is anti-white, most of Real White Privilege is located in the 'progressive' communities of Silicon Valley, elite colleges, upscale yuppie neighborhoods, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Pentagon, and etc., all of which are bastions of elite Jewish & White power/privilege. In some ways, it seems the anti-white rhetoric of Democratic elites is a ruse to mask 'white privilege', which is okay if billed as 'liberal'. After all, the Clintons got pretty far. So did the Kerrys and Tim Caines and Jerry Browns of the world.
Indeed, the Democratic Party is more appealing to the educated elites, successful people, and the 'cool' crowd because status-narcissism goes hand-in-hand with moral narcissism. These people want wealth, privilege, and power, but they also want to feel 'cool' and morally justified. Since the Democratic Party and most 'creative' types are Liberal, rich and successful people want to be with the Liberal Creative types. Also, the Holy Three in the US are Jews, blacks, and homos, and all three are in the Democratic Party. In contrast, the Southern Strategy won the GOP temporary electoral advantage but saddled them with neo-Confederacy in a nation where there is no greater sin than 'racism'. KKK is the most hated symbol in the US, and the Deep South is connected with it. Of course, Black Crime & Terror has done far more damage than KKK ever did, but the Narrative decides what is worth remembering and paying attention to. The American Narrative resets to TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over.
Also, the Democratic Party got legacy of New Deal and Civil Rights movement. Even though Democrats eventually abandoned the working class, the GOP has hardly reached out except in symbolism of flags and guns. Anyway, symbolic legacy eventually runs out of steam when it loses all semblance with reality. One could argue that the New Deal legacy finally ended for the Democrats with the demise of Hillary. But the New Deal legacy had had nostalgic appeal to Big Labor for a long time. Democrats also have the Civil Rights legacy. As blacks are seen as holy in America, this means a lot. There is no greater evil in the Current Year than 'racism'. Because JFK and Johnson led the way in the Civil Rights Era, Democrats came to own the issue. Also, blacks turned overwhelmingly Democratic, though one wonders if this has more to do with the Civil Rights bill or massive welfare increases under Lyndon B. Johnson. (Maybe if Trump offers Negroes bigass reparations, blacks will finally move on over to the GOP. Civil Rights Legacy may be lost to Democratic Party if it plays the homo card and immigrant card too much at the expense of blacks.) Given the iconic value of the Civil Rights Era and near-worship of MLK, Democratic Party has the Moral Advantage over the GOP. And this is why most successful people prefer to be associated with the Democrats EVEN THOUGH they don't want to live with most blacks. Your average Prog would prefer to live in a safe white community(even a conservative one) than in a black democratic town, but he still wants to be morally and politically associated with the Party of Civil Rights. And then, the mass media made homos holy too, and Democrats came to totally own that issue. And since Homos came to be synonymous with both suffering(especially due to HIV epidemic, one that was caused by their behavior) and cool celebrity culture in Hollywood and fashion, successful people chose to become Democrats. So, the Democratic Party became party of both the have-lesses and the have-mosts. As a Democrat, the have-mosts and other elites can win some radical chic points by being members of the Party of Progress... even though their main obsession is really Privilege.
"Most liberals would take issue with citizenism as reactionary, and perhaps see it as a closeted form of the white nationalism openly championed by many bloggers on the alt-right. Yet Sailer describes citizenism as the best possible bulwark against ethnonationalist impulses."
As for the anti-immigration stance, it can be said to be pro-white since most immigrants are non-white, and white nationalists fear that more immigration-invasion will reduce white power in the US. On the other hand, anti-immigrationism is unifying than divisive. If current American citizens are to form into One United people, they need to work on what they have in common. Just when the American identity is becoming more confused(even more so with 50 new genders derived from 0.5% of the US population of trannies), the last thing we need is more immigration. US is diverse as it is. If anything, it is overly diverse and tearing at the seams. The divisiveness isn't the product of political machinations but demographic realities. If all these different Americans are to come together, there must be respect for Rule of Law. As different Americans have different cultural backgrounds and values, the one thing they must have in common is respect for Rule of Law. For this reason, illegal immigration must be ended and opposed as it violates Rule of Law, and the ideal of Citizenship. Stuff like amnesty leads to breakdown in Rule of Law and commonly shared principle of what makes a person American. If anyone can break in and become 'American', then Americanism is no longer about respect for Rule of Law but a grab-bag of who can get here by whatever nefarious means.
Also, even legal immigration needs to end. For white nationalists, the reasons are obvious. But even for non-whites, if they really want a united America of common identity and shared values, the urgent necessity right now is to encourage feelings of shared bond among all Americans, white, black, brown, and etc. (Besides, the MAIN ATTRACTION of US/Canada/Australia for non-white would-be-immigrants that they are White-Majority countries. Non-white masses are on the move not for 'democracy' or 'liberty' because most nations around the world are now democratic and offer plenty of freedom. Now, if the White-Majority is the very reason why non-whites want to move to the US, then it's worth noting hat endless non-white immigration will destroy the very thing that attracted the immigrants in the first place.) One has to be blind not to see the racial, cultural, and ethnic divisions all across America. When so much division is an undeniable reality in America, why bring in even more immigrants? How do we fix the problem of current divisiveness by adding more diversity, which leads to even more divisiveness? And what kind of a national elite cares more about possible-Americans-yet-to-be than for actual Americans who already are? It's a vapid shopoholic mentality applied on a global scale.
At any rate, non-whites are more likely to assimilate into white standards if they remain a decisive minority. They are more likely to respect the majority and try to fit into it. But as majority numbers and power decline, the minorities will be more demanding and contentious, also increasingly confused as to what really constitutes Americanism. Traditionally, Americanism entailed non-whites trying to become like White America. Now, Americanism entails non-whites defining 'True America' in rejection and revilement of White America. Especially with the notion of 'America is a nation of immigrants', there is the sense that newcomers fresh off the boat are More American than Americans, and if anything, Americans must reverse-assimilate to the World. Thus, the New Americanism is not about foreigners coming to dissolve into what was essentially White America but America dissolving into the World. White America as the Core American Ideal is replaced by various tribalisms from all over the world. (It is surely correct to say that Steve Sailer has a preference for White America, being white himself and respecting the European legacy and heritage. And Sailer never denied that like Conservative Inc types pretend they are totally for colorblind equality. No, Sailer prefers whites just like Jews prefer Jews and blacks prefer blacks. With Sailer, the real key is about finding the best compromise whereby each group gets something but can't get everything. Citizenism isn't white nationalism but it does offer something for whites in curtailing excessive immigration and defending traditional America. But it offers something for all groups who strive to be legal citizens. But American Politics of the Current Year assumes that it is wrong for white Americans to have any sense of white identity or interests at all. Whites must always prove themselves to be totally colorblind or especially deferential to Jews, Homos, and non-whites, especially blacks. But such arrangement is untenable. Why should white Americans be without white identity and white interests? The only sensible thing is to arrive at some formula where all groups get something but not everything. The current formula is one where whites get NOTHING, and that is unacceptable to any sane bunch of whites. It's like what Merlin says to Uther in EXCALIBUR in negotiations with the Duke of Cornwall:
Uther: "One land, one king. That is my peace, Cornwall." Cornwall: "Lord Uther, if I yield to the Sword of Power, what will you yield?" Uther: "Me, yield?" Merlin: "He has given. Now, you must." Uther: "The land from here to the sea shall be yours... if you enforce the King's will."
Citizenism, good or bad, is at least an attempt at compromise between white interests and other interests. But, Jewish-controlled Prog thought denies the validity of any white identity or interests. (Ostensibly, Jews say it is to suppress white 'racism', but in fact, it is to deny even the slightest vestige of white identity/interests so that deracinated whites will support and serve Jewish supremacist identity and interests.) Demise of Core White America is leading to more divisiveness all over America. Given that the bogeyman is 'white racism', all groups tend to blame 'white privilege' as easy scapegoat, but the real source of mounting problems is too much diversity and the lack of Core Americanism to hold the nation together. Diversity can be of peripheral value. It cannot constitute the core. It's like the Sun is the center of the Solar System. The diverse planets revolve around it. In the USSR, the core culture was Russia. But as the Russian core dwindled in population vis-a-vis non-Russians who came to represent 51% in the 1980s, the empire broke apart. China has Han Chinese as the core around with ethnic minorities revolve. Without that Han Core, China would begin to fray and tear apart.
The demise of white core is leading to more division in America. The great paradox of American politics is that Diversity has been made to revile the only thing that can hold the various diverse groups together: The White Core. In the past, the White Core served as the model of emulation for which various non-white groups. One might say White America, for all its faults, was the Model Majority as so many non-whites around the world were willing to permanently depart from their own peoples and cultures to become new citizens of a White Majority nation, one they were willing to emulate. Various non-white groups were different from one another but had in common the desire to be part of White America, culturally if not racially. Today, White America still functions as a glue for non-whites but as mutual object of hatred and contempt. Hating Whitey is the only thing that many non-whites have in common. (Even though the excuse given for hating whitey is that whites are oppressive and have all the privilege, it seems much of the acrimony is really driven by contempt for white weakness, not least because the once mighty white race seems so defenseless, timid, and cucky-wuck in face of all the insults and abuse hurled at it by even the poorest minorities, most recent arrivals, and even illegals. No one respects wimps and wussies. After all, it is the 'nice' spineless husband who is henpecked the most. As Jewish supremacism now rules the US and as most whites are deathly afraid of displeasing their Jewish overlords, they just take all the slings and arrows from non-whites because barking back, even with something as innocuous as "It's Okay to be White", would be very displeasing to their Jewish Masters. Current white behavior is more like that of dogs whose primary consideration is, "Will I displease my master?") It's useful for now because without whitey to hate, they will hate one another. For now, when browns are angry with blacks, they blame whites. When blacks are angry with immigrants, they blame whites. When yellows are angry with browns or blacks, they blame whites. When Jews are angry with Muslims, they blame whites. When Muslims are angry with Jews, they blame whites. If respect/awe/fear of whiteness brought various non-white groups together in the past around the orbit of the White Core, the repulsion to whiteness pulls them out of the orbit and eventually crashing into one another They keep saying Diversity is their Core Value, but diversity can never serve as the gravitational core of society. Diversity can only work as a peripheral entity revolving around a Solid Core.
Mexicans in California are more aggressive than in the past. Somalis in Minnesota have no respect for anything. They make demands like the US belongs to them. Multi-culturalists denounce 'divisiveness' but actually thrive on it, which is their bread-and-butter. Indeed, they admonished non-whites not to assimilate into white America and maintain their separateness politically and ideologically. Thus, non-whites have been made to see whites as the enemy than as the host to respect and assimilate into. Multi-culturalists even came up with the notion of 'micro-aggression' to make non-whites feel offended by any gesture, no matter how mild, made by whites. (Of course, non-white macro-aggressions are a bigger problem in America. Surely, people have more to worry about Mexican drug gangs and black thugs, but academics in their bubble world cook up nonsense 'injustices', such as the horror of whites asking, "Where are you from?") The message of multi-culturalism is bogus and hypocritical. It says, "we non-whites will reject and insult you whites, but you whites must accept and praise us at all times." In a way, it is a twist on Jewish attitude to white gentile America. Jews keep their culture of uniqueness and exclusion(toward goyim), but white goyim must be welcoming and open to everyone and everything Jewish.
It's like a card game where one guy can keep his cards in the hole but the other player has to show all his cards. And we see this play out over and over. So, the cast of HAMILTON insults Mike Pence, but Pence has to be gracious and accommodating. Kanye West and other nasty blacks dumped on Bush II, but Bush II goes out of his way to whimper, boo hoo, that the worst part of his presidency was hearing that a deranged rapper said he doesn't like black people. "But I wuv black people oh so very much, and I even gave tens of billions to Africa to prove I love them Negroes." (Not much love for Palestinians though, and no one seems to care, not even Liberals and Progs. Btw, if the progs at New York magazine are appalled by tribalism and nationalism, how do they feel about America's overwhelming support for Zionist ethnic-cleansers and Yinon-ist imperialists?)
Another reason why immigration is divisive is it has the effect of weakening the ties between native elites and native masses. We see this in the US, Canada, and EU. As US elites dedicate themselves more to Diversity via more immigration to create 'new Americans', they have less time to address the issues of Already-Americans. Also, when Already-Americans protest this injustice, the elites protectively hug the New Americans or Future Americans and denounce the Already-Americans 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. British and Canadian white elites do the same thing. This leads to class division, the Coming Apart as theorized by Charles Murray. This turns a nation from a organic system to a mere commercial enterprise. A company may fire workers and get new ones, but a family doesn't get rid of family members to get new family members. US and UK were once like a national family or at least national community. But with massive immigration, every American is treated like a worker by a faceless transnational corporation that can just hire someone else. America is an 'indispensable nation' where Americans are all dispensable. America is an 'exceptional nation' where Americans are not exceptional but replaceable by any bunch of 'New Americans'.
Everyone is expendable and replaceable, not only as worker but as citizen and patriot. Indeed, patriotism is impossible with this kind of globalist system where the Already-Americans are told they will soon be replaced by New Americans and must celebrate the fact of their demise. America goes form a nation of posterity to a nation of ceaseless 'imposterity', what with even illegals being labeled as 'dreamers' and 'what America is all about'. The fact that Hillary insulted so many Americans as 'deplorables' speaks volumes. She would rather hug non-Americans as soon-to-be-new-Americans over real Americans, some of whom have deep roots in the US. It's a strange state of affairs when the US elites care more about yet-to-be-Americans than already-Americans. Whom do these elites represent? American voters or foreigners? They might as well be for open ballots as well as open borders. If US must prioritize all the foreigners who want to come to America, why not let the whole world vote for American Presidents? After all, only letting Americans vote is 'exclusive'.
Anyway, as long as elections are national than global, shouldn't US leaders represent, first and foremost, the Already Americans? (But then, given US meddling and invasion of other nations, maybe people in invaded nations should be given the vote. If US can intrude into their affairs and turn upside down, maybe they should have a say in who gets to rule America since America sees fit to rule the world.)
"In Sailer’s view, people are naturally inclined to pursue “ethnic nepotism” — that is, to help those like themselves at the expense of those who are not. The goal of citizenism, therefore, is to redirect these energies by providing a more expansive definition of “us” than the race or tribe."
That is true. More Diversity has a way of creating a massive number of immigrant-voters whose main loyalty is to their kinfolks in other parts of the world than with fellow Americans. So, even Mexican-Americans side more with Mexicans in Mexico than with fellow Americans. Chinese-Americans prioritize allowing more Chinese into the US than working for the good of All Americans. Many Jewish Americans feel closer to Jews in other parts of the world than with other Americans. With Open Borders, Diversity leads to more divisiveness as each group will then try to bring more of their kind over to the US to gain more power for their own community. If Asian Indians could bring 100 million Hindus to the US, they certainly would. Thus, these groups no longer see the US as an already-made nation into which they must assimilate and become a part of. It turns into a contest of "How many of our own people can we bring to boost our ethnic leverage in the US?" They think more like colonizers and smugglers than immigrants. American turns into a game of Mr. Mouth: Feed the Frog. Each group thinks, "how many of our kind can we bring to the US as the big frog." It's like the Jewish kid trying to win favor for his cousin in RISKY BUSINESS.
Even though globalist elites politically embrace these immigrant types, the fact is they have little in common. The globalist elites live in their own world, and the immigrant groups(especially those without much chance of success) live in a separate world. And these immigrant groups don't get along with whites or blacks or other immigrant groups. So, we have a fraying of America along racial, ethnic, and class lines. Elites symbolically hug immigrants but live apart from most of them. In hugging immigrants as the 'Real Americans', they dump on the historic white masses and even black masses. Increasingly, white masses and immigrants won't get along. In the past, immigrants tried to fit into White America and regarded White America as the Core America. This was true enough in the mid-1970s. But due to rising non-white population, decay of white culture, and PC's attack on whiteness(and rise of black thug culture as the core Americanism and Diversity as national religion), there is nothing to assimilate to.
Multi-culturalist said past assimilation was unfair in favoring the norms of White America. Actually, it made perfect sense. Since whites founded, defined, and built the US — and since they were the solid majority until recently — , it was inevitable that US would be essentially an Anglo-European-American nation. (Besides, the Anglo-American formula for nation-building has been, far and away, the most successful, principled, and productive in the world.) If Chinese had founded America and populated it for most of its history, then assimilating into Americanism would have entailed assimilating into much that is Chinese. But history didn't play out that way. Europeans built America, so it's natural for newcomers to assimilate to European-American norms. But that would mean special place and prestige for whiteness as Core Americanism,and that is unacceptable to multi-culturalists, especially Jews whose resentment of Christianity never faded away.
"His specialty was a plain-spoken form of science journalism... but also infamous for applying, often in a blunt and inflammatory manner, such methods to alleged racial differences... Sailer popularized the term “human biodiversity” (HBD) — now a mainstay on the alt-right — ... which, despite winning a few lonely adherents in the academy, has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst."
ROTFL. Sailer can be blunt, yes. But inflammatory? That was never his style. If anything, Sailer's statements were spun as inflammatory by others prone to hyperventilation. The most obvious example is 'let the good times roll'. The actual piece was rather droll. If anything, "Let the good times roll" is a very mild understatement when it comes to characterizing black pathologies which blacks themselves have more colorful ways of describing. It's nothing like what Chris Rock or Fred G. Sanford said of black problems. If anything, Sailer made it as un-inflammatory as possible. But nutjobs like John Podhoretz went ballistic(despite his kind having said truly inflammatory things about Palestinians, Iranians, Russians, etc; for inflammatory, try Podhoretz and Jennifer Rubin's friend Rachel Abrams denouncements of Palestinians).
Sailer wasn't inflammatory, and this explains his limited appeal to those on the Alt Right who prefer redder meat. I personally would describe black pathology in a more colorful way. But PC overreacts, throws tantrums, and goes ballistic. It responds in inflammatory manner to cold facts, logic, and common sense. We saw this play out at Middlebury College over Charles Murray. PC crazies are easily triggered by anything. They see 'racism' in everything. And PC commissars snoop around for incorrect thoughts everywhere. It's hard to tell what is academics and what is satire. Get a load of this:
'Natural' in breastfeeding is also inflammatory apparently.
Indeed, the line "has been dismissed by critics as pseudoscience at best and eugenics at worst" is typical of how PC turns interesting ideas into inflammatory rhetoric.
It is not HBD that is inflammatory. It's been very matter-of-fact. It is PC that is inflammatory in its hysterical and rabid derision of any challenge as 'pseudo-science' and 'eugenics at worst'.
Only an idiot or a pathological liar would deny the reality of race. It is so obvious, it is so evident everywhere in intelligence, muscularity, sports, mating, crime, violence, personality, and etc.
The 'critics' of HBD have no facts on their side. Just emotions. They are the ones who act in inflammatory manner but accuse others of being inflammatory even though Sailer, Murray, and others like them made their point in non-inflammatory manner. Also, shouldn't social/culture writers be blunt and plain-spoken? Those are just different words for honesty and forthrightness. PC has made people so disingenuous, self-censorious, and esoteric that simple honesty is triggering and 'inflammatory'. It's like the saying the kid in EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES is inflammatory. There are indeed some people who are willfully inflammatory. Michael Moore is one of them. Sometimes, Ann Coulter relishes throwing rhetorical Molotov Cocktails. But that's never been the style of Murray or Sailer. If their views are inflammatory, it's because PC threw molotov cocktails at those views.
"In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans 'possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.' And he regularly plays up a sort of white grievance politics — grousing about 'black privilege' or complaining about Jordan Peele’s Get Out as 'a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie.' Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing..."
This is where we need the concept of the Deep Self. Just like there is the State and the Deep State, there is the Self and the Deep Self.
The Prog Self and even mainstream Conservative Self fitfully denounce the notion that blacks are more likely to 'let the good times roll'. Given the holiness of blackness in PC narrative, it is simply unthinkable in proper circles to cast any negative aspersions on black character or nature.
But the Deep Self of Progs really agrees on 'let the good times roll'. After all, why are Progs so into black culture over other cultures? Blacks love to let the good times roll and be funky and colorful, and progs have a racial preference for blackness over other kinds of racial expressions. Black culture wallows in pathology and wanton sexuality and violence, and this is appealing to white progs because pop culture serves as the fantasy of anarchy and licentiousness.
Also, why do white Progs try to avoid black areas? Why do they seek to gentrify? They see too-many-blacks as trouble. Why did they elect Rudy Guiliani twice and why did they elect Michael Stop-and-Frisk Bloomberg three times? Why did they elect Clinton who locked up record numbers of blacks? Why do Progs say the military has been a constructive place for blacks? What does that imply? Why do Progs say that black kids must be taught and educated from earlier age? Why do white women go to Cuba and Africa to hook up with black men? Why are white boys so enamored of black athletes who act like thugs? White progs fear, loathe, and love blacks on the basis of racial differences. White progs prefer to see fewer blacks in their neighborhood and more blacks on TV. And the classic article about Hyde Park: Despite all the Nice things they SAY, white prog elites DO something quite different, summoning massive police force to control the blacks.
White progs are attracted to black wildness as entertaining and colorful, but they are also scared to death of black thuggery and aggression. So, despite what the Prog Self says, the Prog Deep Self is very much aware of racial differences. Everything a prog does is just as race-ist as what a conservative does. The Self says one thing, but the Deep Self senses something else and does something other.
As for 'black privilege', it certainly applies to the Obamas and fancy Negroes of the world who knows what buttons to push on the white psyche. Unlike most whites, the clever black with just enough intelligence and savvy can get very far just by making the right moves and noises. Barack Obama got to be president despite having done nothing in life because he knew what buttons to push, and this is true of a certain class of blacks. Of course, most blacks are too dim to understand this or play this, but those in the know can get very far. Blacks with modicum of talent can go much farther than any white or Asian person.
As for Jordan Peele's movie GET OUT, isn't it race-ist in the sense that is premised on natural black racial superiority? Even though I haven't seen it, isn't it about how white folks want to steal black bodies because they come with longer dongs and can play better basketball? If that is the premise of the movie, it sounds pretty HBD to me.
Progs are funny. They control music and entertainment, and they feature blacks as thugs, studs, and badass mofos. But if whites take notice of such stereotypical images and match them with social reality of black crime and violence, they are deemed as 'blatantly bigoted'.
We are admonished not to make statements such as "Let the Good Times Roll", but it's totally okay to feature blacks are crazy rappers with nothing on their minds but shooting people and humping ho's. Progs promote the image of the wildass black mofo badass killer and sex beast but get all antsy with a remark as tame and mild as 'let the good times roll'. I mean that is old school and tame compared to how blacks talk about one another these days:
We've all heard a million times that homos(and even trannies) are born that way, and nothing can be done about it. Even if we compel homos to repress their own deviant form of sexuality, it still impacts the way they feel, think, and act, especially on 'sexual' matters but in other areas of life as well. There was a time when most people adhered to the reigning religious, medical, psychological, and/or ideological explanations of homosexuality. Religious authorities said it was sinful, very likely soul-corruption by the Devil. Medical community regarded it as some kind of disease of the mind and glands. Certain schools of psychology deemed homosexuality as the result of childhood trauma. Ideologies on the Right regarded homosexuality as a subversive attack on society, and ideologies on the Left regarded it as the product of decadence & degeneracy as part and parcel of late-stage capitalism. It wasn't all that long ago when virtually all sectors of society regarded homosexuality with negativity and hostility. Even up to the 80s, it wasn't unusual for Liberal Hollywood to associate homosexuality with psychopathy and villainy, as in the Kevin Costner action movie NO WAY OUT(1987). There were also movies like WINDOWS, DRESSED TO KILL, and CRUISING that featured the dark & obsessive side of homosexuality. WINDOWS(written by Barry Siegel and directed by Gordon Willis) starred Talia Shire playing opposite a mad lesbian who will go to any lengths to own and control her. (In the original story idea, the psycho was a tranny.) Brian De Palma's DRESSED TO KILL featured a tranny as a serial killer. In William Friedkin's CRUISING, the victims are homos but so is the killer(s). Even though none of these movies go out of their way to condemn homosexuality or transvestites per se, there's a sense that individuals thus afflicted tend to be possess strange hangups or excessive neurosis. And of course, one of the biggest movies of the 1990s, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, had a tranny as a psycho-killer.
Given that sexual complex has often been used as the underlying motive for crazy, dangerous, or malevolent behavior in fiction — the murder in Otto Preminger's LAURA, repressed sexual memory in Alfred Hitchcock's MARNIE, the mad quest in THE GRADUATE, the attack on the prostitute in THE UNFORGIVEN, the bitter jealousy in RUSHMORE, the ugly tall man in MANHUNTER, and etc. — , it only seemed natural that storytellers would feature homosexuality or tranny-stuff as catalyst for neurosis, frustration, or strangeness that might trigger a chain reaction of horrors. Or, if homosexuality itself wasn't to blame, the burden was placed on the repression of homosexuality, as in AMERICAN BEAUTY where the reason for the abusive husband/father's fury & hostility turns out that he's really a homo who wants to suck dick. So, if many storytellers in the past used homosexuality or tranny-ness as the hidden motive behind anti-social, subversive, and/or dangerous behavior, later storytellers said the REAL problem derived from compelling homos and trannies to repress their true abnormal natures or 'abnature'(as homosexuality is 'abnatural' as it is abnormal, i.e. it is a part of nature to the extent that most homos were born that way BUT it deviates from the normal natural processes that make survival of organisms possible). Movies like AMERICAN BEAUTY and BOYS DON'T CRY suggested that what homos need to do is come out of the closet and embrace their true nature or 'abnature'. Then, they will be free of neurosis and will be honest with themselves and those around them, and it will be better for society as a whole since people will accept the reality of homosexuality — that some people are indeed born that way — and stop pretending that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE must be normal.
Well, we've seen how that theory played out. It's hard to think of another as wrong, but then, those who knew of the true homo nature warned us time and time again. It should be obvious to all by now that homos(and trannies) are NOT satisfied with mere social tolerance, individual rights, and acceptance of their 'abnature', namely that most Americans came to realize that most homos were born that way and it'd be as difficult to turn a homo into a normo as it would be to turn a normo into a homo. I can't imagine a real-sexual normal guy being conditioned to prefer men over women — though it may work in a few cases — , and it seems homos with their 'abnatural' predilections can't help being 'gay' either.
Now, some still argue that homosexuality must be conditioned than inborn because so many homos claim to have been molested as children. But the notion that childhood trauma can alter one's entire sexual proclivity for the rest of one's life sounds too much like a crackpot variation of Freudianism. Also, one wonders whether homos in their youth were really molested or invited such attention from older homos. According to Milo, he initiated the flirtation with an older man(a priest it turns out). And according to George 'Too Gay' Takei, he really got a kick out of being fondled and who-knows-what-else by his older adviser in the Boy Scouts. So, it is likely that homo kids tend to be sexually more voracious/adventurous and invite, by means subtle and not-so-subtle, sexual advances from older people; but when they grow up, they act like they were pure-as-snow victims, as when Milo changed his story from one where he was the seducer-predator to one where he was the hapless victim. One thing for sure, even if there are a good many homos who claim to have been molested as children, there are many homos who were never molested but are nevertheless 'flaming' in every way. Also, science tells us that we can often spot a fruitkin by his facial features and manner of speech. Science has shown that homos, far more than normos, tend to speak with a lisp and have girly voices. And when we look at a lot of homos, they tend to have a froolaloopidoopiness about them.
Anyway, once science established that most homos are born that way, it became less tenable for society to persecute or condemn them for what they didn't choose to be. They were 'chosen' that way by biology. And yet, most of society still understood homosexuality to be strange, deviant, and even perverse, especially as it involves men who indulge in homo-fecal-penetration. Also, homosexuality is often associated with a host of behavioral patterns that tend toward the obsessive, neurotic, hedonistic, vain, and/or nihilistic. To be sure, homosexuality comes with certain innate advantages in areas of design & craft. And some say that homosexuality is usually accompanied with few extra IQ points on average. But the CORE of homosexuality centers on a certain kind of 'sexual' proclivity, and objectively speaking, it cannot be good. After all, two vaginas grinding together isn't real sex and can never produce life. As for homo men doing sodomy, that is objectively gross and medically unsafe as it involves a sex organ penetrating a fecal organ. Gross.
So, even if society had to come to terms with the 'abnatural' fact of homosexuality, it still upheld a negative and dark perspective on such behavior. After all, science now seems to indicate that pedophilia is also a 'born' trait, which is why it is so difficult to reform and rehabilitate child molesters who can't help feeling their sick kind of desire. The closet-pedo father in Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS risks EVERYTHING to bugger his son's friend; despite the risk and perhaps even the realization that it's morally wrong, he still couldn't help himself. So, does that mean pedophilia is okay since some people are 'born that way'? Science also indicates that some people have greater natural tendency to be gluttons or alcoholic, but people still don't think pigging out or getting drunk is worthy of praise, let alone celebration, because it's so 'natural' or 'abnatural' with some people. There was a sane and serious time when society was willing to (1) accept the fact that most homos are 'born that way' but (2) nevertheless regard homosexuality as a deviance with a perverse streak. (Not only are some people born homo but such people tend to be far more risque about having multiple partners and experimenting in all kinds of excessive behaviors.) But, that compromise and consensus gradually and then dramatically faded as Jewish Power became absolutely predominant in the US(that controls all the West and most Westernized nations) and chose to use globo-homo-mania as substitute neo-cult for Christianity and proxy for promoting minority-elite-supremacism that would so nicely complement Jewish minority-elite-supremacism. If recent history taught us anything, it is that Jewish Hostility + Media & Finance Monopoly + Think Tank Domination + Power of Celebrity + Most People as Sheeple + Controlled Opposition(as US Conservatives are intimidated dogs of Jewish Power) = Social Madness. The West went from accepting the fact that homosexuality is a naturally occurring deviance to celebrating, revering, and near-worshiping homosexuality(and even tranny stuff) as what might as well be the second coming of bejesus.
How could so many people, from educated elites to unwashed masses, from people on the 'left' to people on the 'right', so quickly fall for the Jewish snake-oil? This amazing truth about humanity is both exhilarating in its madness and dispiriting in its implications. One thing for sure, it totally destroyed the Conceit of Rationalism. It is now quite evident that even if rationalism is the ideal way, too many people are incapable of facing facts and knowing the truth. And too many people who do know the truth would rather not speak out lest they lose in the social competition for status. One thing for sure, individuals don't decide what is good or bad based on reasoning. Rather, the decision is made at the top by the elites and then disseminated by the mass media, via which the Jewish Message enters every private space via electronic devices. We purchase and own the hardware, but most of the sounds, images, and words have been created by Jews and those mentally colonized by Jewish Power.
Jewish Power has proven that one can fool the masses that 2 + 2 = 5. Not by demonstrating it is true mathematically but by associating the formula with fanfare, music, song & dance, and bedazzling stories of how those who believe 2 + 2 = 5 are so very cool, awesome, or 'inspiring'. This is how Jews pushed the tranny business. Honesty and good sense tell us that a man is NOT a woman simply because he insists he is, but so many have been led to believe otherwise because trannies are promoted with such affection, hype, and even reverence by the Jew-run media. So, 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't have to be proven to the people. It can be promoted as 'true' by emotional and sensory appeals, like a movie that makes us suspend disbelief and revel in the excitement of watching a caped hero flying over clouds. Meanwhile, the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be made 'false' in the hearts of many. How? Again, never mind that it can be proven true and instead associate it with negativity, such as spreading the message that 4 is a 'hate number' or having hacks as 'experts' all saying in 'unison' that 4-as-answer has been debunked and only BAD people still believe it. It's like Conservatism Inc. will not answer pointed and valid questions about the impact of demographic transformation on the American political landscape and about the duplicitous & often hypocritical role of Jewish Power in American narrative and politics. Unwilling to deal with facts, Con Inc merely goes about smearing such manner of inquiry as 'racism', 'Nazis', or 'Antisemitism'. If emotional/sensual appeals can fool so many people with the pseudo-science that a man can be a 'woman', then the same can be done to make people favor 2 + 2 = 5 over 2 + 2 = 4. It is distressing to believe that people can be so stupid, but that's humanity for you. If Jews did us one favor in the 21st century, it was in exposing how utterly stupid(or craven) most people can be.
Anyway, homos and their supporters have argued that, because homos are born-that-way and can't do anything about it, all good and reasonable people should accept the 'abnatural' facts of homosexuality and stop regarding homosexuals as willfully immoral degenerates. (Granted, if the natural inclination is nevertheless deviant and prone to danger, it should be the moral obligation of those who are afflicted to curb, restrain, or at least moderate their behavior, a lesson all too neglected in the homo community that is so vain and narcissistic — common traits among homos — that it never faced up to its responsibility in the HIV epidemic that killed so many fruitkins. That said, it seems the HIV epidemic had an effect on the homo community similar to the effect of drugs & radical violence on the Counterculture. Those most prone to abuse of drugs and political violence either burned out or were weeded out by circumstances, leaving the more cautious, organized, and bureaucratic radicals to take power. Similarly, it seems the HIV epidemic weeded out the most brazen & adventurous 'cowboy' homos, thus handing the leadership of the Community to the 'accountant' homos.) If homos are born-that-way and can't help it and if, for that very reason, we must make peace with homos and accept the facts of how they feel and behave, then the same demand must be made from the normo-sexual or real-sexual side. Just like it's impossible to turn a homo sincerely into a normo by therapy or some treatment — though, to be sure, progs keep telling us 'gender' is a social construct and not based on biology — , it's impossible to change a normo-sexual's true feelings about homosexuality. Sure, under heavy dose of indoctrination, propaganda, and intimidation(especially with loss of job & status), normos can be browbeaten into praising and even celebrating homosexuality and tranny-ness. Especially as people are loathe to admit they conformed or consented to something out of cowardice, the cucked normos often go out of their way act the 'more evolved' true-believer in globo-homo, just like John McCain, a pathetic dog of Zionist power, went out of his way to convince himself that he really and truly believed there is no greater honor than kissing the Jew's ass and sucking his cock.
Still, the fact that the Power feels a need to push globo-homo 24/7 suggests it knows that, minus the endless conditioning and propagandizing, most normos will eventually revert to the natural tendency to regard homos and trannies as weirdo deviants, freaks, or even degenerates worthy of derision. We know from history that tremendous anti-homo social pressure compelled most homos throughout the ages to either hide their sexual orientation or repress it as best they could, which would be like an natural alcoholic or glutton trying desperately to convince himself that he doesn't want a drink or another serving of cake. Throughout history, many homo men and homo women remained in the closet and led seemingly normal lives... just like in our time, so many normos keep their true feelings about homos hidden in the cabinet and pretend to be so hip and cool with globo-homo. It is here that the 'rainbow' flag has been so useful to the Agenda.
After all, people automatically visualize everything, and if there wasn't a potent deflective 'gay' symbol, a visual shield, as the main focus of our attention, most normos thinking of homosexuality, pro or con, would form images of guys sucking each other off or porking each other in the ass. Even for normos sympathetic to the homo agenda, it wouldn't be very pleasant for them to visualize homosexuality in terms of blowjobs and sodomy among fruiters. But if there is a colorful and happy symbol associated with homos and trannies, one need not think of penis-up-the-poopchute or a doctor slicing off a penis to mold a fake 'vagina'. Indeed, nowadays, so many fools seem to think homosexuality and tranny-business are all about fanfare with happy 'gay' colors. Consider the advertisement for food with 'gay' colors. No sane normo wants to think about homo-fecal penetration or tranny penis cutting while he's eating, but so many people purchase 'gay'-colorized food products because they think being 'homo' is mainly about these bright and sassy colors.
That way, one can nibble on 'rainbow-homosher'(the new kosher) oreo cookies while pretending that one is celebrating happy colors than an orientation involving guys sucking cocks and doing homo-fecal-penetration on each other. People are so easily fooled by packaging. For example, why do women spend so much money on clothing and hair-dressing? Because they think a different outward presentation will make them beautiful. Consider all those big fat black women who think they will be sexy if they get nails done in some exotic way. Or how their children will be special with 'creative' names like Mo'nique, Skankisha, and Bitchasshope.
Now, the argument that normos should put forth is as follows: Just as Homos cannot help feeling their 'abnatural' desires because, after all, they were only born-that-way, we must accept the fact that Normos can't help feeling the way they do about homosexuality and tranny-stuff because they were born-that-way. Normos have a natural revulsion, distaste, disgust, and attitude-of-ridicule about homosexuality and tranny-stuff. Just as it was cruel to force homos to reject their true homo self and pretend to be 'normal' out of fear of social opprobrium or worse, it is cruel, repressive, and corrupting to force normos to pretend that they are really hip and cool with a form of pseudo-sexuality involving homo-fecal-penetration or tranny-penis-cutting by Frankenstein Medicine. What is most cruel, ugly, and vile is the defamation that natural normo-sexual feelings about homosexuality or tranny-stuff are 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. No, phobia is a medical term that means panicked reaction and extreme fear/dread of something harmless and safe. Normo-sexuals are naturally and rationally turned off by homosexuality that is sexually useless and physically gross. There is nothing phobic about such reaction. Just as people are grossed out by people eating feces, normo-sexuals find it gross that some men would have 'sex' by inserting their penises into the poopholes of other men. And when normo-sexuals honestly ponder what really happens at a 'sex reassignment' surgery, of course they would be freaked out.
Why wouldn't they be when it involves mutilation of a perfectly healthy organ to make for an ugly-looking fake 'vagina', especially one that smells like poop? If there is any phobia in our culture, it is Normo-Phobia that has inverted all sane, natural, and rational modes of humanity. We are to believe that men buggering one another or cutting off genitals is about PRIDE; in contrast, normo-sexuals or real-sexuals finding homosexuality or tranny-business to be odd, perverse, deviant, gross, or laughable are said to be suffering from a 'phobia'. It'd be like saying "Drinking urine is worthy of pride BUT those who express disgust over it are showing signs of phobia, or pissdrinkophobia to be exact." (By the way, if progs really believe that people with anti-homosexual feelings are 'homophobic' or suffering from a medical condition, they should show sympathy for them because people who suffer from phobias can't help themselves. If indeed 'homophobia' is a real phobia, then the affected are as helpless as those with arachnophobia, acrophobia, or ophidiophobia, extreme fear of all snakes, even harmless ones. But even as progs accuse anti-'gay' people of being inflicted with a 'phobia', they BLAME them of moral failings. But if people who oppose the 'gay' agenda are truly sick in the head, they should not be blamed for what would be a clinical malady.) The fact is real-sexuals normally feel a natural revulsion toward homosexuality and find stuff like tranny-business to be ridiculous. Just like homo men can't help wanting to suck each other's cock and bugger each other's ass, real-sexuals cannot help feeling queasy about what homos and trannies do. This is NOT a phobia of any kind. Nearly ALL normo-sexuals or real-sexuals don't have panic attacks or freak out over someone being homo. Instead, what they feel is a naturally derisive sense that the homo guy is either too effete/pansy for a man or that he indulges in gross pseudo-sexual acts.
Normality naturally favors the conventional, the standard, the usual. Now, there are exceptions. Beauty is rare, and normal people who are neither ugly or beautiful but average in looks prize beauty like precious gold. Elite athletic ability and high intelligence are also rare, and normal people admire the naturally gifted who happen to be far stronger or smarter than the average. (It could be, precisely because most people aren't exceptional in intelligence, looks, or athleticism, they now seek to be special in ways that are far more accessible, such as tattoos, piercings, and green-colored hair. If you can't be outstanding, be stand-outish.) Even so, normality generally prefers what is common and familiar, and this explains the penchant for certain negative attitudes even toward those with prized traits. For example, the overly big and strong person has often been caricatured as 'moose', more beast than man. And beautiful women have often been associated with vanity, vapidity, narcissism, self-absorption. Most people aren't rich and would love to have more money, but there is also the negative caricature of uber-rich people as snobby, stuck-up, crass, greedy, and soulless. And even as we admire intelligence, we can't get enough of the negative stereotype of the 'aspergy' geek or nerd who is all brains & bundle of neurosis and no body & life. Though 'fag' is now a dirty word, 'geek' and 'nerd' are not, and stereotypes of such are commonplace. Justified or not, the normal feels a certain disdain even for people with rare gifts, abilities, or good fortunes that most people would like to have. There is a sense that, in having those 'extreme' qualities, the 'special' people have become walking-talking caricatures than well-rounded people. Consider the cult of the artist that is both positive and negative. There is the romantic notion that, being different and special, he's devoted his entire life(and even sanity and health) toward creating a great work of art for the ages. But there is also the perception of self-indulgence, madness, and sickly obsession to attain, via a Faustian pact, the creative power of the gods.
Now, if normal people could feel naturally negative feelings about positive and much-prized traits, just imagine what they might feel for extreme manifestations of negative, useless, and/or harmless traits. If even great beauty or intelligence can be objects of mockery, imagine how most people naturally feel about extreme ugliness or extreme retardation. Now, out of kindness, most normal people, being decent ladies and gents, will not go out of their way to mock ugly or dumb people. Most of us take pity on the main character of ELEPHANT MAN and harbor no ill feelings toward the mentally retarded. But most normal people don't want to be around hideously ugly people and don't want to be friends with seriously low-IQ people. Likewise, for most normal people, homosexuality and tranny-stuff seem like extremes in negativity. We know that not all men are masculine, but certain froopy-doop tootkins are off-the-charts in pansy manners. And trannies who are men-pretending-to-be-women just look ridiculous.
And the idea of a fake 'vagina' is gross to most people, which is why even PC-addled proggy men who say all the token 'woke' things will NOT date or have 'sex' with trannies. They can tell themselves that a 'woman' can have a penis or that an artificially created 'vagina'(via Frankenstein medical surgery) is just as good as a real vagina, but something elemental in their nature says "NO, that is freaky as hell... Ewwwww." Just like people feel a natural revulsion toward gluttonous people who are grossly obese or lazy unkempt people who are overly filthy, people naturally disdain homosexuality and tranny-stuff that come across as extremes in negativity. It's one thing for men to have some feminine traits but to the extent that fruitkins do? It's one thing for men to dress a bit pretty and look elegant but put on a wig, wear makeup, and put on female dresses & high heel shoes? When confronted with such, most normal people feel revulsion or ridicule(that often turns into laughter). And such response among normo-sexuals is natural, no less than it is 'abnatural' for a homo to want to suck dongs and take them up his anus. If the natural feelings of homos are so overwhelming that it's near-impossible for them to refrain from blatantly odd(and even harmful) behavior such as 'cock-sucking' and homo-fecal-penetration(and even fisting in some cases), then we shouldn't demand that normo-sexuals refrain from natural feelings of revulsion & disdain about homosexuals and trannies. If it's unhealthy for homos to repress their true nature and keep it all bottled up, it's equally unhealthy for normo-sexuals to deny their true nature and self-censor honest responses to what they deem to be odd, strange, and deviant.
Now, a compromise has been possible whereby homosexuals do their own thing in their own space while normo-sexuals express their naturally negative feelings about homosexuality in their own space. There is no need for normo-sexuals to insult homosexuals as 'fags' and the like, but there is also no need for homos and trannies to demand that normo-sexuals honor, praise, celebrate, and even revere the attitudes and behaviors of homos and trannies as quasi-spiritual and 'rainbow'-like. But under the current Jewish Supremacist rule over the West, we don't have a sound compromise that is possible. The diva-like homo/tranny character, being naturally vain and narcissistic, isn't content with tolerance and mutual recognition with the other side. Rather, homos want to hog the stage of culture, politics, and even spirituality and present themselves as something akin to a quasi-race-of-angels. Therefore, they no longer just want their own spaces to do their homo things. They want to take over all public spaces, schools, banks, businesses, governments, and even churches to spread what could only be called Homomania or Queertianity.
Of course, homos(and especially trannies) on their own couldn't have accumulated such power in a million years. But having the full backing of venal Jews, the most powerful people in the world with control of finance, media, and much else, homos have been able to pull off an idolatrous neo-satanic takeover of Western culture, politics, and even spirituality(as so many churches fly the homo flag, as if indeed Jesus died so that His followers could celebrate sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting). As a result, even though we are told that it's cruel, unjust, and dishonest to force homos to repress their true nature of being homos, we are also forced to believe that real-sexuals must repress their own normal and natural feelings about homos and trannies on account that such are 'unnatural', 'irrational', and downright 'phobic'. So, while homos are so naturally homo that they can't help being 'gay', we are to believe that normos have harbored anti-homo feelings all through the ages AGAINST their own 'normal' nature.
In other words, current PC says it's natural and (new)normal for normos to have the most positive feelings about homos and trannies. To shore up their specious line of 'reasoning', PC commissars may point to the current West and remark how so many normos now celebrate homosexuality, but that is to totally ignore the fact that (1) most of the world media are controlled by venal Jews (2) people, young and old, have been bombarded with endless homo propaganda via education, entertainment, and advertising, and (3) Jews and their cuck-commissars have created means of purging and lawfare whereby anyone who deviates from the current dogma and 'idology' is swiftly smeared, character-assassinated, demoted, blacklisted, and/or fired.
Therefore, even though so many people seem happy-crazy about 'gay' stuff, it's really part of a ceaseless campaign of artificially manufactured hype, euphoria, and fear-mongering. History has shown that such madness isn't difficult to achieve IF the power is concentrated in certain hands. Consider the mass mania of Germany that blindly worshiped Adolf Hitler that drove them to ruin. Or consider the madness of Maoism that once engulfed the entire nation. Or consider the nutball lunacy of North Korea with its mindless displays of pageantry to sustain the mythic grandeur of the Kim clan. Looking back, we may one day wonder, how could so many seemingly normal people have been so duped and swayed into such feverish stupidity? We like to pride ourselves for living in a democracy with freedom and rational thinking, but most hearts and minds are shaped by slogans, mantras, idolatry, and dogmas pushed by institutions and industries that are really about concentration of power and control.
Now, some homos may object to the notion that homosexuality amounts to a negative extreme like obesity. Homos could argue that while there is nothing good to be said about obesity, there is much to be credited to homosexuality. For example, even though Orson Welles, Jean Renoir, and Sergio Leone were great film-directors, their success probably owed nothing to their considerable girths. There have been many successful fatty-fatkins, but it'd be quite a stretch to attribute their talents to their appetites. However, the same cannot be said of tooty-tookins. While most homos are hardly special in talent, there have been too many remarkable homos in the arts, design, fashion, music, and letters to dismiss the possibility of a link between homosexuality and certain kinds of creativity. And therein lies the difference between obesity and homosexuality. While some people have much bigger natural appetites than most people do — just like homos have a natural leaning to be fruity — the achievements of successful fatsos probably have nothing to do with their massive craving for More Food.
Thus, the (lack of)worth of obesity can be judged by its most obvious external manifestation. A fatso is fat, and that isn't good, and he should lose some weight. In contrast, there is MORE to homosexuality than its obviously grotesque and gross behavioral manifestation in the 'sexual' arena that involves fecal penetration and a generally nihilistic surrender to depravity. If such were the ONLY feature of homosexuality, we could dismiss it as a mere sexual deviance that leads to perverted behavior. But apparently, homosexuality has connections with certain brain functions and allows for nimbler use of fingertips. And this has led to homos making considerable contributions to the arts, letters, and design. Also, as homos are not burdened by family — even with 'gay marriage' as law of the land, most homos don't have children — , they can work 24/7, something impossible for men and women who seek to balance work and family. That means homos have created lots of things of great appeal to countless straight people and have been especially committed to tirelessly working as advisers and managers. And that means they've accumulated a great deal of cultural capital, social capital, connections with powerful people, and insider knowledge. Thus, there is more to being a tooty-tootkin than a fatty-fatkin. While, outwardly speaking, homosexuality does seem gross and grotesque to many/most honest normo-sexuals, there is no denying that there are facets and permutations of being 'gay' that have led to considerable and even crucial contributions to civilization and power.
In that light, we can understand why homos in the past felt so frustrated. They, as closeted fruits, made many contributions to society but hardly got the credit. So many normo-sexuals with disdain and hostility toward homosexuals were actually enjoying and/or benefiting from the fruits of talented homos. Also, most normos felt they were benefiting from the achievements of straight people since most homos remained in the closet and pretended to be straight. Homos felt like Cyrano de Bergerac. They made the poetry but the credit went to someone else. (Some even say 'Shakespeare' was a mere front for a genius homo playwright.) Therefore, unless homos came out of the closet and declared their talents, they would never get the credit and respect that they really deserved.
And yet, paradoxically enough, in our age when Homos have not only come out of the closet but out of the bedroom into the streets with their homo-stalinist banners, their creativity has mostly turned to trash. Perhaps, the formula for homo success wasn't simply innate homo talent but the social repression of homosexuality. In other words, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Consider what black self-indulgence did to black musical culture. In an earlier cultural climate, homos felt a need to mold and channel their natural narcissism and vanity in service of something broader and deeper than "I'm so gay and pretty." After all, what makes a great actress isn't simply beauty and/or acting chops but the willingness to subsume her own considerable ego into an empathetic portrayal of another character. Thus, even as she is indeed feeding her own ego as a star(or star-wanna-be), she is also restraining and remolding her own ego in service to a portrait of another person. After all, nothing would be more boring and insufferable than an actress whose entire shtick is "Look at me, I'm pretty, I can show off all kinds of emotions." Julianne Moore was just awful in MAGNOLIA with a look-at-me performance. When homos were closeted, it was unfair that they didn't get the credit they deserved, but their creativity was enriched, deepened, and even ennobled by serving something far greater than a narrow bandwidth of ego or group identity. In our time, homos seem to do little but use their creativity to fill TV shows & movies with endless(and often irrelevant or gratuitous) homo propaganda; or much of the energy seemed devoted to making yet more advertisements about how we should consume Oreo cookies and guzzle Sprite soda because they are so 'woke' with globo-homo hysteria. So, when homos can be openly creative, they are actually less creative, or at least less meaningfully creative.
Anyway, one thing is for sure. Even if there is more to homosexuality than sodomy and poon-to-poon-grinding, its most defining feature and characteristic are not good and cannot be good. There is absolutely nothing good about homo-fecal-penetration, which is gross, disease-prone, and disgusting. As for poon-to-poon-grinding, while not physically gross from a clinical angle, it makes zero sexual sense. To the extent that most normo-sexuals are not interested in arts & culture(in which closeted homos played a key role in the past) and have a more basic and elemental understanding of humanity, they have every reason to be psychologically and physically put off by homosexuality. After all, if you asked any guy, "How would you like to have someone stick his dick up your ass?", his natural, normal, and healthy response is going to be, "What the fuc* are you, some kind of a faggot?" Indeed, what do normo-sexual men fear most about ending up behind bars? There's a good chance that their bungs will be torn apart by Negro dongs. Of course, if Milo ends up behind bars, he will probably have the time of his life. Now, is it 'homophobic' for normo-sexual men to be so put off by thoughts of homo behavior? Of course not. It's a healthy, natural, normal, and rational reaction(and defensive mechanism) to something that is so obviously gross and grotesque. Humans are naturally empathetic — the ability to put oneself in another's shoes — , and when normo-sexual men try to imagine themselves as fruiters being rammed in the ass or ramming their dongs inside the poopchutes of other men, their immediate natural reaction is Ewwwwww and for good reason. So, let homos be 'gay' since they were born-that-way, and let normos be 'nay' in their naturally visceral dislike of homosexuality. There used to be such an understanding/compromise, but today, homos and trannies are encouraged to strut their stuff in the streets and even in the presence of young school-children, whereas even the slightest negativity expressed by normo-sexuals on the matter of homosexuality leads to rabid hysteria, witch-hunts, and mania to tar-and-feather the heretic who then must be burned at the stake for all to see to send the message loud-and-clear that we must all worship globo-homo as the proxy of Jewish Supremacist Power.
