Alex Jones would never characterize himself as a man of the Left. He wouldn’t necessarily call himself a rightist, but his politics clearly leans to the Right. He likes to see himself as a Libertarian Patriot who believes the greatest threat to mankind comes from Globalists with their monstrous fusion of Big Business and Big Government now widely known as the Deep State. Jones is much hated by the Anti-Trumpian ‘progressives’ but has had grudging admirers among certain Leftists and Liberals for his anti-government stance, especially during the Iraq War years. Not for nothing has his operation been centered in Austin, the most ‘progressive’ and bohemian city in Texas.

When Bush II embarked on the Iraq War, Jones was among the loudest opponents. (To the extent that the once hawkish Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson are now more likely to question the War State and warmongering, Jones and others like him were ahead of the curve and had a real impact on American political culture.) Just like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan found common ground in the 1990s in their opposition to globalism, ‘free trade’, and the financialization of the economy, Alex Jones has, over the years, made common cause with some on the True Left, even interviewing them on his program, not least because the so-called ‘liberal’ MSM will not touch such figures with a ten foot pole.

Of course, there’s the question of what is ‘leftist’. So much of what goes by the Leftist Brand bears little or no resemblance to the Classic Left of a bygone era when it was a Movement for Workers’ Rights led by disciplined cadres of intellectuals and commissars. Much of today’s ‘leftism’ is really the decadent and/or degenerate product of consumer-capitalism that, since the 1960s, raised successive generations on Pop Culture, hedonism, cult of youth, narcissism, vanity, and egotism. The logic of today’s ‘leftism’ goes like this: “Celebrities are cool because they are rich and flashy. They have all the goodies and all the love, so EVERYONE deserves that kind of love.” Many ‘leftists’ just want free stuff and are more about entitlements than basic rights and needs. Even the fat and ugly among these ‘leftists’ model themselves on famous celebrities and idols. Their view of humanity and ‘justice’ is like that of Chris Crocker.

Lena Dunham(who looks like Burt Young with a wig) was turned into a poster-child of this mentality. She is fat, ugly, and unremarkable in every way but apparently deserved to be famous and ‘sexy’. Despite a total lack of talent, she felt entitled to be a ‘star’ and was turned into one by a degenerate industry. Of course, her stardom didn’t last long as people soon tired of her fat ugly stupid self.

But the fact remains that so many millennials have only Pop Culture as their source of values, meaning, and inspiration, and they see the world through the prism of idols and celebrities. Even if they themselves cannot be stars, they feel entitled to being starlike(especially if they’re black or into gender-dysphoria) and even pressuring the ‘world’ to play along, like the with the silly pronouns.

Such sensibility is at the center of Homomania and the Tranny-Pronoun lunacy. On average, a homo is likely to be far more vain than any straight man, even any straight woman. Not only are homos high-strung with narcissism and vanity but their very mindset feeds into their fetid delusions. Excitable like Pee Wee Herman, they fizzle with joy. But joy over what? The fact that their ‘sexuality’ revolves around fecal penetration and buggering each other? Given what homosexuality entails(especially among men), it’s understandable why history has looked down on them as perverse and tainted, even sick in the head. This led to a neurotic contradiction in the homo mind.

On the one hand, they are naturally disposed to acting bubbly, whoopity, pee-wee-like, and euphoric. They love to feel ‘gay’, excited, and on top-of-the-world. They want to be loved and flattered. But, the fact is homos indulge in unsavory behavior of sticking penises into fecal holes of other men. Penises get smeared with fecal matter, and bungs get loose, even cancerous. Also, most homos are not attractive, and many are downright repulsive, like Barney Frank. Elton John once had musical talent, but he was one of the ugliest people in show business. Now, most ugly people just accept their ugliness. Burt Young never pretended to be Rudolph Valentino. But this was never easy for homos because of their excitable Pee-Wee-ish nature.

Whatever homos want, they just gotta have it. Michael Jackson pretended not to be a homo, but even if he wasn’t, he had a ‘gay’ mentality that favored fantasy over reality. If he wanted to look like a white woman, he did everything to look like a cross between Mickey Mouse and the young Elizabeth Taylor. Homos are both steely and fragile. Determined to realize their fantasies but sensitive to those who laugh at them. (Indeed, so much of ‘homophobia’ has more to do with derision and mockery than any fear of homos.) Of course, it’s natural to laugh at homos and trannies since they act so silly. Many homos are limp-wristed floozy-boys who talk with lisps. And most trannies make us laugh like the guys on MONTY PYTHON in women’s dresses.

Because homos wanted their joyous giggle of fancy narcissism made into reality but were met with derision, ridicule, and mocking laughter, they developed the irony of camp. Homos and trannies wanted to be admired and celebrated by the world, but they simply didn’t get the love. Worse, there was a time when homosexuality was criminal and/or seen as a mental disease.

So, what do you do when you want people to indulge your celebration-of-self but they just laugh at you? You take refuge in the sensibility of camp. That way, you pursue the fantasy of vanity and narcissism like a movie star while, as a defense mechanism, pretending to laugh at yourself along with the others who find your ‘gay’ shtick ridiculous.
Thus, the culture of camp provided homos and trannies with a playground to romp around and indulge the fantasy of being ‘hot stuff’. But it was padded with irony so that your ego wouldn’t be wounded so badly if your self-image was seen as a joke. In a world where attitude toward homos ranged from extreme hostility to tolerant ridicule, homos found camp most useful.

But despite the air of self-mockery and jest, the real dream of homos was to be like neo-aristocrats, fairies and angels, and demigods of fashion and style. Deep down inside, they didn’t want to laugh at themselves or be laughed at. They wanted to be adored and adulated…. like Michael Jackson in his Neverland.

A similar kind of mentality developed among blacks. In the white-dominated America of the now distant past, blacks weren’t taken very seriously. They were seen as, at best, sidekicks or natural clowns. Black music was caricatured by Minstrel Shows. Whites treated black culture this way because it was so different, so wild and crazy. But blacks couldn’t help being what they were and were making all these kind of rambunctious music and dance. As blackness wasn’t taken seriously, much of black culture had to develop a degree of self-irony and self-mockery. Since blackness was often met with revulsion or rejection, blacks couldn’t be thin-skinned about it. They acted as if they were laughing along with the white folks(and Jews) as if to say, “Yep, We Negroes shoooooo be craaaaazy”. Still, fun-crazy with market value. But of course, deep down inside, blacks wanted respect. But this wasn’t easy because the nature of black music has been wild, savage, and anti-civilizational, or oogity-boogity. And yet, its high energy and rhythm had appeal to white folks as well. So, for a while, the compromise between blacks and whites was a ‘campy’ kind of Negro-hood.

Thus, blackness would be enjoyed but as a kind of jive-ass act that couldn’t be taken too seriously. And since those were the terms of cultural commerce between blacks and whites, even blacks played along as it allowed them a leg-in the system. Perhaps, the most famous practitioner of this was Louis Armstrong. Undoubtedly talented as a Jazz performer, he also had to do some oogity-boogity stuff to keep both sides laughing if for different reasons.

Just as whites found black culture problematic but enjoyed its high energy, straight folks found homos ridiculous but found something of value in ‘gay’ sensibility. Since homos are naturally so vain & narcissistic and since most of them lack the beauty & grace that they crave, they’ve gone to great trouble to create the fantasy-of-perfection by decor. They design dresses, jewelry, hairstyles, and shoes.
Since homo men would look silly in them — people still have a hard time keeping a straight face when looking at most trannies — , they make these beautiful stuff for the idealized women of fashion.

As homos gained greater access to the rich & privileged and gained influence in key industries, they began to shed their Camp sensibility. Camp was useful when homos were at a moral and cultural disadvantage, when they were laughed at and mocked. Back then, when ‘gay culture’ was derided by everyone(even Liberals), homos needed a sense of humor, the ability to laugh at themselves, to cope and carry on. But deep down inside, they didn’t want to be laughed at. The emotional core of homo sensibility is queenie-meanie, bitchy, fancy-pants, and aristo… like the Tim Roth character in ROB ROY, a movie the homos picketed because it exposed too much about their true nature.

In their heart of hearts, homos wanted the world to adore them, love them, and shower them with praise as a superior breed. Then, it’s hardly surprising that once homos gained more and more power, they decried any joke about homos as ‘homophobic’, which really means ‘neo-aristophobic’. As members of the New Elites, the homos, without the slightest tinge of irony, came to associate what they do(which is fecal penetration) with ‘rainbow’ colors.

Homos even demanded that marriage be radically redefined to make-believe that what homos and trannies do — fecal penetration or penis-and-balls-cutting-to-get-fake-vagina — has equal value with normal people committing to one another to have real sex to produce real life. Just like Jews used Free Speech as a tool to ultimately destroy Free Speech, homos used the laughter(of camp) as a tool to finally create a culture where laughter at homos would be verboten.

When traditionalists and the ‘normatives’ held the upper-hand in culture and morality, Jews with radical will needed Free Speech protections to subvert America. But once Jews gained total power, they targeted the free speech of people they fear or don’t like.
Likewise, homos initially lowered the moral defenses of Americans(who found homosexuality to be gross or ridiculous) with the campy culture of self-mockery and laughter. It was as if homos were saying, “Look, we know we are ridiculous. We are just having some fun, and all we ask is a bit of tolerance.” But deep down inside, homos wanted to rule over everyone like princes over serfs. In PRODUCERS(at 40 sec of video below) by Mel Brooks, we laugh at the homos, but they take themselves so seriously.

So, even though homos lowered straight society’s cultural defensive posture by pretending to be just a bunch of deviant-sexual comedians(rather like the Marx Brothers), they were dead serious in gaining influence and power so that they could eventually dictate what we can and can’t laugh at.
Jews now control what can or can’t be said, and homos now decide what is funny and unfunny. Today, any funny or cutting remark about homos is ‘homophobic’. Even the factual observation that homo fecal penetration is gross and filthy will lead to firing and blacklisting. Worse, the alliance between megalomaniacal Jews and ultra-narcissistic homos is the most crucial in America. This is why so much of the Jewish-controlled globalism is about Globo-Homo Worship. In terms of Jewish Will to Power, the Marx Brothers were no less serious than Karl Marx.

Anyway, Alex Jones’ star didn’t rise in the way Rush Limbaugh’s did. Limbaugh played the populist and appealed to many American Conservatives with his plain talk. He courted controversy once in a while with comments about blacks-in-sports(hardly surprising in sports-obsessed USA) and the feminists(or ‘feminazis’, oh how clever of him). Overall, Limbaugh stuck to the Establishment Narrative. His manner could be outlandish, but he didn’t rock the boat of GOP Inc. He was for ‘free trade’, globalism, Wars for Israel, trust in American Institutions, and mockery for the radicals with roots in the 1960s. His positions were aligned with Wall Street and the War State, with Las Vegas and Big Corporations. He was all for Walmart(despite piling on the ‘Chicoms’ who made the Walmart business model feasible) and heaped praise on anything associated with capitalism and big money. (As for the so-called Liberals, big business is a problem ONLY IF it funds the conservatives or donates more to the GOP. If a business, one that the so-called ‘liberals’ profess to detest, goes ‘woke’, its supposed evils are soon swept under the rug. Notice how Walmart is lambasted far less than in the past as it’s adopted ‘woke’ policies.) For Limbaugh, whatever the military wanted was good. The US generals could do no wrong. Limbaugh was born in 1951, so he was a Core Boomer. In the radical year of 1968, he would have been 17 yrs old, his formative years.

Back then, it was the Left that most distrusted US institutions, questioned the US military, opposed the Vietnam War, regarded the FBI-CIA as monsters, hated the police, distrusted authority, and cooked up all sorts of theories about the hidden contours of power. And this wasn’t like the old Democratic vs Republican divide. 60s radicalism came to a head under and against Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. As the Vietnam War escalated under LJB, the New Left went after him and establishment Democrats. The riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago were about angry Leftists vs Establishment Liberals. Things had gotten especially heady because of the JFK assassination in 1963.
There was a lingering sense among many on the Left that maybe Kennedy had been killed to push Johnson into power. Also, the widespread use of drugs made the kids especially paranoid and ‘creative’ in their worldview.

Yet, the fact is there were tons of lies surrounding the Vietnam War. Also, the government and media had been colluding to tell lies about America’s role in the world. But as the war just got worse and worse, even the Media began to turn against the war. (This change of heart would be paralleled in the media’s initially euphoric endorsement of the Iraq Invasion that soon gave to disillusion and bitter antipathy toward the Bush regime… though not as hostile as during the Vietnam War. After all, if most Jews saw the Vietnam War as the arrogance of the WASP right-wing military elite, the Middle East involvement was really a Zionist baby.
While there were many idealistic leftists and antiwar activists during the Vietnam War and thereafter, the Jewish Liberals who gained political dominance always regarded issues of justice more as political weapons than as matters of principle, i.e. any particular issue of justice was to be appraised for its usefulness to the Jewish Power Agenda. Usually when these power-driven Jewish Liberals took up a cause of justice, the issue was selected for its maximum potential to expose, shame, discredit, and invalidate any group perceived as standing in the way of total Jewish Domination. Notice how all those Liberal Boomer Jews now in power no longer care about justice issues that they’d once professed: The dangers of big money & monopoly capitalism, criminality of the deep state, war-mongering of the military-industrial-complex, suppression of free speech, rich-getting-richer-poor-getting-poorer, erosion of the middle class, ethnic privilege as long as it’s Jewish uber goyim, etc. Why would they care when they got both the state and the industry as their toys to push their tribal agenda? Jewish Liberals are less ‘social justice warriors’ than ‘ethnic justice warriors’, i.e. they don’t care about justice for justice’s sake but for its instrumentality in boosting Jewish Power at the expense of all others.)

The Leftist opposition in the 60s often veered into deranged and stupid territory, but it did some good in raising serious questions about the nature of power in America. Even though the American Right tried to be patriotic in its support for troops and anti-communism, in retrospect there’s no denying that the Left was on firmer moral ground than the Right on the Vietnam War. It would have been much better for everyone if the US had never gotten involved in the first place(going way back to Dwight Eisenhower’s fatal mistake in dividing Vietnam into north and south).
On the other hand, the Left was overly zealous and naive about the nature of the conflict. Though North Vietnamese were indeed courageous patriots, their communist agenda for the entire nation would prove to be economically disastrous. As for the kind of ultra-Maoist leftism that took hold of Cambodia, that has to rank among the most horrific crimes of the 20th century.

While the Left had good reasons to be skeptical of the War State and other institutions of America, they were willfully naive and even stupid about Marxism-Leninism, even Maoism. As a skepticism of ideology than reason, the Left easily became useful idiots of the Other.
It was also a time when so many whites were besotted with blacks as icons of sacredness; this would later turn into the Magic Negro Myth. And this was also the time when American Indians came to be idealized by the Counterculture as organic children living in harmony with nature and smoking peyote to obtain wisdom. It was a time when Marx merged with Lennon. Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan were seen by many youths as poets and gurus, the spokesmen of their generation. So, even pleasant tripe like “All You Need Is Love” could become a global event.

Rush Limbaugh loved the Top 40 Rock Music and the materialism of the go-go years but pretty much mocked everything else about the 1960s. He opposed the Counterculture and the radicals. Even though the American Right has a long pedigree of being anti-Big-Government, it also stood firm in trust and devotion to certain elements of the state, especially the military and the intelligence services: Anything that had to do with rooting out domestic insurgency and foreign threats.

So, the American Right in the 1960s saw the US military and intelligence services as performing patriotic duties as defenders of the American interests, guarantors of American security, and agents of American security(while overlooking the fact that, apart from the military, they too were dominated by Democrats and Liberals).
For many on the Right, the Vietnam War wasn’t about the US as the neo-imperialist Big Bad Wolf destroying a poor Asian nation thousands of miles away. It was about the US at war with World Communism, with Vietnam as a mere proxy of evil Red China and the Soviet Union. It was noble to defend the good decent pro-American folks of South Vietnam, and it was deemed unpatriotic to ask too many questions. It was wrong to see US soldiers as anything but America’s finest sons. Americans never lost a war, as George C. Scott in PATTON said. (PATTON was a huge hit and Richard Nixon’s favorite movie. While the antiwar crowd were flocking to watch M*A*S*H, the conservatives preferred PATTON. Though one was about the Korean War and the other about WWII, both were relevant to what was happening then. Franklin Schaffner who directed PATTON would next direct NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDER, a story about a leader who is embroiled in scandals and brought down by the tragedy of war. Though Tsar Nicholas and Nixon couldn’t have been more different, the movie anticipated Nixon’s problems with war, radicalism, and scandals.)

Though mostly forgotten today, THE GREEN BERETS was a huge hit, and the song, “The Ballad of the Green Berets” was the second biggest hit of the year. That was what the American Right still clung to in the 1960s. To the Left, it seemed so old-fashioned, simpleminded, and trite. Unlike the Right that was derided by the Left as either crusty & stale or naive & trusting, the Left embraced all sorts of social experimentation and free expression. They were edgy, hip, and cool. But then, this very conceit blinded them to their own naivete that, in some ways, would prove to be even dumber and idiotic than the Red, White, and Blue mentality on the Right.

The hippie-types in Robert Altman’s NASHVILLE are, in their own way, just as silly and deluded as the Country Music patriarch who runs a Ross-Perot-like campaign. Back in 1969, Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper were regarded as cool in the EASY RIDER. But the film dated quickly, and Fonda and Hopper over-indulged in drugs. Hopper became insane and impossible to work with. Later, he got half-sober and took on roles as villains and crazies. Near the end of his life, he was something of a pro-Bush Republican, especially after 9/11(though some noted a rightward turn already with COLORS, attacked by some on the Left as a pro-cop movie). It’s too bad that just when Hopper chose American Patriotism, the president was the idiot George W. Bush who embroiled the US in the Iraq War on the advice of lowdown Zionist Neocons.

To most Liberals, Rush Limbaugh was just an Archie Bunker on the radio. With barroom wit and humor, he made ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, and ‘greed’ fun and cool, American as Apple Pie. While there were racial undertones to Limbaugh’s shtick — but then, what isn’t affected by race in American politics and culture? — , he never dealt with the issue head-on like Sam Francis would later do(and get fired like Jimmy the Greek). If anything, Limbaugh was careful to point to his sidekick being Bo Snerdly, a black guy. A case of HIGBF, or “Hey, I got black friends.”
And even though Limbaugh attacked feminists as extreme ‘feminazis’, he bought into the whole ‘equal opportunity’ ideal between men and women.

Limbaugh’s boorish antics remained only implicitly racy on controversial subjects because he had too much to lose. As part of Talk Radio, he was working for a major conglomerate, and his huge earnings owed to advertising. Limbaugh had to remain within the ‘mainstream’ as defined by the Dominant Narrative. Because he couldn’t honestly touch upon racial and sexual issues, the ‘raw meat’ he threw at his audience had to do with safe targets like ‘Chicoms’, Muslims(especially Iran), supporting Israel(as America’s closest ally), and symbolic issues like kids reciting the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’. He used to make fun of homosexuals, but once Homomania gained footing as the neo-religion of America, he increasingly muted himself on that.

Limbaugh’s thorny obsession with football illustrated the problem with his kind of Conservatism. Limbaugh pretended as if there is nothing really racial about the NFL. If there are lots of blacks, it’s all on the basis of may-the-best-man-win. So, it’s meritocracy and has nothing to do with race.

Football came to be regarded as American-as-hamburgers, the favorite sports of Conservatives. But since the 1960s, the game just got blacker every year as Jimmy the Greek once said. (Though Jimmy the Greek was wrong about the Mandingo-theory as to why blacks have an edge — it owes to 100,000 yrs of evolution than 200 yrs of slavery — , he was right about racial differences and got canned for what he said.) As much as white American Conservatives love football, the fact is most players are black, and they feel loathing and contempt for ‘white boys’. Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic, see Republicans as diehard ‘racists’, despise white men as slow and weak ‘white boys’, and are amused that all those cucky and ‘faggoty’ white boys are cheering black athletes for whupping white ass and humping tons of white pussy.

Black attitude toward whites is a combination of victim-cult and racial supremacism. Blacks cling to the Slavery Narrative that conveniently blames whitey for everything that is wrong with the black community. Also, it makes them feel noble as the Sacred Race that long suffered under White ‘Racism’. This aspect of black attitude paints blacks as noble strugglers against White Power.

But the other side of black attitude is one of sheer supremacism. Like Muhammad Ali said, he be the ‘greatest’. Whatever blacks may think in terms of ideology, they FEEL contempt for whites as the inferior race. As blacks judge the worth of everything on the basis of fist, dong, booty, rhythm, and funk, they are convinced that they are the most superior race since they can whup ass, got bigger dongs, bouncier booties, louder voices, and jungle boogie. Because blacks feel superior in being able to kick whitey’s ass, they think they should be dominant in everything. (It’s like in the USSR, Stalin was so revered that many young ones assumed he must be BEST at everything, even science and math.)

Of course, it’s fallacious to think, “Because I can kick his ass, I must also be smarter than him”, but blacks really think thus. Because they be so ‘badass’, they think they deserve to win in everything and get all surly when they don’t; soul train turns into sour train. When blacks say they are more ‘creative’, it means they are more expressive when it comes to oogity-boogity stuff. To a Negro, a rapper who yaps and makes apelike motions is more ‘creative’ than Beethoven or Wagner because “you can’t dance to that faggoty classical shit.” Still, given that kids of all races and nationalities have adopted rap as one of their favorite musical genres(if not the favorite), it’s understandable why blacks may feel uniquely special in possessing the power to conquer and commandeer the souls and bodies of all of humanity.

So, a kind of racial schizophrenia exists in the US. On the one hand, whites feel blacks as the sorry race that were enslaved, got lynched, and was called ‘nigger’. But they also worship the Negro as the superior race with more muscle, bigger dongs, bouncier booties, and louder voices. As for Negroes, they see white folks as representing this awesome White Power structure that is so tyrannical and shit. But when they see whites as individuals, they see ‘faggoty-ass white boys’ whose butts could easily be whupped. And if white boys can be whupped, it means white girls must come over to the Negro men as the superior jocks and studs, thus practicing ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.

Sadly, the true complexity about the race issue goes unacknowledged by both the American Left and the establishment American Right. The only allowed Narratives/Contexts have been (1) Blacks were so horribly oppressed and traumatized by Evil White ‘Racism’ that still lingers to this day in so many subtle forms that a colorblind society is not possible, at least for many decades or even centuries. It will take a long long time to undo the damage whites have done to blacks. So, we must forgive blacks for hating on whitey, and whites must not judge blacks like everyone else. Blacks deserve special recognition, love, affection, and support. This view is favored by the American Left. (2) While it’s true that blacks did get the short end of the stick in the past and all good Americans must share in the apology, things have improved so much in America. ‘Racism’ is a thing of the past, and most Americans of all colors are good people, and it is time for blacks to drop their resentments and excuses and feel goodwill towards whites who are filled with goodwill toward blacks. This is favored by the American Right.

As far as Limbaugh saw things, he loved football even though it’s filled with black thugs who hump tons of white women(and mostly sided with BLM), which proved he was not a ‘racist’. So, unlike ‘racist’ whites who discriminated against black athletes in the past, Limbaugh was all for blacks dominating football as meritocracy in action, the implication being, since sports have demonstrated that there is no ceiling for black success and fame, blacks should compete fairly in all endeavors and let the chips fall where they may on the basis of meritocracy.

But blacks never bought that argument. No matter how much Limbaugh and fellow white Republicans said, “We love the NFL even though it’s black-dominated, and you Negroes can even marry my daughter and hump my wife” and no matter how many times they invite rich black celebrities to their homes and festivities, blacks will continue to see White American Conservatives as ‘closet-racist’ wussy ‘faggoty-ass’ white boys with too much money and power they don’t deserve. White Conservatives don’t mind blacks beating whites in sports, but blacks do mind whites besting blacks in many fields.

As far as megalomaniacal blacks are concerned, there’s no way a race as awesome as themselves could miss out on blings in ANY FIELD unless it’s rigged in a ‘racist’ manner against blacks. How could a race that is so cool, creative, and badass not have the Midas Touch when it comes to everything?
Such megalomania feeds into black paranoia. Whenever blacks see a prize(bling) in any field, they feel THEY deserve it. ‘Gots to have me!’ It could even be an endeavor most blacks show no interest in, like nuclear physics. But when blacks hear of such a field, they be wondering, “Why ain’t a black guy da top dude with all da honors and shit?” It must be ‘racist’. It’s made worse because the Magic Negro Myth and the Cult of ‘Anti-Racism’ made so many whites want to believe the same thing. If blacks are divine Magic Negroes, they should be best at everything. Because Negroes be so holy, the reason for any black failure or underachievement must be intractable ‘white racism’, which needs to be rooted out with even greater effort so that there will be as many topnotch black high-tech whizzes as among whites, Jews, and Asians.

At any rate, people like Limbaugh have been indulging in a delusion. They’ve been trying to be colorblind with issues and matters that cannot be divorced from color. After all, even if it is true that black domination in the NFL and NBA is due to meritocracy, it is more about Color than Color-blindness. And if meritocracy favors blacks over all other races in sports, it must mean races are indeed different.
And that means black athletes will never respect their white fans. Blacks will feel alpha and see the cuckish white fans as beta. Their attitudes will range from amused condescension to outright contempt.

Since blacks see themselves as the alpha males in sports and school hierarchy(where they gamely kick white kids in the butt), they see no reason to regard whites on an equal footing, especially when so many white girls are deserting white boys and going with black boys. Human nature says that the alphas feel deserving of everything and expect servitude from the betas. Because blacks feel alpha in the areas that Americans are most obsessed with — sports, pop music, and sex culture — , they feel as the rightful rulers of America and that whites and other non-blacks exist to serve, honor, and celebrate blacks.

So, the fact that blacks aren’t #1 in finance, science, technology, and all else deeply angers blacks. Blacks want to believe in HIDDEN FIGURES myth that blacks are brimming with intellectual genius from head to toe but have been held back by white ‘racism’. Blacks want to believe in the Wakanda Myth that they are the smartest people on Earth and the ONLY reason why Africa is a mess is due to white ‘racism’, sheeeeeeeiiiiit.

When the only permissible Narratives is (1) blacks are holy because of special suffering, and we must do everything to help and honor the Negro and (2) “why can’t we get along?” on the basis of color-blind idealism, then it’s no wonder that so much of the racial discourse is so retarded. Even on the so-called Race-Realist Right, the discussion is mostly about I.Q. when, in fact, lower IQ among blacks should be the last of the worries facing the white race. It is black fist and black dongs that are doing the most harm as they whup and emasculate the white man into ‘white boy’ and then into wussy-ass cucky-wuck.

For those familiar with the 1970s TV show ALL IN THE FAMILY, the main attraction was the comic sparks between Archie Bunker and Michael Stivic, aka ‘Meathead’. Archie Bunker the bigot-patriot trusted authority and the American way, whereas Meathead was coldly cynical of the status quo and dreamy-eyed about what-should-be.
Yet, despite Archie’s faith in American Power, he was distrustful of the kind of people who ran the institutions. He was loyal to the symbolism of American Power while disdaining the know-it-all big-shots in the government, media, and other elite institutions.
In contrast, Meathead, while skeptical, even enraged, about the American Narrative and Patriotism, was deeply invested in the Liberal-dominated institutions of the actual day-to-day control of power. An English major and ‘intellectual’, Meathead believed in a transformed society dominated by the educated types. Bunker loved the idea of American Power but disliked the people who actually ran the system, whereas Meathead opposed American Power but was in tune with the people who ran the institutions.
Still, outwardly at least, Bunker was the patriot(albeit a bigoted one) who had faith in the American Way, whereas Meathead was the harsh critic of the American Past and Present, what with the eradication of Indians, the slavery, and the imperialist wars, like the one raging in Vietnam.

The odd thing about Alex Jones is the combination of Archie Bunker and Michael Stivic the Meathead. This is partly due to his roots in Texas, a state known for both arch-conservatism and maverick cowboy individualism. Texas has had many rightists with strong libertarian streak, and many leftists with something of the cow-punching spirit. In the 1960s and 1970s, the aspects of the left and right merged through a shared experience of Rock and Drugs. In DAZED AND CONFUSED, set in a high school in an Austin suburb in 1976, we see how everyone from a left-wing Jew to a right-wing good ole boy(and everyone in between) share in the culture of partying, drugs, and the cult of youth.

Despite the IDEOLOGICAL polarization as elsewhere in the country, there may have been less SOCIAL polarization. The diversity in Texas wasn’t like the one in New York. In Texas, whether you were a Republican or Democrat, there was a greater chance than in places like NY that you shared a common ethnicity with your ideological rivals. At the kin level, you could still connect with them. There was also the unifying theme of the cowboy myth, which even newcomers were quick to pick up, as with the Bush family.

In contrast, as least several decades ago, leftist Jews in NY might mostly hang with other leftist Jews while Italians, Irish, and others would stick with their own kind. Texas always had a large Mexican and black population, but Mexican power derives mainly from demographics. And with blacks, the politics has always been rather simple: Tribal than Ideological.

Because of the nature of Texas, the Liberal director Richard Linklater has exhibited certain libertarian, and even conservative, tendencies. The notable thing about DAZED AND CONFUSED is the shared sense of camaraderie, even for the loathsome a**hole played by Ben Affleck. It is a sensibility so at odds with that of, say, Woody Allen where the divisions among Jews, Italians, Wasps, intellectual class, working class, and etc. are so stark; for all the celebration of New York as a place of freedom and movement, there’s always an acute sense of borders, enclosure, and ceilings among groups separated by race, culture, intelligence, or class. It’s like a haute ghetto.

In contrast, despite the contentious array of characters in DAZED AND CONFUSED, there’s a sense of ease and rapport among them. Its central character is ‘Pink’ the school quarterback who is also something of an intellectual and nice guy. Clearly Linklater’s alter-ego, he easily moves in and out of any social group or niche. PC was slower to impact Texas not only because of its general conservatism but because its style has been about taking things ‘easy’ like a cowboy. The spirit of freedom and/or pride of power trumped commitment to ideology. It is then not surprising that Richard Linklater has been friends with Alex Jones despite their ideological divergence.

Linklater is generally easy-going whereas Jones is hyperbolic and intense, but both share in the attitude that one’s feelings count for more than any single idea. So, if Linklater feels okay with certain people, he can overlook the ideological differences. He’s not a purist and goes with empathy.
Similarly, despite his passion and rage, Jones has never been an ideologue. If anything, his anti-globalism is intensely anti-ideological. Jones’ world-view is that most people are good decent folks who thrive best with freedom, individuality, patriotism, and spirit of independence, i.e. no ideology can explain all the world and no power should rule all the world. In Jones’ mind, globalism, as controlled by mega-corporations, elite academia, Deep State, Wall Street, and Media conglomerates, seeks to impose a one-world government and mindset on all of us(as sheeple) to further the interests of the oligarchs, plutocrats, and ideologues who think they know best and want all the power.

Though Alex Jones has entertained conspiracy theories, they weren’t in the service of ideology. Jones has never been intellectual in quite that way. His main impulse has been to rebel against anyone or anything that seeks to gain power and domination over others by taking away people’s freedoms, undermining national sovereignty(to subordinate national power to some globalist entity controlled by plutocrats and well-funded think-tanks), and addicting the masses to all kinds of degeneracy and indulgences(which is rather funny because for someone who rants about the junk food, Jones is a fatso).

Jones charged into the media landscape with a left-right combination of Bunkerism and Meatheadism. Like Archie Bunker, he loves the symbols of Red, White, and Blue. His is a no-holds-barred kind of patriotism that bangs the drum loudly and pours gunpowder into the barrel.
But, there is another side to Alex Jones that has roots in 1960s leftism and radicalism. It is a deep-seated and even knee-jerk kind of skepticism and distrust of the Official Narrative. If the kind of people who raised the biggest doubts about the Kennedy assassination were once on the Left, such a mentality has become prominent on the Right, and Alex Jones played a role in this cultural shift.

Granted, there were elements of the ‘paranoid right’ in the 1950s and 1960s, but Mainstream Media and Respectable Conservatism(most prominently represented by William F. Buckley) worked together to push that kind of the Right to the fringes. But, just when the ‘extreme right’ was pushed to the margins, the rise of the ‘paranoid left’ wasn’t only tolerated but even encouraged and welcomed increasingly by the mainstream.
During the Cold War, it wasn’t unusual to come upon glowing or at least sympathetic accounts of Castro’s Cuba or Mao’s China. Also, the university increasingly came under the power of Jews who mostly identified with the Left. And the media, heavily controlled by Jews, were also sympathetic to the ‘paranoid left’.

So, even though Mainstream Media generally stuck with the Official Narrative on matters such as the Kennedy assassination, the ‘conspiracy theories’ from the Left were at least intermittently given a hearing and even favorable coverage(whereas any ‘conspiracy theory’ from the Right was suppressed).
From the perspective of the Jewish-dominated Media, Joe McCarthy was ‘rabid and virulent’ and ‘paranoid’ about communists-under-every-bed; he was responsible for the Red Scare. Thus, the danger posed by communists(many of them Jewish) in the 1940s and 1950s was swept under the rug of the Official Narrative. By blackening Joe McCarthy’s reputation and the Red Scare in general, the Jewish media overshadowed the reality of many Jews having spied for the Soviet Union and subverted American security.
With Joe McCarthy’s downfall(mainly due to his targeting the US military), a New Narrative arose about how the American Right had been hallucinating about the Red Menace. Especially because McCarthy looked rather repugnant, it was rather easy for the Left and the Media to turn his unseemly image into a villain straight out of central casting. In other words, Anti-Communism was nothing but a drunken paranoid fantasy in the minds of Joe McCarthy and all the suckers who fell for the bait.

But, the anti-McCarthy line was just another conspiracy theory, or a counter-conspiracy theory. If McCarthy’s ‘conspiracy theory’ said, “There were many more communists in hiding,” the counter-conspiracy theory said, “McCarthy and his enablers just made things up out of the thin air to scare the nation.”
Because Joe McCarthy was a one-trick pony, it was as easy to bring him down as it had been to build him up. He had one trick up his sleeve, and when he lost it, he too was lost.

This is where Alex Jones has been different. While there are certain parallels between the demagoguery of McCarthy and the wild-man antics of Jones, the latter has multiple tricks up his sleeve due to his lack of a clear ideology. Unlike most Talk Show Conservatives, Jones hasn’t been reliably on the side of the GOP against the Democrats. Though generally harder on the Democrats than the Republicans, Jones has been ranting at both parties as the enemies of the people. Jones got excited about Donald Trump for tearing up the GOP script and running a nationalist campaign as a champion of the people against globalism.

Prior to the arrival of Trump as a maverick candidate, the only politicians Jones felt any real affection for were Ron Paul the perennial loser and perhaps Rand Paul, who doesn’t always go by the Republican script. The difference between Ron Paul and Alex Jones is the former at least tries to be consistent and principled(and as factual as possible), whereas Jones lets his emotions run ahead of his mind and falls into contradictory statements and stances because his gut instinct is to embrace anyone or anything that is expediently anti-establishment at the moment.

So, it hasn’t been unusual for Jones to embrace as temporary allies even those on the Left if he finds common ground in their opposition to globalism and the elites. During the Bush Era, Jones made common cause with the Left in opposing the Iraq War and globalism that, back then, was associated with Wall Street and the War State that were regarded as staunchly ‘conservative’. Also, many ‘progressives’ were still under the impression that the FBI and CIA were right-wing organizations.

Video Link

So, why did so many ‘progressives’ change their tune when it came to corporations and US foreign policy? One was Globo-Homomania. Jews, via their media monopoly, buying up of politicians, and control of the academia, promoted Homo-mania among ‘progressives’ as the next big moral crusade, one that would break the back of the Christo-Fascist Right. Being shallow and soulless, they swallowed this Jewish Lie.
For many proggies, ‘gay marriage’ became their second coming of jesus. It became their holy of holies. They probably thought that the ‘gay’ cause would face opposition from greedy Big Business as well as from the Christian Right. But, as it turned out, the Big Corporations were the biggest sponsors and promoters of Homomania(along with the US Deep State and War State).

All of a sudden, it dawned on proggies that Big Capital was on their side in the so-called Culture War. Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, and Big Retail were all into Homomania. With ‘gay’ issues being so central to the proggies, the fact that Big Business were pro-homo went a long ways to change the Proggy’s view of capitalism. Even as they continued to half-heartedly mutter socialist cliches, they became enamored of Big Money for its lavish celebration of Homomania. And since New Capitalism = Globalism, the proggies no longer became so hostile to globalism, or Globo-Homo-ism. If capitalism is pro-homo, it must have been ‘saved’. And if capitalism is okay, then globalism is okay too for being fueled by capitalism. And ever since the US military became the globalist strong-arm of spreading Homomania, it became ‘cool’ too. Just like a communist would support a strong military for a communist state, the ‘woke’ will support anything that funds, defends, spreads, and goes to war for their holy themes.

In 1999 massive leftist riots targeted globalist-capitalist conferences in Seattle. Such protests, however, subsided as globalism came to be associated with proto-woke capitalism, which suggests these ‘leftists’ were vapid idiots whose notion of ‘radicalism’ simply meant hipness with fashions.
Capitalist oligarchs adopted the Cult of Diversity to make capitalism more appetizing to the proggies whose heads were drummed into chanting ‘Diversity is our strength’ over and over in schools and on TV. Oligarchs and top executives had no reason to oppose diversifying the work-force in favor of nonwhites. Besides, the uppermost tier would be less affected by Diversity, which would be for the small fish. For sure, Jews on Wall Street, in recruiting more Diversity, undermine the prospects of white goyim at mid-level and lower-level but keep the top slots for themselves.

Anyway, as corporations openly pushed Homomania and Diversity, they were no longer perceived as the enemy but as an asset. Also, if proggies had once seen US capitalism as the carrier of White Imperialism, the association of capitalism with Homomania and Diversity(and later BLM) rebranded US capitalism as the greatest force for ‘progress’. It became the main purveyor and preacher of Homomania and Diversity(of consumer units) to all the world.