The Unreality of Leftism — Leftist Underpinning of Western Progress — Goyim as NPC's in the Jewish Dream — Jewish Way vs the Greek Way — Surreal 'Logic' of the Current Dream

EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg

https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-interpretation-of-left-dreams/

Traditional Left Ideology sets out a vision of how the world ‘ought to be.’
...if the Left focuses on ‘what could be,’ the Right focuses on ‘what is.’ If the Left operates where people ‘could be,’ the Right operates where people ‘are’ or at least, where they believe themselves to be. The Right does not aim to change human social reality but rather to celebrate, and to even maximize it.

There's some truth to this but not quite. There's always been a Rousseau-ean aspect to the Left. As an Mexican elder says in THE WILD BUNCH, "We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us..." But the Left also developed as a movement of reality check. The modern left originated with the intention of waking history out of its slumber. The masses were trapped in the dream of the Divine Right of Kings, God & Heaven, and virtue of meekness. But in fact, kings and noblemen were merely human like everyone else. They weren't special or innately superior despite all the pomp and posturing. And was there proof of God & Heaven? Should the clergy have power and influence when their institution is based on a myth? And why should the people be meek and humble when the vain elites live in opulence and feel contempt for the unwashed(contrary to Christ's teachings)?
Much about the French Revolution was meant as a reality check on the state of things. It told the people that the regal monarch is just a man, like you or me. So, why should he be blindly revered and obeyed? And why should his heirs take power and hog privilege? By what right should they rule over the people? The Left also spilled the beans on religion and clergy. The rise of reason and science called for demonstrable proof, and there was no evidence to Biblical claims. Furthermore, even though the clergy preached the Christian message of meekness, many were corrupt status-seekers catering mostly to the rich and powerful. In ANY institution, it is usually the opportunistic, cunning, and shrewd than the honest, principled, and scrupulous who make it to the top.

So, the Left was trying to wake people up from the slumber of history dominated by kings, aristocracy, and the church. What did Napoleon mean when he said, "China is a sleeping giant. Let it sleep"? He meant it's better for China to remain 'rightist' and static than go 'leftist' and dynamic. It was conservative China that was asleep in its own Middle Kingdom conceits. So sure of itself and its civilizational values, it refused to wake up to the reality that the West had surpassed it in every measure of power and wealth. Before Western Imperialists ventured into China, there were obvious clues that China must fundamentally reorder society to remain a great power and deter foreign threats. But it kept on sleeping in its smug 'rightist' conservative dream of superiority and security. It was the introduction of Western Leftism that forced many young Chinese to wake up and smell the coffee(than the usual tea). It was this materialist perspective that urged them to break out of Confucian conceits(of the useless literati) & Taoist musings and accept the material dimensions of reality: Facts over Feng Shui. It's no wonder communism was appealing to so many young Chinese in the early 20th century. It spoke of history as hammers and nails than brush and ink.

Karl Marx argued the people should wake up to the truth of history. He called religion the opiate of the masses. He argued that the main engine of history is not Great Men, Spiritual Ideas, or Philosophy but the struggle for the control of material reality. Throughout history, the elites found clever ways to exploit the masses and hog most of the wealth EVEN THOUGH it was the masses who did the heavy-lifting. He regarded capitalism as both a liberating revolutionary force and an exploitative form of new oppression. Capitalism was liberating in that it was totally materialist, something it shared with socialism. It accepted matter as the true basis of power. Titles such as king or duke meant nothing to capitalism. Neither did God or spirituality. Capitalism was about property, investment, factories, and technology. It was about the buying and selling of materials and labor that turned raw material into manufactured goods. To facilitate investment and transfers of wealth, capitalism relied on ever more elaborate schemes of finance. Because capitalism focused on the material world and real results, it revolutionized technology and profoundly transformed the landscape, along with human relations based on production and distribution. However, because it was focused mainly on profit and finance(that managed and manipulated the profit), capitalism had two problems, one moral and the other economic. Capitalists didn't care how much the masses suffered as long as their own profits increased. Even though finance is supposed to serve the material economy, it could take on a life of its own and create a form of economics that defies material sense — today, Wall Street and globalist banks cook up ever more surreal ways to increase wealth. Jews as 'made men' with insider information grow ever richer and buy up everything.

So, in that sense, Marxism was to wake people up from the dream of kings & queens, myth & religion, and the 'virtues' promoted by the powerful to hoodwink the masses. It also warned that 'liberalism' and 'individualism' were smoke-and-mirrors used by the propertied class to justify their exploitation and wealth. Their real power owed to control of materials via capital, not abstract ideals about 'freedom'. Also, it was the freedom of power that mattered. Most people without power had useless freedom.
For the exploited masses, 'freedom' was meaningless because they lacked the material means to ensure their own interests. So, true freedom for the masses could only come by gaining control of the material means of production. Why did so many Russians join the Revolution? The horrors of World War I and its social impact woke them up to the realization that Tsar Nicholas wasn't some wise grand patriarch, the father of his people, but a half-wit, fool, and weakling. Nicholas, the biggest rightist force in Europe, had been asleep about reality and history. He thought the people would remain loyal to him no matter what because he regarded himself as the loving father of his people; he loved them and they loved him, or so he thought. What a rude awakening for him.

So, there was a side to leftism that was about waking up to reality and seeing the light. The Left grew out of the Enlightenment. Let there be light and let us look upon reality with a clear eye. Let us be critical of power than just obeying it. Let us ask questions than accept the old answers as sacrosanct.
But the Left had its own problems arising from arrogance, ignorance, ur-spirituality, and limitations of man. Some on the Left were so sure of their truth(supposedly based on science and reason) that they became intolerant of and even murderous to those who disagreed. Despite the conceit of true knowledge and reason, mankind can only know so much. An expert in one field knows nothing of other fields. And even experts often turn out to be wrong(or they cravenly cater to the Power). What was 'certain' in medicine a hundred yrs ago, or even fifty years ago, may be null and void today. And there is the 'spiritual' nature of man. Even those who claim to be totally rational and materialist(or secular) have a secret need to divide the world into the holy and the unholy. Consider the Holocaust, Globo-Homo, and the Magic Negro. Holocaust should be treated as a historical subject, but it's become a religion where one must not question the numerology of the sacred six million. 'Gay rights' became Gay Rites, a cult of sodomy as the wonder of the ages. Homos used to push their cause on secular grounds of individual rights. Now, they insist that religious institutions fly the 'gay' banner. And if anyone says homo fecal-penetration is gross, he or she must be purged, shamed, and blacklisted. It's the 'inqueersition'. Indeed, anyone critical of the homo lifestyle has no chance of making it in higher echelons of government or industry. Globo-Homo is the official faith of the Deep State and Big Capital. You better get on your knees, take it up the arse, and BELIEVE... or else be cast into the purgatory of demotion or unemployment. And consider the BLM nonsense. Most blacks are murdered by other blacks, and if anything, cops save a lot of black lives. But as blacks are now holy objects, ANY instance of a black thug killed by cops is an act of blasphemy or 'blaxphemy'. Michael Brown was a thug who got killed in Ferguson. He never said, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot", but that has become part of the Sacred Narrative among blacks and white progs. Why all such nonsense among people who claim to be rational, secular, and modern? Because human nature is 'spiritual', and that means even those who reject God and Church will find new icons, idols, and causes to worship. Notice how all these white progs kneel at the feet of MLK, Mandela, and Obama(and Oprah too). These people claim to be moral or righteous, but theirs is a form of fanta-morality, or morality based on fantasy. True morality must be based on reality. In the Current Year, there is so much moral outrage based on so little truth.

Of course, the choice of Jews, blacks, and homos as the holy trinity is largely the result of Jewish Supremacist control of media, academia, finance, and most whore politicians. Jews naturally promote themselves. Jews value homos as useful allies in turning Leftism from Mayday to Gayday. In the past, many Jews were of working class background or starving intellectuals. They were sincerely on the Left. Today, 50% of Jews make over $100,000 a year. Jews are the richest people on Earth. Jews want to keep the brand of 'leftism' and 'radicalism' but in service of wealth and privilege. So, why would Jews favor traditional leftism when something like communism would be devastating to Jews?
Indeed, even in the Soviet Union where many Jews had an auspicious start, they eventually lost out to non-Jews. Jews are arch-capitalists who cling to the 'leftist' brand because it acts as a shield — they grow ever richer through capitalism but are accused of being 'socialists' or 'communist' by the Idiot Right. When billionaires are lumped with 'communists', it works as moral cover for their wealth and privilege in the eyes of disgruntled 'progressives'. Look how Bernie Sanders runs as a 'socialist' and then urges all his herd to vote for Hillary or Biden(who serve super-rich Jews). Maybe Sanders was once a true socialist, but now, he's a Jewish Supremacist first and socialist second. There are commie-types among Antifa, but they are useful to Jewish Capitalists because Commie Thought says, "Greatest Evil is Nazism and Racism." So, as long as the Jewish Capitalist Media tells the 'commies' that there are 'white supremacist' and 'neo-Nazis' afoot, the dummy 'commies' are too busy attacking whites to ever get around to attacking capitalism and the oligarchy. (Traditional communism argued that capitalism, not fascism, is the biggest enemy because Fascism and National Socialism are merely fake-revolutionary movements used by capitalists to capture populist sentiments. In other words, fascism is merely iron boots capitalism. But most of today's commies are the product of pop culture. Their ideology is based more on TV shows, rap, and punk/grunge music than true understanding of the history of the Left. If German capitalists protected and funded the fascists to beat the communists, Jewish capitalists today use the 'commies' to beat down the 'nazis'.) Of course, US politics is pro-elitist on both sides of the aisle. The priority of both Democrats and Republicans is to prop up the elites in the 'center'. Democrats appeal to non-whites & white proggies for votes, and GOP appeals to whites & conservatives for votes. But once elected, politicians of both parties serve the oligarchs and grow fat themselves. Democrats are about suckering the 'leftist' masses to serve the rich and become rich, and Republicans are about suckering the 'rightist' masses to serve the rich and become rich. Donald Trump was hardly different but was loathed by both parties because his style and rhetoric accused the 'swamp' of hoodwinking and manipulating the masses.

If Leftist Ideology is based on 'what ought to be' than 'what is', could one argue that capitalism is leftist? Or that the West has been leftist even prior to the French Revolution, perhaps going back to the Renaissance? After all, capitalism has been about 'what ought to be'. It's been tireless in coming up with new and better ways of production, transportation, communication, and etc. Take the invention of flying machines. Most of humanity had given up on such dreams as impossible. Birds can fly, man cannot. But Western Man was not content with the reality that man is a terrestrial creature. He had to keep striving for 'what ought to be', and it was realized. So much that seemed impossible, ludicrous, or fantastical 100 yrs ago, let alone 200 yrs ago, have been realized. Back in the 1980s, only rich people had portable phones, which were cumbersome. Now, people have slick cell phones even in the slums of the Third World. When I was young, I didn't expect something like the internet to arrive suddenly and revolutionize the world.
The West advanced so much faster than the Rest because it got into the habit of pushing for 'what ought to be' than 'what is'. People during World War I were amazed by new technologies, but they were obsolete in a mere two and half decades in World War II. And who would have thought something like nuclear power was even possible? And yet it came to fruition because the West pushed for 'what ought to be'. Steve Jobs came to greatness in the second chapter of Apple by imagining 'what ought to be'. A declining company became the biggest in the world. Granted, 'what ought to be' is more sensible in science/technology than in social 'progress' as objective than subjective standards apply, but ever-competitive capitalism is always fixated on 'what ought to be' than merely 'what is'. So many companies operate on the basis that 'what is' now will be obsolete in the future when there will be products that come closer to how it 'ought to be'.

Leonardo Da Vinci made illustrations of flying machines. He failed to create one, but his mind was certainly in the mode of 'what ought to be', and this attitude did much to stimulate the West beyond the barriers of the 'possible'. And in time, so much that seemed impossible became possible. Leftism seems to share this spirit but in the field of social science. And in many areas, there have been key reforms and successes because of leftist pressure and visions of a better society. But then, this drive for more, the better, or the further emerged in the West prior to the rise of the Radical Left. Columbus had this spirit when he went on his voyage. Otto von Bismarck was a rightist-conservative but committed to creating a modern prosperous Germany with social services. And 'right-wing' autocrats of Asian nations after WWII were all invested in creating new orders; they embarked on tasks that seemed forbidding and impossible at the time.

Granted, even as both the 'right' and 'left' in the modern world keep pushing for new possibilities and improvements, it's generally true that the Right has a better sense of limits than the Left does. So, while rightists will adopt certain socialist policies, they don't believe in panaceas. They are less puritanical even though puritanism is usually associated with the Right, not least because modernity rebelled against the moral teachings of the Church, not least on sexual matters. But when it comes to holier-than-thou fulmination, the left is far more puritanical. The Right is judgmental and repressive but not concerned with uprooting all evils. It accepts the sinfulness and imperfection of the world. It's like Franco's Spain tolerated the Left as long as it didn't make trouble. In contrast, the Leftist order seeks to weed out all crime-think and seed the mind with correct ones. It's why George Orwell became so alarmed about the Left. And Jonathan Haidt finds the leftist mind to be more arrogant and intolerant in its outlook. It's not enough for the Left to control society; it must take possession of souls. Protestantism began as a proto-leftist puritanical challenge to the Catholic Church that seemed overly compromised with the reality of power and wealth. The current 'left' is deeply problematic in that it's radically perfectionist in its imperfectionism. It especially denounces Nazism as an evil obsessed with 'Aryan supremacist perfectionism' and urges all people to be more 'inclusive', or tolerant of differences. But then, it also insists that sodomy is some holy act and that trannies must be celebrated and lionized. And the 'body positive' movement doesn't merely say we should tolerate fat or ugly people but hail them as 'beautiful'. It is the narcissism of the ugly. The Imperfect is the 'New Perfect'. Also, it fetishizes blackness as a supremacist heroism that all races must idolize. Forget about the 'Aryan superman' but believe in the Afro-Aryan-superman who is so awesome that white men should cuck at his feet and offer up their daughters to. Arno Breker is out but Afro-Breker is in. Indeed, Leni Riefenstahl went from fetishizing Aryan supremacism to Afro-supremacism, which was noted by Susan Sontag.

The left vs right dichotomy is especially confused in the West because of Christianity. As the official faith of the West, it became a symbol of establishment and conservative values. But Jesus was a rebel-heretic-maverick Jew who pissed off Jewish Conservatives. And His message is eternally radical(though not a radical call to arms). All of Jewish History was about the children of men and women who, in turn, became fathers of sons and daughters. So, despite all the spiritual content, it was grounded in the reality of biology and history. In contrast, the Christo-myth says Jesus is the miraculous Son of God. Though born of Mary, she was only a vessel. And, He didn't have sex or get married and have kids. He lived the life of the Perfect Man and died and defeated death. This fantastical story and message are more suited to leftist than rightist thinking. Also, whereas Rightism tends to be particularist — our tribe, our culture, our people — and hierarchical, the universal and egalitarian thrust of Christianity is closer in spirit to Leftism, which is universalist.
But Christianity became the religion of the rich and powerful in the West. And the Enlightenment associated Christianity with kings, noblemen, corrupt clergy, superstition, reaction, and etc. But the meaning of Christianity never favored the rich and powerful. (One might say the development of the Roman Church was a betrayal of Christianity as it welded the pacifism of Christ with the militarism of the Romans. Furthermore, inspiration became an institution. Granted, all things need institutions to survive and propagate, but Catholicism turned worship of faith into worship of an institution. But, Christianity exists with or without the Catholic Church or any church for that matter. All one needs is the New Testament.) And there were many Christian progressives who believed the Faith must be on the side of the powerless than the powerful. Many Italians were both Marxist and Catholic. Still, one might say Christianity is conservative or rightist in its moral judgmentalism. It calls for social order in admonishing people to be sober, solemn, and pious. Leftism, in contrast, has a libertine streak. Many anarchists and early Marxists spoke of Free Love and other sexual experimentation. Some tried to fuse Marxism with Freudianism. And to that extent, Leftism was neo-paganist at odds with the moralism of Christianity. Ancient Greeks were certainly more libertine than the ancient Jews and Early Christians. But then, to the extent that the pagans were more cold-eyed about power and reality, they could be said to have been more 'rightist'. The Romans saw the world in realist terms of winners and losers. If your side won, they were winners; if they lost, they were losers. In contrast, Christianity said the material winners of this life could be spiritual losers in the afterlife. Paganism's no-nonsense view of power could be construed as 'rightist' in contrast to Christianity's abstract view of power as it 'ought to be': The meek and powerless in this world could be(as they ought to be) the powerful in the next life(while the rich and mighty in this world are doomed to burn in Hell for all eternity). Perversely, current 'leftists' have the puritanical mindset of hard-line Christianity and the puerile sensibility of paganism at its most degenerate. It's as if the characters in FELLINI SATYRICON got 'moralistic' in celebration of debauchery: "I'm holier than thou because I take my kids to Drag Queen story hour." It's as if we are living in a dream because strange things happen in dreams, and the Current Year is very strange indeed.

According to this perception, the dream is there to sustain the slumber against all odds.

But it's also because most people lack the power to dream, therefore they want to be part of the bigger dream. Perhaps, MLK's (I Have A)Dream. Dream in the literal sense is what we all do when we sleep. Dream-as-metaphor is what we inhabit in the real world. There is no such thing as absolute living-in-reality as our understanding of reality is subjectively shaped by our senses. When we walk down the street, we are often just barely aware of the surrounding so as not to trip over or get hit by a car. Otherwise, we hardly acknowledge or think about the reality before and around us. We don't think, "I'm walking on concrete sidewalk, this is a parking lot with those cars, that is a tree, that is a person with a grocery bag, that is a cat, etc." Instead, our minds process what holds most meaning for us. It could be about personal relationships, but it's often about things that interest, stimulate, and provoke us. And these are often narratives, stories, images, idols, and issues, not least because people with smart phones are always 'hooked' to their favorite 'channels'. These function as something far more than mere knowledge. When someone watches the umpteenth show about hapless innocent noble blacks terrorized by the KKK, one doesn't coolly think, "There was a time when certain white groups used violence against blacks in the South." Rather, those images linger in the mind as dreamlike ghosts. They haunt and lurk the soul. Thus, they function as dreams than mere knowledge. In this sense, we are all living in a dream, and mankind always has.

Among primitive folks, a shaman or storyteller who tells the tale or narrative infects the listeners with heroes, villains, images, and visions that take on a life of their own in the hearts and souls of the listeners. Thus, the listeners come to partly live in the dream of the storyteller. Why do Jews now want to clamp down on Free Speech? They want to control the Dream Machine. They want all of us to be characters in their Dream Play, just like every instrumentalist in an orchestra plays a socially subordinate role to the conductor who, in turn, is 'spiritually' subordinate to the composer. So, even though we all exist as individuals in the physical sense, our minds are often NPC-like in the Dream of another. Under Stalinism, so many Soviet citizens were NPC-like minions of Stalin's Dream of Power and Justice. Under Maoism, so many Chinese youths were NPC-like minions of Mao's grand dream. All those Germans under National Socialism fell under the spell of Adolf Hitler, a great orator who could pull people into his dream of Germany.

It may well be that conservative types are less dreamy than those on the left. This element could keep them closer to reality, but it could also mean that conservatives become more dependent on the dreams of others who have the power to dream. Why can't conservatives create their own Hollywood, their own dream-machine? Even as they complain about the Liberal/Leftist control of Hollywood and other dream-centers, they rely on the Other for visions and narratives. The fact that so many German conservatives and rightists threw caution to the winds and surrendered to Hitler's dream suggests that one's inability to dream doesn't necessarily lead to more reality or clarity but to reliance on the dream of others.
This may explain why American Conservatism sucks so bad. Without the power of dreams, it has adopted the dreams of the other side: 'Diversity Is Our Strength', 'MLK was awesome', 'Gay Marriage is a conservative value', 'Muh Israel', 'Women in the Military', and etc.

The problem with reality is it's difficult and inconvenient. The mind finds dreams more appealing than reality. This is why truth upsets so many people, especially if the Dream has elevated certain ideas or groups to holy status. So, honest talk about Jewish Power or black crime or homo degeneracy upsets people who've come under the spell of the Schlomo-Afro-Homo dream of Tri-Supremacist Holiness.
Granted, what is currently 'acceptable' depends on the nature of the Dominant Dream. At one time, even most Liberals believed that homosexuality was a mental sickness, even a disease. In either case, pro-homo or anti-homo, it wasn't merely cold knowledge about homos but a mythic vision of them as either darkly corrupting pathological villains(as they were portrayed in so many movies even up to the 1980s) or pure-as-snow angels of 'rainbow' wonderment.

We are living in the Jewish Dream. Even those who are cast as villains and deplorables in this Dream are part of the dream because they explain themselves in accordance to the dream logic. For instance, most 'conservatives' will say "I'm not racist" or "I'm not homophobic". They are morally defensive than morally autonomous. They accept the rule-book of the Dream that says 'racism is evil' and 'homophobia is wicked'. They don't ask why it's called 'racism' when Ism simply means belief. If Ism means belief, race + ism should mean belief in the reality of race. Of course, race is real because evolution is real, and different groups evolved separately. But even if we accept 'racism' to mean 'racial supremacism', isn't it obvious that Jews are supremacist because they demand the West favor Jews uber alles and Israel over Palestinians(and Muslims & Arabs in general)? For the sake of moral consistency, it is wrong for Jews to say that privileging whiteness is evil BUT favoring Jews is wonderful. However, such illogic can be 'logical' in a dream, a Jewish Dream, one in which Jews blame whites of 'racism' but practice 'racism' to the hilt for their own power and privilege. And yet, white conservatives who are demeaned as 'racists' by Jews go out of their way to prove they are NOT 'racist' by sucking up to Jews and praising Israel that is so blatantly 'racist' to Palestinians. It's like Jews say Donald Trump is Hitler but Trump goes out of his way to prove he's not 'racist' by totally supporting Zionist 'racism' against Palestinians and imperialism against Iran/Syria. So, even white conservatism operates within the hegemony of the Jewish Dream. It has no moral autonomy. It is essentially an NPC that plays according to Jewish Dream Logic that is illogical by any rules of moral consistency. How is it that Jews can denounce whites as Nazi but then ally with quasi-nazi types in Ukraine? How is it that Jews can condemn supremacism but demand governments to shut down BDS, a movement that calls for equal justice for Palestinians?
Or take 'homophobia'. Any conservative who says "I'm not a homophobe" is an NPC in a Jewish Dream because, by his denial, he accepts the reality of 'homophobia'. But Jews made up that bogus concept to imply that anyone who counters the globo-homo agenda or makes fun of homos is suffering from a psycho-pathology. In fact, 'homophobia' doesn't exist. While some people hate homosexuality or have strong antipathy to homo behavior, it is not a phobia which specifically means extreme fear and panicked response to something harmless. 'Homophobia' exists as an article of faith in the Jewish Dream.
In truth/reality, homos do indeed exist as some people are born homo, and this reality must be accepted, and social policy should be based on this fact. But it's also true that homo-fecal-penetration has no biological or moral worth, and it makes no sense to celebrate sodomy with 'rainbow' colors. And now, we are told there's 'transphobia' because many people still insist Bruce Jenner is a man and not a 'woman' or because they object to penis-and-balls-cutting as medical practice. What kind of sane medicine mutilates and removes perfectly healthy organs because some nut demands it? Also, if truth is a matter of subjectivity — "I'm a woman because I feel that I'm a woman even though I got penis and balls" — , what happens when such 'logic' is applied to race and other attributes? Is a dumb person a 'genius' because he says so? But maybe we are there already because so many mental midgets are now promoted as public intellectuals, especially if they're black or tranny. All such craziness are allowed because we live in The Dream that is Jewish. As Jews control the media, academia, deep state, and the megaphone, they get to weave The Dream. What they show on TV, teach in classes, print in papers, and allow on platforms come to determine the narrative, the myth, idols & icons, and the Current Year map of Good vs Evil. No wonder then that, even though Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom & Gomorrah and dump on white Christians all the time, most Evangelicals are always shouting "Muh Israel".

The world is like The Dream because most people lack the power to dream. So, they rely on the dream of others. Much of the film MULHOLLAND DR. takes place in the dream of a woman, but her dream unfolds according to the dream logic of Hollywood fantasy. So, even her own dream is part of a bigger dream, the myth of stardom and cult of celebrity. In TWIN PEAKS THE RETURN, David Lynch's character meets Monica Belluci in a dream who says, "We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives inside the dream. But who's the dreamer?"

Who is the dreamer of The Dream we are all part of? In that dream, we are mere phantoms because our 'thoughts' and 'actions' all follow the 'logic' and sub-will of the dreamer. We are free only like NPC are 'free'. Jewish Power is the Dreamer. All of us dream little dreams when we sleep but our waking life is part of The Dream of Jewish Power. In that dream, we are programmed to feel and behave in accordance to the 'rule'. In whose game are we effectively NPC's without true autonomy of thought, freedom, and liberty?
But then, is liberty an effective counter against The Dream? Libertarians tell us so, but what if most people are incapable of being free and independent? In that case, The Dream can be countered only by another Dream. It means history can never be about dream vs reality but dream vs dream. Reality is too harsh and dreary for most people. No wonder then that even fat ugly women go to hair-dressers and cling to the fantasy that they are attractive. Indeed, things have gotten worse. Well, if a man can be a 'woman', who says a fat ugly woman can't be a beauty? This anti-essentialist subjectivism all points to how dream-ism has infected so much of society. Such lunacy is intrinsic to The Dream pushed by Jewish Power. REQUIEM TO A DREAM. You may be nothing and have nothing, but YOU ARE SPECIAL because you're part of The Dream.

'Reality' and 'logic' in The Dream is as Jewish Power programs it. So, even though blacks are the main thugs and killers, we are led to chant BLM and cry for precious black lives being 'genocided' by white police. We prefer fanta-morality than real-morality. It's utterly absurd as a claim in the real world, but countless people who've been sucked into The Dream keep the faith. The Dream is so powerful and pervasive that all of us are, in one way or another, part of The Dream, if only because we must always remind ourselves and others that it isn't real. Thus, no one is really fully awake. Either you go along with The Dream or you're a lucid dreamer who knows you're in The Dream but can't really break out of it. As we are all social creatures, we can't help but be part of the prevailing order. So, if much of society is still in The Dream, we are also partly in it because we are part of society. It's like even anti-Hitlerians under National Socialism couldn't fully escape The Dream. It became too much of the life and culture.

The dream is sort of like a game, especially a con-game. Cons work because the con-man slips something with a distraction. Thus, the conned fail to see the reality of what is happening as he or she is fixated on what is shown. It's why the woman falls for the con in HOUSE OF GAMES. That the woman is 'too smart to be conned' is actually part of the con devised against her.
Dreams work in a similar way. We believe in the unbelievable in the dream — dead people alive in front of us and etc. — because the dream turns off the mechanism of verification and detection. Furthermore, the dream keeps streaming new 'information' to the mind that is too distracted to process anything for verification. While what happens in a dream isn't logical, there is a logic behind the process of the dream that keeps the dreamer hoodwinked. And even when a person becomes a lucid dreamer, he is in the dream.

What is true of a single mind is true of an entire society, especially when everyone is connected electronically. Electronic media are like collective neurons of society as a hive-mind. But who's the dreamer or game-creater? Who is the 'user' and who are the 'programs'?
People's minds are colonized by the electronic-neurons beamed by media, the Dream becomes their dream, and they become part of The Dream Empire or Dreampire as envisioned and programmed by Jews. So, even though Sigmund Freud failed as a scientist(as current psychology believes he was wrong about most things), his obsession with the power of dreams could have served as the blueprint of takeover of power. Marx was utopian but concentrated on the materialist reality. But all the talk of labor, production, and etc. got pretty dreary and boring to most people. Capitalism beat communism not only in the material sphere(of producing more) but in creating the Empire of Dreams, which Chris Hedges calls the Empire of Illusion. No wonder Jews were so eager to acquire Disney and then STAR WARS. Walt Disney and George Lucas had the power to create dreams.
Dream as metaphor for power is explored in EXISTENZ by David Cronenberg where goyim move inside a maze created by a Jew. Even as they identify the Dream-Maker and kill him, they're not sure if they're in reality or still in the Dream. Even the Anti-Dream could be part of the Dream. And such is true in our world. Even those opposed to Jewish Supremacism are marked by the 'logic' of The Dream. If you oppose Jews, you must be 'nazis', 'white supremacists', 'anti-semites', or etc. Of course, there are neo-nazi types who can't oppose Jewish Power without resorting to 'Muh Fuhrer', but this is because they lack the autonomous power to dream. Therefore, they must borrow the dream of Hitler to combat the Jewish Dream instead of creating a new and better Dream from scratch.

How do a people replace one Dream with another? A New Dream in which most people become figures in another Dream. They become NPC's in another people's game. US politicians, 'conservative' and 'liberal', are little more than NPC's in the Jewish Dream. One way to replace one Dream with another is by invasion. US defeated Japan, erased the myth of the sacred Emperor, and installed the new Dream of Japan as a peace-loving democracy, which, however, must take orders from the New Empire that invades and destroys other nations. (Incidentally, blaming Japanese Militarism for Japan's woes is disingenuous. After all, Japan embarked on its imperialist ventures BEFORE the military takeover and with the support & even encouragement of Western Imperialist powers. Furthermore, the leading imperialist powers in the world were all 'democratic': UK, France, and US. Also, most militarist governments were generally less imperialist, and more often than not, a nation turned to militarism as last recourse against foreign domination or total chaos. Franco and Pinochet were military leaders, but they didn't invade anyone, and they came to power to defend the order from International Communism, a form of ideological imperialism. But as the US-dominant Narrative governs the world, Japanese are to believe that they were saved from bad old militarism with defeat and democracy. Such is the power of the Dream.)

The Dream can be replaced by outright invasion. Still, invaders without a strong Dream may fall under the Dream of the vanquished. Mongols invaded China but fell under the spell of the Middle Kingdom Dream. The Romans, for all their military glory, were weak in the power of Dreams. So, they fell under the Dream of the Greeks and worshiped a fusion of Roman and Greek gods. Their art imitated Greek imagination. And later, Romans and the Greeks fell under the Dream of Christianity even though Christians had no means to conquer them militarily. They became figures in the Dream of Jesus and Paul, Jews rejected by Jews. Later, the Germanic barbarians invaded Rome, much like Mongols would invade China later, but as the barbarians were weak in the power of Dream, they too fell under the sway of Christo-Roman Template.

The Power of Dreams come in two forms. One where the Dream takes on a power all its own independent of its originator and the Other where the Dream is used by a people to control others. For example, all of the West fell under the power of the Greek Dream. Especially the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and 19th century archaeology prized Greek culture as the shining ideal. Still, it was the Greek Dream without Greek power as the Greeks had long declined and fallen. And Greeks were okay with this: The Greek Way conquering the human imagination around the world WITHOUT Greeks having power over the world.
In contrast, Jews felt differently. Via Christianity, there was the power of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power. Christians read the Sacred Texts of Jews, and Jewish spirituality and historiography had great impact on the West. But even as Europeans fell under the sway of the Jewish Dream(as Jesus, Disciples, and Paul were Jews steeped in Jewish tradition), they were independent of Jewish Power and even hostile to Jewish People. And Jews took umbrage at this. Perhaps, the relation between Jews and Christians would have been better IF Christianity didn't insist that Jews rejected the Messiah and murdered Him. But, there was bound to be hostility between Judaism and Christianity because Jews couldn't help but feel that Jesus and Paul laid the groundwork of smuggling the Jewish God to other peoples, the dirty gentiles. It was a violation of the Covenant, and therefore, Jews could only feel hatred for Jesus and the heretical Jews. As Jews were anti-Christian, Christianity could only develop as an anti-Jewish religion.

Anyway, if Greeks were resigned to the prestige of the Greek Dream being independent of Greek power(that was non-existent at any rate), Jews couldn't tolerate Jewishness as an abstraction for other peoples without the input of the Jews themselves. Jews felt that all who adopted the Jewish Way must come under Jewish Sway. As both Christianity and Islam have origins in Judaism, Jews must control the West and Near East. So, Muslim nations must be battered with Neocon militarism to teach them a lesson of who's the real Chosen of God. Because Islam is a proud militant religion, Jews know it's difficult to take over the Muslim Soul. But because Christianity is a religion of humility, guilt, and sin, Jews knew they could worm into the Christian Soul and re-code it for self-destruction. Alter the Christian Guilt Code toward feeling most ashamed of the Holocaust and Antisemitism(and 'racism' and 'homophobia') and then watch the dominos fall. As most Christians are craven, shallow, or stupid, their Sin Complex could be manipulated in algorithm. Do it like the guys in INCEPTION by Christopher Nolan. Enter the White Christian Dreamscape, locate and unlock the soul-safe Houdini-style, and alter the main object of worship from God and Jesus to Jew, Negro, and Homo. Replace Virgin Mary with Anne Frank. Replace God with bellowing Negro. Replace angels with homo fairies. Thus, Christianity became cucked and worthless, a mere NPC program in a Jewish Dream of Dominion.

Jewish Power seeks to Greek-ize the West. Just like the Greek Way became divorced from Greek Power(whereby even non-Greeks took Greek ideas and idols with no regard for actual Greeks), the Western Way is to be divorced from Western Folks. We are told that Western Civilization is an Idea. It's not a people and their land. It's an idea or ideal that can be adopted by anyone. So, the power of the West should be an abstraction. Even if whites lose their lands and become minorities in their own nations due to mass immigration-invasion, there is no need to worry as Western Civilization will remain powerful as a Dream for all of humanity. White people having power isn't what the West is about. All that matters is the propagation of the Western Idea. As long as the Idea lives on as the Dream for others, the West is still #1. And what is this Western Idea: A Universal commitment to liberty, individuality, rule of law, and property rights(and sucking up to Jews, blacks, and homos). So, even if white people were to vanish from the world, the West would be alive and well as long as people are into 'muh liberty' and property rights. Following this logic, Chinese need not worry if China vanishes as long as people enjoy Mooshoo Pork. Chinese culture still alive, you see.

But of course, Jews would never want this for themselves. If someone told Jews, "Hey, don't worry if Arabs or Muslims take over Israel and if you Jews vanish off the face of the Earth because the Jewish Idea will always be with us in the form of the Bible and the achievements of Jews such as Albert Einstein and Steven Spielberg." And even the Koran could be said to be partly Judaic since Muhammad was influenced by Jewish Texts. Now, would Jews be okay with a world of the Jewish Dream without Jewish Power(and People)? Of course not. Jews want to use their Dream as their hegemonic power over others. The Dream must never be independent of Jewish Power.
Jews weren't content with Gentiles adopting and worshiping the Jewish God. They wanted to gain control over those who adopted the universalized form of Yahweh. Indeed, Jews even wanted to take God back from those people. What is Globo-Homo Queertianity but a bait-and-switch Jews are pulling on the Christians? By making Christians worship the inanity of Sodomic Globo-Homo, Jews effectively turn Christianity into a junk-religion devoid of God. Of course, Jewish Rabbis pretend to go along with globo-homo, but it's just a ruse for the rubes. After all, the Talmud teaches the Jews to use all forms of deception to hoodwink and destroy the goyim. For Jews, a jealous people(like their God is jealous), Jewish Power must always command the Jewish Way. If Greeks are flattered that non-Greeks took the Greek Way and came to greatness(and even surpassed the Greeks), Jews are not happy about non-Jews having taken the Jewish Way and come to greatness. Deep down inside, Jews hate Christianity and Islam even as they take pride in the fact that all those hapless shallow goyim fell under the power of the Jewish Dream. For Jews, the respect for the Jewish Way must be accompanied by supremacy of Jewish Power. Jewish Way must not become independent of Jewish Power. Muslims must be hammered into submission by the Chosen People of Zion. Christians must be manipulated into changing their religion to suit the outlook and sensibilities of Jews. So, how dare the Russians not fly 'gay' flags in Orthodox Churches to appease the Jews... like the Catholics are finally on the verge of doing, what with the poop-pope Francis blessing 'gay marriages'.

White people have two paths: the Greek path or the Jewish path. Greek path says your civilization will live on as a great idea but minus the power(and even the survival) of the people who created it. Jewish path says your civilization must live on as an idea that is inseparable from the survival, security, and power of the people who created it. Jews believe that even though non-Jews can learn and take from Jewishness, the Jewish Way really belongs to the Jews who are its real owners. But Jews tell white people that the Western Way cannot in any way be claimed by white Europeans. It is to be a dream independent of the dreamer... so that it will succumb to The Dream Empire of the Jews.

BIDEN & BIG TECH'S FEAR & LOATHING OF HUNGARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAUST & FASCISM by Cultured Thug