In the execrable movie THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, the lambs being slaughtered weren’t silent but crying out in horror. The ‘silence’ in the title signifies the yearning for inner peace by the lead character, Clarice Starling(Jodie Foster), haunted since childhood by the cries of defenseless animals. In our time, there aren’t many Clarices at the elite levels in the West(and the Non-West as well). So many people’s lives have been destroyed as the result of the Wars for Israel(or Neocon ventures or Clean Break Strategy), but few seem troubled by the horrors among the elites in the US, UK, Canada, EU, Australia, and the satellites of the West, be they Asian, Arab, African, or Latin American.
Recently, there was Modi of India carousing with genocidal Netanyahu in Israel, pledging that his brand of Hindu Nationalism stands in solidarity with monstrous Zionism. Apparently, the moron doesn’t care about what the Western Empire once did to India. The goy elites of all these countries surely know about the death and destruction, especially beginning in the 1990s but speeding into overdrive in the 21st century, visited upon country after country, as the result of the Jewish domination of the West, the formula of which is Jews play cowboy and whites play horsey, but they’re hardly disturbed by the screams of the dying. (European ‘conscience’ has been to shut its eyes to the violence and mayhem visited on the Muslim world by Zio-US imperialism while opening its arms to the ‘refugees’ from war-torn countries, which is great for the Jews as they get to kill two birds with one stone, the Muslim world and the White world.)
At the grassroots level, there are growing voices of concern but insufficient to apply meaningful pressure on the elites into changing their ways of bowing down at the feet of Zion.

Video Link

Furthermore, given the utter debasement of modern culture, many young ones, elite and mass, are too mired in diversions and degeneracies to muster any will for a better understanding of world affairs, which should matter because they are tax-paying citizens of the world empire gone evil.
Consider. The most pressing ‘moral’ and ‘spiritual’ theme in the global-dominant West in the past 20 years has been the adoration of GloboHomo, celebration of sodomy, fetishization of the dildo(to the point where once respectable journals encourage women to ‘peg’ their male partners), and the sanctification of genital mutilation. (The very people who once expressed outrage over clitoris removal among certain African Muslims now vent their spleen over opposition to Tranny-Frankenstein or ‘Trankenstein’ medicine.) It’s either that or Negrolatry, the result of generations of conditioning of ‘white guilt’ via the Noble Negro myth, with MLK now the most venerated figure in US history(with second, third, and fourth all being black). Sympathy for the blacks given the American Experience is understandable, but the near-deification of the Negro body and soul has been downright obnoxious, culminating in the BLM riots of 2020 based on distorted reports surrounding George Floyd and utterly delusional panic about KKKops mowing down innocent black men across the US.
In a nutshell, Western ‘morality’ has revolved around the celebration of sodomy(and tranny genital mutilation & clown-pronouns) and the canonization of blacks as innately nobler and holier than other races, both resulting in cultural decay and social decrepitude.

Video Link

The one bright spot was the most unexpected moral Black Swan event of protests for Gaza that were genuinely conscientious and spontaneous(than color-revolutionized by the cynical Deep State) and worldwide. But, if innumerable ‘Clarices’ were to be found among the masses in many countries, haunted by the cries of the dying and wounded in Gaza, it nevertheless turned out there were precious few among the elites who were similarly perturbed or willing to do anything about it. (It’s no wonder that the pro-Palestinian protests fizzled. For all the grassroots activism, there was virtually no one at the top to translate the mass energy into political action. Indeed, Democrats preferred to lose the election to Donald Trump than lend an ear to pro-Palestinian voices, and as a result, the Trump regime and the GOP went even further than the Democrats in handing everything demanded by Jewish supremacists on a silver platter.)

The Deep State of the Jewish-controlled West and its non-white satrapies are either run by Hannibal Lecter or his fanboys. But surely, even Hannibal Lecter isn’t as sick as Netanyahu and other Jewish supremacist creeps. Lecter victimizes individuals to satiate his peccadilloes, whereas Netanyahu and his cohorts go after entire nations, partnered with Jewish supremacists in the US, e.g. Madeleine Albright with her infamous statement that it’s worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi children by starvation and denial of medicine.
In SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, Lecter is a supervillain, the kind you love to hate. Clearly psychopathic but also creative, witty, devious, and brilliant; because of his superior intelligence, the viewer is led into the Pop Nietzschean territory of the ubermensch who transcend the common morality of mediocrities and ‘losers’, which would be most of us. One part of the audience reviles him as a lunatic serial killer but another part admires him as a genius who makes and lives by his own rules and as such is freer than all of us.
In the movie, the idea is that this monster might be half-way redeemed by summoning his considerable skills(as psychologist) in the capture of a far cruder serial killer known as ‘Buffalo Bill’. In a way, Lecter’s choice to cooperate may not entirely be self-serving. An elitist by nature, he may well be offended by the crudity of Bill’s methods and the clownishness of his motives. It’s like a connoisseur and a slob both feed on the flesh of dead animals, but the former does it with finesse whereas the latter gulps it down like a swine. Hannibal considers himself an artist whereas ‘Bill’ goes about like a carnie.
Of course, the joke is really on law-abiding society as Lecter manipulates the privileges he is granted to break free and return to his old ways. And, with the even more execrable sequel HANNIBAL, Lecter was elevated to the status of a folk hero, with the audience laughing along while he dined on the brain parts of a federal officer.

Video Link

In a way, the progression of Lecterism uncannily parallels the progression of Jewish Power in the West. Surely, many white goyim noticed something a bit ‘extreme’, ‘pushy’, and ‘neurotic’ about the Jewish power-gamers, even suggestive of pathological and psychotic tendencies. But hey, they’re smart and made of money. Besides, there was the Holocaust Thing, so maybe a wise and tragic view of life undergirds their worldview. Then, by providing them with special privileges, they can do some good for the West, like Lecter solving the case of ‘Buffalo Bill’.

All religions, creeds, and ideologies are open to interpretation, and what goes for snowflakes goes for interpretations as well, i.e. no two are exactly alike. Every person has his/her own ‘take’ on what is holy, true, and/or just. This was certainly the case with communism, with Leninism deviating from Marxism, Stalinism deviating from Leninism, Maoism deviating from Stalinism, and so on, with each national government putting their unique stamp on a universal ideology. Catholicism gained supremacy by eradicating the Arian ‘heresy’, and Heaven knows Catholics and Protestants spilled a lot of blood until they settled for compromise lest both sides succumb to mutual destruction. Then, it’s hardly surprising that there has never been a single correct version of Christianity, even though just about every variation of Christianity has emphasized the primacy of Jesus Christ as the embodiment of its spiritual essence; however, the recent degeneration of Christianity into a cult of either sodomy-worship or Negrolatry could be deemed a fundamental deviation from or desecration of the core tenets of Christianity.

The two manifestations of Christianity addressed here are diametrically opposed in their perspective on the Jews within the larger framework of Judeo/Christian relations. Now, few things need to be clarified. By ‘Christianity’, it is the religion or mythology at stake here. As for the historical Jesus and who the real Apostles might have been, I have no idea. Some have speculated that Jesus was merely a Jewish reformer who had minor troubles with the Jewish authority and was killed by the Romans for reasons unrelated to Jewish affairs. Others believe He was a genuine revolutionary in spirituality and philosophy. Some highly educated people, like Steven Pinker, believe Jesus never existed and was made out of whole cloth from fragments of surrounding myths of the time. One thing for sure, Jews through the ages have cursed the name of Jesus, but one wonders if the animus was toward the historical Jesus or the myth spun around him by the Jewish heretics(who comprised the Early Christians) and the unholy goy converts.

Let the archaeologists debate the actual history surrounding the figure of Jesus and let the theologians pontificate on the details of dogma. Of interest here is how the story and the teachings of Jesus, along with the narratives and interpretations of them by the supposed Apostles, determined the overall direction of the emerging faith. Having failed to gain traction among the Jews themselves, Christianity obviously developed as a universal-conversionary religion reaching out to goyim.
Thus, it took shape as a religion moving AWAY from Jews, or more accurately a religion about ‘heretical’, ‘reformist’, or ‘enlightened’ Jews moving away from what seemed to them as an increasingly ossified, corrupt, and/or compromised faith. Given that the Early Christians were virtually all Jews, they had no need for a spiritual bridge with Jewishdom. If anything, they were convinced(according to Christian mythos and narrative) of the failure and betrayal of Judaism and of the need for a new covenant, one that would rejuvenate the spiritual vitality of what God had promised to the righteous. They increasingly sensed in Jewish culture and community the failure of prophecy due to either an excessively rigid immersion in dogma of unquestioned texts or a shamelessly cynical opportunism in relation to unholy pagans, prioritizing profit and worldly gain over spiritual matters. Given these convictions, Christianity evolved to settle accounts with both sets of Jews: The pigheaded arch-religious types closed to new prophecies and the materialist traitors who sold their souls and adopted pagan ways to grow rich under Roman hegemony.
Ultimately, having failed to make any real impact on the Jewish community itself, the Early Christians increasingly moved away from Judaism, with Apostle Paul finalizing the break with his concept of the New Covenant by way of Jesus Christ and accessible to all comers.

The notion of Judeo/Christian is contentious given the myriad ways one can interpret the relational dynamic between the two religions. Clearly, Christianity grew out of Judaism. In this sense, one can speak of a Judeo-to-Christian continuity. But, Christianity also emerged and developed as a break from and rebellion to Judaism, in which case it’s been a matter of Christian-against-Judean(and Judeo-against-Christian) dynamic.
After all, there’s no guarantee that the follower will respect and obey the antecedent. Much of Roman Civilization was a continuation of the Greek tradition, but the Romans also conquered and dominated the Greeks. The notion of ‘Anglo-American’ acknowledges America’s cultural and historical debt to English civilization, but the US also defined itself in revolutionary opposition to the British Empire, a matter only resolved through a long bloody war. The ancients surely understood this: The Olympians descended from the Titans but overthrew them just the same, hardly dwelling on ‘Titano-Olympian’ links.

Islam is inconceivable without Judaism and Christianity as its spiritual ancestors, and in this sense one might characterize Muslim civilization as Judeo-Christo-Islamic. But Islam also developed as a defiant reinterpretation of the Holy Texts, insisting that the final great prophet Muhammad corrected the record for all time. And Protestantism wouldn’t exist without Catholicism, but we don’t hear much about the Catholo-Protestant tradition because, to put in simply, Protestantism, as its name denotes, emerged in opposition to the failures and betrayals of the Catholic Church.
As for power politics in the US, it can broadly be described as Anglo-Judaean given that only two ethnic groups have held overwhelming dominance. From the inception of the republic to the late 20th century, Anglo-Americans held most of the cards, but then, Jews gained the upper hand as the Boomer generation remade the institutions and industries. Does this mean that the Anglo-to-Jewish transition of power has been smooth and appreciative? Actually, it’s been quite hostile and disruptive in many spheres of ideas, culture, and foreign policy. Jewish ruling elites, far from expressing gratitude to the Anglo-Americans who laid down and developed the foundations of American civilization, have done much to subvert, deconstruct, and invalidate American History. No matter how much white goy brownnosers may spin the nature of the Anglo-Judaean relations as warm and fuzzy, the Jewish usurpers see it as a done deal of the rightful master race(of Jews) deservedly ruling over inferior goyim whose primary purpose in life is to appease and obey the Jews. (And it’s no different in Great Britain where a similar power shift has taken place, with Anglo elites serving essentially as pliable dogs to their Jewish masters.)

Video Link

So, if ‘Anglo-Judaean’ doesn’t necessarily imply mutual respect and equal regard between the two groups, then the same goes for ‘Judeo-Christian’, and indeed, the Jewish-Christian relations through the ages have been contentious and troubled, no less than Christo-Islamic ones(or Catholo-Protestant ones).

It’s often been said that the woes facing the current West derive from the disasters beginning with the Great War, or World War I, which opened the floodgates to the communist takeover of Russia, followed by the rise of fascism in Italy and Germany, which led to World War II, the aftermath of which was the wasteful Cold War that drained the energies and resources of the two superpowers. Besides, during the interwar period there was the Great Depression, minus which World War II wouldn’t have happened, not least because the National Socialists rode to power on the coattails of the economic crisis and the American Military Industrial Complex was seen as the answer to the Great Depression. Undoubtedly, titanic events cast long shadows across the future landscape, and it isn’t rocket science to add up the great problems resulting from those disasters.
Indeed, entire tomes could be written about how the West(and the Rest) suffered from the crises resulting from the wars, economic downturns, radical movements or revolutions, and etc. throughout the 20th Century. World War I alone has been identified as the source for much that followed, not only World War II but the Great Depression, demographic decline, British imperial doom, and of course communism and fascism, neither of which had much chance of success but for the schisms caused by the war and/or its aftereffects.
Perhaps, the worst consequence of World War I was the decline of Pan-Germanic influence spanning from Russia across Central Europe to the United States that had welcomed a large and talented German population with outsized contributions to the country. The war made enemies of Germany and Russia, then of Germany and the United States. As a result, German politics turned radical and hostile, at once insular and aggressive, setting the grounds for World War II. Who knows what constructive role the German diaspora could have played if not for the Great War? It could have served as a balancing and mediating force between the two giants, the United States and Russia.

Still, the West survived the horrors of World War I, the Inter-War crises, and the madness of World War II. And despite the wastefulness of the Cold War, the West largely thrived during this period. And the communist world also made steady gains, at least until the late Sixties, no mean feat for Russia and Eastern European countries that had suffered unprecedented losses in men and material in the war against Nazi Germany.
Indeed, the true decline of the West began several decades after World War II, and the dire trends accelerated after the Cold War, which seems counter-intuitive given that the World was sold the narrative of ‘The End of History’(Francis Fukuyama’s pet theory), the dawning of a global golden age with the last negative vestige of the 20th century, communism, finally overcome.
The general narrative held that political mismanagement, aristocratic vanity, and imperial ambitions led to World War I. Then, radical politics led to communism and fascism. Capitalist excesses led to the Great Depression, made worse by the willful suppression of the German economy via the Versailles Treaty. Things came to a head in World War II, and the better guys beat the worse guys, but the problem was still unsettled because the real good guys, the Liberal Democratic Capitalist West, still had to contend with the totalitarian Communist East, maybe not as bad as the fascists but ‘evil’ just the same. And so, the Cold War commenced, and it finally came to a dramatic resolution with the collapse of the Soviet Union(and China’s transition from Marxism to markets). In other words, the end of the Cold War signaled the total triumph of the Liberal Democratic Capitalist West as not only the king-of-the-hill but the last-man-standing. The delusional dream of radicalism was shattered at long last as a dead-end destiny to totalitarian destitution. With the culmination of consensus on The Good and What-Works-Best, all of humanity would march together into a new era of unprecedented peace and prosperity, of liberty and the rule of law, from Moscow to Warsaw to Berlin to Paris to New York to Chicago to Los Angeles to Mexico City to Santiago to Tokyo to Shanghai to Istanbul.

Granted, the Neocons insisted that the End of History had one more obstacle to clear: Islamism, aka ‘Islamofascism’, of special significance because so much oil lay beneath of Arabs/Muslims. Thus, the true End of History necessitated a ‘democratization’ of the Middle East, and this set off another round of interventions, blowbacks, more wars, and more interventions. By some accounts, the project has cost north of one trillion dollars and worsened America’s global standing in the world. Others see success, with the US having expanded its foothold in the Middle East, with only Iran left as a major obstacle to the New World Order. So, while project of democratization may have failed, the hegemonic project actually succeeded, even if Libya and Syria remain a ruined mess.

Of course, people now wonder if the US acts in accordance to ‘The End of History’ principles or to the might-is-right rulebook of 19th century Western Imperialism. If the latter, the West’s ‘liberal democratic’ principles have been exposed as a sham to disguise its irrepressible imperial lust.
It now seems pretty clear that ‘spreading democracy’ or ‘fighting terror’ was just a pseudo ideological propaganda ruse cooked up by Zionists(and their goy cuck flunkies) who used the US(as the lone superpower) to destroy any Arab/Muslim rival to Zion. Indeed, if democratization and modernization were the true goals of the War on Terror, why were secular states usually targeted whereas the ultra-religious Wahabi ones(most closely tied with terrorist attacks, not least on 9/11) were either spared or recruited as allies? It’s likely that even the Jihadis involved in 9/11 were patsy-dupes led along by the nose by Zionic agents.

The What-If macro history of the 20th Century goes as follows: The turn of the century hailed the apotheosis of the West. The British Empire, French Empire, United States, Germany, and etc. were all at their height. The future seemed bright, fast-advancing but stable and orderly. Europe had managed to avoid major wars since the fall of Napoleon, a sure sign of civilizational progress. It also prevented something like the bloody French Revolution with a balance of conservatism and liberalism that maintained continuity but also allowed for reform.
And so, there was a century of peace.

History and justice hardly march in lockstep. The law of history has been rather like the law of the jungle. It makes no sense for a leopard to complain about its kill being taken by a pride of lions or pack of hyenas. All that matters in nature is what is bigger, tougher, meaner, or more lethal in some eccentric way(like venomous snakes and poisonous spiders).
Likewise, history has mostly been determined by power. The US took the Southwest territories from Mexico because it could, and that was that. American apologists may gloss over such past events with legalistic arguments — both parties eventually came to terms and signed on the dotted line and so on — , but the fact of the matter was the US wanted those territories and grabbed them because it could, and there wasn’t much Mexico could do about it. Today, the US threatens Venezuela.

Granted, over time, reputation has become an aspect of power. Just like gods conceptually evolved from nihilistic natural or cosmic super-beings that had to be appeased(with even the sacrificial blood of innocents) to moral deities guiding mankind on the righteous path to the promised land, there has been an evolution in political philosophy as well. It wouldn’t be wise for Great powers today to behave like the empires of old, be they Persian, Assyrian, Roman Empire, or Mongol.
Even long before the modern era, Christian and Islamic empires justified their conquests on grounds of divine mandate and the message of universal brotherhood and justice. Modern Western Imperialism justified itself in terms of bringing the word of God or the light of progress(especially following the Enlightenment) to the benighted peoples of the world. America’s global expansion was rationalized in terms of the defense of freedom/democracy and/or the spread of prosperity. And the Soviet Empire presented itself as anti-imperialist, supportive of the aspirations of humanity to be free of capitalist exploitation and American neo-imperialism.

Still, much of what has transpired in recent history owed to a simple metric: What has more power and what does it want? Besides, as political morality is often a matter of spin, it’s possible to generate moral panics and quasi-spiritual crusades, especially if your side has control over most of the global institutions and world media. Then, it’s hardly been surprising that the US persuaded the majority of Americans and most of its allies(or vassals or satellites) that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked, setting off a quasi-holy war for the West, one pitting the free and civilized forces of NATO against the evil, barbarous, and autocratic Russia, whose suspected grand design is to revive the Soviet Union and swallow up its former colonies and pawns, and maybe all of Europe as well just for the hell of it.
In truth, it was the Jewish supremacists in control of the US & EU who engineered the conflict for reasons of tribal domination, and they decided to do so simply because they could. In control of the Lone Superpower and its tools of power, the Tribe simply couldn’t resist employing them to further expand its wealth and influence fueled by a supremacist ideology of insatiable power-lust.

Besides, the so-called End of History has meant that (1) there is no other superpower to stand in the way and (2) the world is less ideological about geopolitics(as purportedly, the ‘liberal democratic’ side won, and there’s nothing more to discuss). Therefore, if the hegemon wants it, it takes it, as its prospective prey has no protector to appeal to, unlike during the Cold War when the Arab States, for example, could lean on the Soviet Union for aid and support.
And if the hegemon controls the global media and discourse, it could readily cook up any number of excuses — ‘war on terror’, ‘spreading democracy’, ‘defending liberty’, ‘human rights’, ‘national sovereignty’, and etc. — to justify any act of aggression. Of course, the practice is cynically selective, as the ‘Collective West’ have been working hand-in-glove with terrorists to destabilize and destroy Syria. And it looks the other way when Zelensky the Jewish gangster-comic shuts down opposition parties and rules past the expiration date of electoral legitimacy. And the autocratic oil-and-gas rich states of Saudi Arabia and UAE are well-protected-and-rewarded as reliable servants of the Jewish-run West.

The globalist empire has had it even easier with the fusion of the Neo-Liberal ‘left’ with the Deep State, akin to the fusion of the Church and Imperial Rome whereby the spirituality of resistance was reshaped into the spirituality of power. With the (d)evolution of the Western Left into an elitist Globo-Homo club centered on Jew-Worship(and the ‘gods’ favored by the Jews, such as Negrolatry and Anno Sodomini), the so-called ‘progressive’ community has largely learned to stop worrying and love the Deep State and its neo-imperialist ventures.
Why not, given that one of the main themes of US-EU power is the spread of sodomy celebration and catechisms such as ‘trans women are real women’(chanted over and over and over)? It’s no wonder that the Imperial Deep State much preferred Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Obama, as ‘The One’, conveyed the illusion of the US as the land of ‘hope and change’, urbanity and sophistication, ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. And Hillary could be sold as the first female president, one with top-notch elite credentials. (While ‘progressive’ types take umbrage at the ‘elitist’ label, they sure love to brandish their elite credentials. In their minds, ‘elitist’ and ‘elite’ are very different things. Apparently, they attend the most selective schools not to gain power and privilege but to do service to humanity, LOL.)
In contrast, George W. Bush came across as a low-IQ cowboy galloping across Iraq mistaken for Injun territory, and Donald Trump exuded the essence of Ugly Americanism. Despite the huge spat between Trump’s MAGA and the Bush dynasty in 2016, both were embarrassments to the globalist elites.
As it turned out, many ‘progressives’ cared more about branding than the product. When Bush II policies were repackaged under Obama, the very ‘progressives’ who’d been howling about Evil Bushism were either supportive or muted in their criticism. Also, the very ‘progressives’ who’d either been supportive of or insufficiently critical of the ‘racist’ law-and-order policies under Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg(that had done much to reduce crime in NY and other cities to the benefit of white/Jewish/Asian urbanites, hipsters, and professionals) were suddenly up in arms in 2020 over the death of George Floyd, laying the whole blame on MAGA America as ground zero of ‘systemic racism’ enabling the mass murder of innocent blacks by KKKops.

Video Link

Most in the dissident sphere hardly paid attention to Charlie Kirk but for the fact that his TPUSA organization was an object of mockery(usually by the so-called Groypers around Nicholas Fuentes). Kirk came across as manufactured, typical shabbos goy, reliable shill for Zion, or an outreach con-artist for the youth vote working in cahoots with Conservative Inc. In Rock culture, there are self-made artists and industry-made idols. Politics is no different, and Kirk was clearly an idol, like the Teen Idols of the early 1960s. Within that context, Kirk could hardly be considered a dissident, maverick, or alternative figure on the Right.
Yet, he wasn’t entirely an Establishmentarian either, given that part of his appeal owed to a youthful spirit at odds with the moribund GOP that has yet to digest the MAGA phenomenon, which too has been marked by ambiguity given the multi-faceted and contradictory nature of Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016.

Now, it’s questionable if the notion of the Establishment Right or Conservative Establishment is even valid anymore. In order for any organization, agenda, or movement to claim establishment credentials, it has to have a dominant or at least competitive positioning in the most powerful institutions and industries, but it hasn’t been the case for American Conservatives as long as anyone can remember.
The media, academia, legal institutions, cultural industries, federal agencies & departments, urban centers, and etc. have all been utterly dominated by Democrats. Even the military and the church, traditionally bastions of rightism, have largely gone ‘woke’. It’s been said immigrant groups arrive with generally conservative values, but their children soon take notice that success, power, privilege, and prestige are all synonymous with the Democrats, whereas the Republicans are saddled with the ‘sinful’ legacies of the US(and ‘loser’ or ‘white trash’ working class).

Video Link

Social and ideological trends haven’t been favorable to the Republicans for a long spell, but at least the Conservatives, especially during the Cold War, had the business class by promising higher profits via lower taxes, ‘free trade’, and de-regulation. But then, the Cold War ended, and anti-communism became a dead horse, with global capital taking over everything. The global rich no longer needed the anti-communist political parties to fend off the threat of radical socialism.
And Clintonite Democrats dumped big labor and won over the business class that, over the years, came to contribute more to the Democrats than to the Republicans. The GOP could once boast, “We don’t have the institutions, but we still have the industries.” It used to be Republicans and Big Business vs. Democrats and Big Government. But when the biggest industries went with the Democrats, who also had the institutions, the Republicans looked lost and stupid, made worse by the tongue-tied brand buster George W. Bush and the Neocon cretins around him. It was telling that Karl Rove’s strategy was to dig deeper into the Base, an admission that the Republicans were hopeless at winning over new converts, especially among the young.

Of course, Republicans could still rely on the support of at least half of the American electorate and thus could fill up sufficient numbers of seats in Congress and state houses to matter in the sports of politics. But when it came to elite establishment power, they were toast, utterly without prestige. They totally lost out in academia. They hardly had any representation in urban centers where wealth and influence were concentrated(as Albert Brooks’ character realizes in LOST IN AMERICA). Even patriotic military men couldn’t do anything about the homos prancing around as officers, Pentagon waging wars to promote sodomy, top brass taking it up the arse from Israelis, and campaigns promoting jungle fever & trannies. And just about every other church in the US came to display ‘gay rainbow’ banners. They say Israel is ‘the gayest country on Earth’, which means Zionism has effectively morphed into Sodomism, which further means so-called Christian Zionism is really Christian Sodomism. (Israelis sure love to anal-rape their Palestinian prisoners. All for the gods of Sodom.)

Video Link

Given the grim reality, the ONLY qualification for Republicans to have a seat at the Establishment Table came by the way of Israel Firsterism. After all, the biggest power in the US wasn’t Democratic but Jewish, or Jewish-Zionist-Supremacist. Even though the great majority of Jews were Democratic, the reasons were tribal & ethnic instead of ideological & principled. If most powerful Jews had to choose between progressive/liberal principles and Jewish Power, they’d always opt for the latter.
As the cucked and wussy Republicans lost the Culture War on just about every issue, their only remaining admittance to the Establishment Table came by way of total obeisance to Zion.
Even though the Democratic Party Establishment was reliably pro-Zionist, Jews figured it’s always better to have boot-lickers on both sides. Besides, rich and powerful Jews could always threaten the Democrats with less funding in favor of the GOP as long as the Republicans had a place at the table.
Politicians crave prestige and privilege; they want to be part of the Club. Given that the Democrats totally dominate so much of the Establishment, it’s understandable why the Republicans are so desperate to cling to Israel-Firsterism as their last remaining lifeline to the Club.

Trump, the chieftain of the MAGA movement, made noises to the contrary in 2016, threatening to drain the Swamp and expose the Neocons, but Jewish Power so thoroughly thrashed his arse and donged his bung that he got the message in no uncertain terms that, in order for him to survive the lawfare and regain the presidency, he would have to bend over for ass-ramming by Netanyahu all day and all night.
Thus, his re-election had nothing to do with patriotism or principles and everything to do with assuaging his fat wounded ego; Jews would at least grant him that if he served them like a dog. He would get his revenge of sorts to the consternation of those who loathe him at the personal level, but he would totally deliver on Jewish demands, rather ironic since his main tormentors have been the Jews, not least the Neocons in the GOP.
Imagine Jews doing everything to destroy you and bury you alive, but you climb out from the grave to show that you’re still alive and unbeaten, only to take your revenge on everyone and everything but the very Jews who hit you over the head and buried you alive. Can politics get any more demented and pathetic than this? Well, that’s Trump whose idea of acting tough and getting even is to throw his weight around against the enemies of the very people who did most to hurt his reputation and fortune. Maybe there’s a Book of Job dynamic in all this. Just like Job remained faithful to God who tormented him to no end, white goyim are expected to take all the slings and arrows from the Jews as the god-race.