The Downfall of the GOP Brand. Why?

There's been much talk of the GOP being the party of 'old white men'--though majority of white women voted for Romney, but MSM is committed to feminist spin--and how it lost the 2012 election by failing to win over the Hispanic or brown vote. While the Hispanic vote may be a time-bomb for the GOP--if current demographic trends continue--, the brown vote was not decisive in the 2012 election. Romney lost because he failed to win over sufficient number of white voters, especially in the Northern states. Also, the huge swing among Asian-Americans toward Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections undermines the MSM narrative that GOP loses elections because if it favors privilege. Asian-Americans are more 'privileged' than most white gentiles in education and jobs. If the GOP is the party of wealth, privilege, and success, the majority of Asian-Americans(and Jewish-Americans) should have voted for the GOP.

So, why did the GOP fail among so many voters who should be its constituents according to the MSM narrative? Before we delve into that, consider what had long been the winning themes of the GOP.
Republican's pro-business position used to win over the superrich and the affluent. Republican's theme of patriotism used to work well among blue collar whites. Republican theme of suburban middle class values and solid small town values used to win over the white middle class. Republican theme of the Great White Man and the American Dream won it respect among aspiring immigrants who wanted to melt into the world of the Great White Man. There was also the issue of crime, mostly black crime.

The end of the Cold War meant the loss of the patriotic theme for Republicans. Though 9/11 and 'Muslim Terrorism' trope worked for awhile for the GOP, Bush loused up the War on Terror as badly as Johnson messed up Vietnam. Also, as time passed, even the staunchest conservative Americans began to wonder if the Muslim Threat was all that it was cooked up to be. And if indeed there was a Clash of Civilizations, why did Bush say Islam is a religion of peace, and only a handful of radical Muslims are causing all the trouble? On foreign policy, many conservatives came to prefer Ron Paul's 'isolationism' to Bush's 'interventionism', and when Romney the chickenhawk rattled his saber about more wars, it turned a lot of white blue collar people off--as many have friends and relatives whose sons died or were crippled in the seemingly senseless War on Terror; especially for Ron Paul Republicans, such saber-rattling means 'kissing Zionist ass'.
In the late 70s and early 80s, many blue collar whites did vote for Reagan out of patriotic reasons. They never forgot how liberals 'stabbed the American military in the back' in the Vietnam War, and they were shocked by how nation after nation fell to communism around the world following the fall of Saigon: Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. And Carter seemed especially pathetic with the Iran Hostage Crisis. And of course, there was the problem of inflation.
But that was then, this is now. There really isn't any patriotic issue to get all worked up about. There is the theme of Obama the mulatto globalist puppet of International Jews, but as mainstream media and the GOP are dominated by Jews, it's impossible for the GOP to go into 'racist' and 'antisemitic' mode. GOP can foam at the mouth about 'Russkies', 'Muzzies', 'Chinks', and Hugo Chavez, but it cannot call out on domestic enemies at home. Indeed, the liberal Jewish media, through their control of news and Hollywood movies, have encouraged white conservatives to channel their bottled-up rage at foreign 'enemies'. So, if whites are angry about black crime, they must keep mum on the issue and channel their rage by fuming about all those Muslim Terrorists killing 'white Jews' in Israel. Thus, 'muzzies' serve as surrogate blacks in the white conservative mind. Whites must project their domestic frustrations on foreign targets(and Jews encourage this since without such outlets for white rage, it may eventually come around to fixing on the real enemy of whites: the Jews. Why have liberal Jews in Hollywood made anti-Muslim movies like TAKEN? Why is liberal Jewish Hollywood remaking RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn?). Whites cannot discuss Jewish power, and so their suppressed rage is diverted at Global Terrorist Muslims, International Hindus, and International Chinese--away from the International Jew. Even so, there's nothing like the Evil Empire(of the Cold War) or Imperial Japan(of WWII) anymore to rile up the white American blue collar patriots.

GOP also used to have a winning formula in appealing to suburban voters. This was especially useful in the 60s and 70s when White Flight from black urban blight and crime reached its peak. Back then, white fear of black crime was fresh on many white suburbanites. But since then, successive generations of whites have grown in the safe suburbs, and they don't feel this fear of blacks. And their parents didn't say much about white flight since it sounds 'racist'. And suburban schools, no less than urban schools, are filled with politically correct propaganda. And white kids enjoy black culture from a safe distance: rap music, sports, and even interracist porn with the explosion of the internet.
At one time, white suburbs were seen as a refuge from black crime. Today, many white suburbanites just see the suburbs as an extension of gentrifying downtown areas of big cities. Many white suburbs have been yuppified and SWPL-ized, what their Starbucks cafes and other cosmopolitanisms.
Suburbs used to model themselves on small towns; indeed they were like small towns surrounding the big city. Today, most wealthy suburbs model themselves on downtown gentrified living. They have become far more liberalized. This SWPL-ization of the suburbs needs further research and looking into. (Of course, the fact that many affluent white suburbanites were indoctrinated in politically correct colleges also account for the big shift. In a way, conservatism is a victim of its own success, i.e. many successful white conservative sent their kids to good colleges, and those colleges turned their kids into supporters of 'gay marriage' and 'diversity'. Also, since conservatism favors respect for authority, conservatively raised children may paradoxically be more receptive to authority figures in higher education. This is surely the case among Asians: they are from an authoritarian/conservative tradition/culture, but their emphasis on respect for authority makes them perfect teacher's pets of political correctness.)
GOP used to have the Cold War to win over many patriotic blue collar white Americans and the Crime War to win over many white suburban voters. But especially when Clinton adopted harsh anti-crime policies and threw a whole bunch of blacks into the slammer--and drastically reduced crime rates--, the Crime War became less of an issue for many white suburbanites. Again, conservatives were the victim of their own success. They lost the suburbs partly because Clinton the New Democrat adopted many conservative policies.

Conservatives also used to have the economic war and culture war card. Economic War won over the superrich. When top tax rates used to be over 70%, many rich folks went with GOP for the simple reason of not wanting to be bled dry  by the government. But once Reagan reduced tax rates and New Democrats more or less accepted the bargain--along with 'free trade' and financial deregulation--, there was less urgency for the rich to side with the GOP. After all, the rich are vain and narcissistic, and it's much more fun to culturally hang around 'creative', 'innovative', and 'expressive' liberals than with 'square' 'whitebread' conservatives.  Again, the GOP was a victim of its own success.

And then, there was the Culture War which pitted decent Americans against the freaks and decadents. This used to win over many middle class people to the GOP, especially when freaks and radicals of all kinds went crazy in the late 60s  and 70s. But consider the sudden shift in the style of the radicals and freaks. Gays used to act really freako and turn off many people. But the new gay style is very conservative, respectable, and more 'middle class than middle class'. So, gays no longer come across freaks but as the new Ozzie and Harriet(or Ozzie and Harry as the case may be). And if Jewish radicals used to turn off many white conservatives with their nasty and virulent personalities and outrages, most liberal Jews tend to be very respectable and 'bourgeois' in style. There aren't a lot of Abbie Hoffman or Andrea Dworkin types anymore telling people to 'steal this book' or howling 'all sex is rape'.
The face of the New Jew is David Remnick. And even the so-called socialist Naomi Klein looks like a total yuppess than some crazy leftist radical talking crazy in the 60s.
And feminism abandoned its overalls and handkerchiefs and embraced femininity and sexuality. Though feminists reviled Camille Paglia when she appeared on the scene, Paglia-ism has won.  Feminism used to divide the generations. Young girls in the 80s and 90s wanted to be attractive and were pissed off with first generation feminists who were telling them it's wrong to be a 'sex symbol'. Today, feminists of all stripes have embrace sexiness, and even hook-up culture is seen as 'empowerment'. Such sexual sensibilities and attitudes may not be conservative, but in making peace with the biological fact of sexual differences--women wanna look good and sexy--, feminism became less of a turn-off for many women, even anti-liberal women.

Anyway, since liberals and leftists adopted the conservative look and style, it became more difficult for the GOP to frame the Culture War as one between respectable decent folks and outrageous freaks. When gays put on corporate suits and diligently work in office buildings, they come across as more respectable than many white conservatives with ass tattoos and body piercings. When gays and liberal Jews are more likely to listen to classical music and read Shakespeare than white conservatives, what does it mean to be culturally conservative? And when liberal women now wanna be sexy, the old conservative trope of feminism as 'movement of big fat ugly Jewish women' no longer works.
Some might say this has all been a Saul Alinskite plan of the Left to use 'conservative respectability' to worm into the heart of Americana and change it from within. And I'm sure some leftists really flatter themselves that they are doing just this. But, it seems most liberals, leftists, and gays just got sick of the whole radical ugliness of the 60s and early 70s. They 'grew up' and matured, and they got 'corrupted' by the material privileges that comes with taking part in capitalism and wealth-creation.

The GOP also lost the immigrant vote. Among some groups, this could be understood simply in terms of poor Third World immigrants wanting more freebies from Big Government. Given the voting pattern of Mexican-Americans and Central-American-Americans, this is no surprise. The more interesting data of the 2008 and 2012 elections concerns the massive shift of the Asian and young Cuban vote from the GOP to the Democrats. Not all immigrants are the same, and indeed Asian-Americans(especially East Asians and Hindu-Asians) are very different in their mind-set, sensibilities, aspirations, abilities, and attitudes from Mexican-Americans and the like. If the GOP is the party of success and middle class values, why would so many Asian-Americans vote for the Democrats?
It's because America today isn't America 20 yrs ago and because the image of the Great White Man isn't so great.

Among immigrants, ability and aspirations matter in how they think and vote.  Mexican-Americans, rather low in their abilities, don't have much in the way of aspiration. Many Mexican-Americans instinctively feel that they aren't going to rise very high, and so they stick with the party of more handouts. But Asian-Americans, like earlier waves of European-Americans, have both the ability and aspiration to rise higher. Many European immigrants in the early part of the 20th century held the Anglo-American White Man in awe and aspired to use their abilities to enter Anglo-American society--and even to become Anglo-Americans themselves. There was a time when Asian-Americans held the Great White Man with great respect and fear(and with fear comes respect). In their home countries, they likely got their image of American from news reels of General Douglas MacArthur and John Wayne & Charlton Heston movies. White Man Big and Tall and Great and Awesome! White American Man Big Superpower and Victor over Japan and Protector of Free Asia from Bad Commies!
Unlike Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans knew that they had the ability to join white society, the World of the Great White Man. Their abilities matched their aspirations.
So... what happened?

Asians, who are mad about success and upper mobility, discovered that the Great White Man was not so great. Many Asians found themselves getting better grades and going to better schools than whites. So, incrementally, Asian-Americans came to feel more like Jews. Instead of seeing White America as awesome, they saw it as something they rise above. An element of contempt crept into their feelings toward whites. Also, Asian-Americans discovered that among whites, liberal and Jewish ones were smarter than mediocre conservative whites who are into Creationism, gun hoarding, Nascar, Rush Limbaugh, and ass tattoos. So, if the Great White Man trope still existed for Asian-Americans, the new Great White Man was the urban liberal white or the Jew.

Another factor was the slow but steady decline of the white middle class(as the backbone of the American Dream). When America used to be defined by the solid white middle class as the hallmark of Americanism, most Asian-Americans wanted to belong to that class, especially as many had memories of poverty back home. But as the white middle class began to shrink and Asian-Americans strove for higher success, the ideal of the American Dream in the form of White Middle Class-ness began to lose its appeal.  The new objective for aspiring Asian-Americans to strive for and emulate was the urban SWPL global 'creative class'. Very liberal and Democratic.
Even 20 yrs ago, an Asian-American might have thought a good life in America was having a steady job and affording a home in the suburbs. But with Section 8 Housing and easy credits handing out home loans to every dumbass, the suburban ideal lost its appeal. The newly and truly affluent and privileged were found to be concentrated in the 'Europeanizing' big blue cities.
But what led to the demise of the White Middle Class? Free trade and globalism and 'ownership society' that cheapened the ideal of the American Dream. Again, the GOP was the victims of its own success.

DREAM OF CONQUEST ACT and Election of 2012. Victory for Hispanics? No. For Jews, Gays, and WHITE Hispanics, Yes.

There's been much talk of the importance of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 election. Indeed, the Hispanic vote has been instrumental in securing California for the Democrats. Though liberals attack conservative for playing 'racial politics', California went Democratic because most Hispanics think racially. Think of groups like La Raza. White leftist morons like Kevin Drum of Motherfuc*ing Jones tell whites to 'play nice' and shut up about a whole bunch of things, but this is just a pernicious 'model majority' argument that says white people must be 'nice', 'bland', and 'dweeby' and embrace their own racial demise. If 'model minority' ideal that calls for docile blacks, browns, and Asisns is wrong, the 'model majority' ideal is also wrong. If whites were the decisive power bloc in America, they could afford to be more generous. But as a dwindling pool, this is time when whites must be even more racially minded. Privileged white liberals may not feel this sense of racial urgency since they reside and work in their own little enclosed worlds of whitopia. Indeed, most white and Jewish leftist pundits are pretty well-to-do; some are fabulously rich and graduated from top schools and have fat trust funds. Or they rake in big bucks from the computer industry or globalism. Or they run 'non-profit' institutions and get to fly around the world and attend cocktail parties to discuss how to 'end poverty in the Third World' and etc.  But for many unprivileged white folks, their loss of electoral power means they must think more racially, more as a tribe.

Anyway, however and whatever most Hispanics think, this was not their victory. Even if Texas falls to the Democrats and GOP is finished forever and ever, most Hispanics--especially non-white ones--won't gain much if anything from the new order. It's like ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell. The smart pigs rouse up the barn animals and drive out the Evil Man. But what did the Horse get out of it? Pigs got all the power and used the Horse until it was finally turned into glue. Most Hispanics are that like the Horse.
This Democrat vs Republican battle is really between one bunch of white elites vs another. The Democratic elite is largely Jewish white and gay white, and the GOP elite is largely Wasp/ethnic white(though GOP has fatally been led by Jewish neocons).  Among white voters, white conservatives have more babies than white liberals. Therefore, the white liberal elite needed blacks and browns to defeat the GOP. But as in ANIMAL FARM, it's a case of Jewish and gay pigs using the black and Hispanic Horse. Anyone who thinks Obama has real power is kidding themselves. He's a black show-horse ridden by Jewish and gay pigs.

It may be that many white liberals really want Hispanics to succeed. Indeed, this has been true of white conservatives as well. Bush and Rove hoped that Hispanics would become the new Italian-Americans: make the social climb and become good middle-class Republicans. But it will never happen for both genetic and cultural reasons. Most Hispanics tend to be less intelligent than Anglos, Jews, and Asians. And culturally, Mexican and Central American societies haven't instilled their mestizos and Indios with anything like an intellectual culture. And American popular culture is so debased and trashy that many poor immigrants are turned into instant-morons by watching TV and listening to rap crap.
So, who will be the real winners of the Democratic Victory? Jewish and gay liberal pigs. They rode the Hispanic Horse to victory in places in California, but look at that state carefully. Who runs Hollywood? Who runs the vineyards? Who runs Silicon Valley? Who owns the sports teams?
Mexicans? Blacks? Haha.

Another big winner is the white Hispanic. Since 'Hispanic' is not a racial category, there are Hispanics of all kinds. White ones, black ones, mestizo ones, mulatto ones, and etc. But since so much of Hispanic immigration, both legal and illegal, came from Mexico and Central America, the great majority of American Hispanics tend to be mestizo like Guillermo on the Jimmy Kimmel Show. Such people generally don't make much of a social climb in society.
The indigenous natives of Latin America are closely related to East Asians but without the brains. And for several centuries, white Hispanic overlords have kept them ignorant and backward in order to preserve white power and privilege in Latin America.  One thing the native Indian population of Americas have in common with Asians is a certain degree of docility. Like the Japanese and Chinese, most native Indians of Mexico and Latin America tend to be a rather 'lame' bunch. Sure, there are dangerous thugs and criminals among them, but your average Mexican is not an uppity punk or thug. They are like Guillermo. But unlike Asians, they lack the brains(nor the intellectual culture instilled into Asians through 1000s of yrs of Confucianism).
So, the successful Hispanics in both Latin America and the US tend to be white ones. In most Latin American nations, whites are the minority, and they are a minority among American Hispanics too. But they have three advantages: tradition of power, higher IQ, and some degree of culture of success and intellectualism(though nothing like that of Germans, Anglos, and Jews). Just as 'affirmative action' for blacks favors mulatto blacks and African immigrants with higher IQ, 'affirmative action' and other policies for Hispanics will defacto favor white Hispanics over brown and black Hispanics.
Look at most leading Hispanic pundits, leaders, personalities, intellectuals, businessmen, and etc, and they are white or mostly white.

Indeed, anti-gringo-ism, anti-Yanqui-ism, and multi-culturalism have been the best tool for Latin American whites to keep the power in both South/Central America and in North America. Even conservative and right-wing white Latin Americans become Democratic and 'liberal' when they come to America. Anti-gringo-ism is a very convenient way for Latin American whites to wash away their own 'historical sins'. Long before Anglos settled North America, Spanish and Portuguese arrived in South America(and even southern parts of North America like Florida) and gained power over the natives. By the spread of disease, slavery, rape, and etc, the Latin whites created a three tier system of social rule: whites at top, mestizos/mulattos in the middle, and indigenous natives and pure blacks on the bottom. While there was a lot of race-mixing in Latin America, the elites tended to remain white or mostly white. Even Latin American leftists carried out this tradition. The elites of Castro's Cuba are almost entirely white. Chile under leftist regimes still remains white-ruled. Argentina, ruled by left or right, is ruled by whites. Only more recently have non-whites have gained a degree of power in places like Bolivia and Venezuela, but if you look at the real governing elites of those nations, they are still mostly white. And most Latinos in top institutions in America are white or mostly white.

So, one might think Latin whites have something to answer for: the history of 'genocide', slavery, and 'rape' over the natives and blacks in the long dark history of Latin America. But via the one-drop rule or cultural excuse, Latin whites have remade themselves into 'people of color'.  So, if some blonde Latin guy may have one drop of Indian blood, he too is a 'person of color', just like the whites in THE DESCENDANTS count as Hawaiians in Alexander Payne's movie: they can trace their ancestry back to some Hawaiian princess or something or other.

So, with a very straight face, a white Latino intellectual will lecture non-white Latinos about the evils of white 'racism' by which he means evil gringo racismo. Even though he's white or mostly white, because he's 'Hispanic', he paints himself as a 'person of color'. Since all Latin whites pose this way, they are no longer guilty of White Evil since they are no longer 'white'. And though Spanish is a European language imposed on Latin America by white Conquistadores, it has become the language of the 'people of color' since most Hispanic mestizos and Indians speak it. So, when white Latinos defend Spanish against English in American public schools, it becomes an issue of protecting the 'people of color'. This is all very clever.
It'd be like Southern whites all claiming to have an ounce of black blood, posing as 'Negroes' and 'people of color', and blaming Northern whites for all the history of 'racism' and slavery in Southern history. Actually, some whites do this by pretending to be American Indian. Ask the blonde Elizabeth Warren.

This multiculturalist shtick played by white Latinos is very clever, and it is to be expected since Latin whites--like Greeks and Southern Italians--never had much of a culture of dignity or integrity. They'll say and do ANYTHING to get ahead. And they are not called out for their hypocrisy by American whites. Liberal whites sense the BS but prize Latin whites as allies. And conservative whites, though treated in a hostile manner by Latin whites, sympathize with Latin white power in Latin America. White conservatives fail to understand that white Latinos who guard white privilege in Latin America  undermine white power in America because they have more to gain by posing as 'non-white people of color'. It is also a matter of inferiority complex. Yanquis did so much more than Latin whites, a fact that hurt Latin pride so much. Yanquis brought about the modern economy, the great military, the big factories, democratic rule, end of slavery, advances in science and technology, and etc.  Latin whites have little to show for, and so they've found this clever way to attack Yanquis as 'evil oppressors' of Latin 'people of color'. And even though Jews have been very successful, they too share Latin whites' envy of Anglo and Anglo-American achievements. No wonder Latin whites and Jews see eye to eye on so many things. Eric Hobsbawn the Jewish historian was a superstar among Brazil's white intellectual class.

And of course, Jews play the same game. They enjoy all the fruits of 'white privilege' BUT also pose as victims of 'white privilege'. How often have we heard of how some rich Jew was not allowed into some wasp country club?! Yeah, as if Jews have been so 'inclusive' of non-Jews. That must be why Hollywood top brass is so filled with Eskimos and Mexican-Americans.

Hispanic whites conveniently use the grand narrative of 'victim-hood at the hands of Yanquis and gringos' to wash themselves of their own 'historical sins'. Never mind what they did to the natives and blacks in Latin America. The new grand narrative is Latin Whites are 'people of color' by 'one drop rule'; they too are victims since all of Latin America was 'exploited' by the gringos. Of course, the truth is America didn't so much exploit Latin America but gained an upper-hand in the region because Latin whites were so slow in getting their act together in building up a modern economy. Latin whites begged for Yanqui capital and investment since they were too corrupt and unskilled to do it themselves. But put all the blame on whitey... though Latin whites are white too.

What Latin whites are doing isn't much different from what Japanese have been trying to do: portray themselves as victims of 'white American racism'. By invoking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese say they were attacked and invaded by whites for racial reasons. And so, never mind what the Japanese did in other parts of Asia. As far as some Japanese are concerned, Japanese and fellow Asians are all victims of 'white racism'. Ridiculous, but no more than the BS pulled by Jewish whites and Latin whites. (Jewish whites conveniently forget their role in the slave trade, both white and black. Their role in communism. Their role in financial exploitation. Instead, they are just 'victims of white antisemitism'.)

And most amusingly enough, it seems white liberals are pulling the same shtick. Though white liberals don't deny that they are white, they pose as 'anti-white whites' in order to safeguard their white privilege. Since they voted for Obama, they can't be white-white. They are good anti-white-whites, and that makes them 'progressive' and justifies their white privilege. They may not be 'people of color' but they are like honorary 'people of color' by association with 'people of color'. So the whitest and the most privileged liberal will cackle with joy about defeating all those EVIL WHITE PEOPLE!!

But seriously, now that the Evil White GOP has been defeated, how long can this charade go on?

In this Age of Decadence, Is Liberalism For Real or Just an Affectation?

We tend to see American society in terms of conservatives and liberals. But how deep is liberalism among liberals? And what exactly is liberalism in an age when the biggest struggle for justice involves cross-dressing transvestites? Ever since the demise of economic Marxism, many commentators have noted the rise of 'cultural Marxism'. Could it be that economic liberalism is over and has been supplanted by 'cultural liberalism'? Sure, there is big government, but it seems to exist mainly to collude with and bail out Wall Street and big corporations that provide most of the funds for politicians  of both parties. In terms of economic policy, there may be no great difference between the two parties. Republicans did little to curtail big government. GOP used to talk of term limits but when they took Congress in the 90s, they dropped it like a hot potato. Both parties are for Wall Street, free trade, rich getting richer, meritocracy, and etc.  If GOP is the party of the rich, how come the richest areas in America--the downtowns of big cities--are totally blue and Democratic? How come Silicon Valley is almost entirely Democratic? How come Facebook and Google gave 99% of their donations to Democrats?

Of course, liberals are aware of this. Especially since the Clinton presidency, the 'New Democrat' policy of the Democratic Party has favored free trade globalist business and entrepreneurs over the blue collar working class. The new Democratic elite saw the white working class as unreliable--many were Reagan Democrats, 'racist' in Archie Bunker fashion, and overly 'patriotic'. The Unions were also  seen as arrogant, corrupt, and etc.  If Jewish elites supported Obama to tame the Negroes, Jewish elites in the 90s supported Clinton to tame the Unions. Clinton and Gore gave us NAFTA, and the great sucking sound was heard across the nation. But Democrat elites didn't mind stabbing the white working class in the back since GOP was even more globalist and free-trader and wouldn't be able to attract them either(and the 2012 election proved it). The liberal Silicon Valley kings of the 90s wanted globalism. They wanted to work the entire world to rake in their profits. They didn't want to get entangled in fights with unions in American factories. Much better to build factories in China, India, Vietnam, and Puerto Rico. And Hollywood wanted to expand its franchise all over the world, and globalism was key. Hollywood liberals say they love diversity, but they sure don't care about 'cultural imperialism' and 'cultural genocide' carried out by (Jewish-controlled)American culture around the world.

Liberal elites, not 'rich conservatives', were the main beneficiaries of globalism and stabbing white working class in the back. (To be sure, unions were indeed corrupt and rotten and deserved some kind of butt-spanking. In order to survive, unions too have become globalized. No longer patriotic and pro-white, it now panders to illegal workers in America.) These facts are pretty dire. The fact is globalist liberals have been getting richer and richer while others have gotten poorer and poorer. NY has one of the biggest wealth gaps in the world. It's a city of financial lords and professionals and.. waiters and cabbies. If Americans woke up to this fact, the globalist liberals--many of them Jews and liberal wasp turncoats--could be in trouble. The fact is 'economic liberalism' is dead. Unions are dead unless they are government unions. But when push comes to shove, even government unions are coming under pressure in blue states like NY, Michigan, and Illinois. And though Democratic elites publicly howled about the Republican governor of Wisconsin, they were secretly happy with his policies. They were happy to have a 'conservative' do the dirty work for them. Easier to shift the blame.
Also, 'affirmative action' is really a war waged by rich white liberals on poor whites. It's not rich white/Jewish lawyers or rich white/Jewish doctors or rich white/Jewish computer engineers who are being hurt by 'affirmative action'. It's 'working class' white firemen and police men and other whites working at the lower rungs of society. Liberal elites wasps and Jews satisfy black demands by sacrificing lower-rung white jobs to blacks while the elite jobs are mostly kept by rich white/Jewish liberals. Notice that the Jewish share of the economic pie at the top keeps expanding while the white working class and middle class share of the pie keeps shrinking. This is the new economy of the liberal elites.

Since liberal elites are economically no different from pro-rich Republican elites, the only way to maintain liberalism is as a 'culture', and so there is 'cultural liberalism'.  Since liberal elites are rich and getting richer, they can only prove their 'progressive' worth by cooking up stuff like 'diversity' and 'gay marriage' and 'green' consciousness and 'slut pride' and other nonsense.
In a way, liberals have become the new conservatives in their appeal to cultural issues. Remember how rich conservative used to win over a lot of non-rich people through cultural conservatism? School prayer, pledge of allegiance, family values, and etc?  Yeah, like George H.W. Bush really cared about the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. Since economic conservatism had little to offer to many non-rich folks, the appeal was to affectations of culture.

Now, liberal elites, the richest people in America, pull the same thing. And so, we have one hysteria after another about 'homophobia' and 'war against women'.  While it may seem that liberalism is triumphant, it is actually in big danger. Beware when everything seems to be going your way; one can easily mistake dusk for dawn. When the tidal wave reaches its peak, it's about to tumble and crash. The end of the Reagan presidency and the election of George H.W. Bush and the fall of the communism seemed as though conservatism was triumphant. But in fact, it was a time when American conservatism was in most danger. It lost its greatest and most useful foe: the Evil Empire. It was badly losing the Culture War, and the New Economy was being created by liberal boomers like Steve Jobs.
The moment when conservatives seemed most victorious was really just a swan song, especially since without the great enemy of communism, conservatism just got gutless with Bush and Quayle or mean and nasty with Gingrich(or bland and dull with Dole).
Similarly, 2012 is not a good time for Dems. It doesn't matter if they'll win all future national elections. Without the GOP as the Evil Foe, Dems will have to bear all the blame. And the divisions within the Democratic party will start to widen, especially as Democratic Party is really owned by superrich Jews and privileged gays. Blacks, browns, and others will start wondering why Jews and gays got so much while they got so little. With the demise of 'evil white man', it won't be so easy for Jews and gays to lay all the blame on 'evil greedy nasty racist mean-spirited toxic odious noxious conservative white guy' for all social problems. What will become plain for all to see is that the Democratic Party is the party of the superrich. It's the party of rich Jews and gays who used 'diversity' to defeat white wasp conservatism. Blacks and browns have been USED by the Democratic elites. They never owned the party. Obama has been a useful cover for Jewish power. And Jewish elites in the Democrats will of course keep on using cultural liberal gimmicks like the 'historic first female president', the 'historic first Hispanic president',  and etc.  But as each president sucks up to superrich globalist Jews, it will become evident that all these politicians are puppets of rich globalist Zionist Jewish power. If white conservatism can play one role in the future, it is to exploit this division within the Democrats. Even if white conservatives can no longer win national elections, they can get revenge against Jews. Another thing white conservatives can do is support Palestinian rights, just like Jews supported black rights in South Africa under apartheid. Eye for an eye.
Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter yammer about 'takers' and Hispanics, but if they had real courage, they would admit, "Jews did this."  And neocon moles in the GOP likely colluded with liberal Jews to undermine white gentile power.

Since economic liberalism is pretty much dead, the new liberalism survives as cultural or symbolic liberalism. Same thing in China. Economic communism is dead and in its stead there is cultural or symbolic communism: Maoist symbolism to shroud the 'culture of greed'. Since the Jewish-black alliance has been weakening over the decades, there is the symbolic alliance via the mulatto Obama who was totally the creation of Jewish money and power.

Paradoxically, it could be that so many privileged liberals are culturally liberal because they are behaviorally and economically conservative, the corollary being it could be so many underprivileged conservatives are culturally conservative because they are behaviorally and economically so liberal.

To clarify this, what do we mean by 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
In this case, 'conservative' means hard-working, success-driven, concentrated and focused, intelligent, disciplined, family-oriented, responsible, community-oriented, and trustworthy.
And 'liberal' means fast and loose, unstable, reckless, easy-going, immature, self-indulgent, hedonistic, self-centered, and etc.

Now, there are many trashy liberals, but elite liberals are behaviorally very 'conservative' as defined above. They were good little kids, did their homework, focused on success, responsible and trustworthy, mindful of others, and later become responsible parents. For them, such habitual 'conservatism' is second nature. They take it for granted since it's in their behavioral blood. They don't wax about conservative values since they have so much of conservative behavioral instinct in them. If you're responsible by nature, you don't have to think constantly about the value of responsible behavior. People without legs think about having legs. People with legs just use them and walk around to do other stuff; they don't think about legs. Elite liberals, being behaviorally conservative nature, don't think much about 'conservative' values since it defines their behavior every moment of every day. Having conservative habits is enough. They don't need the habit turned into a 'value'. (In contrast, many unsuccessful and irresponsible conservatives cling to 'conservative values' since it serves as some kind of compass in their topsy-turvy unstable lives.) Just like people with legs don't walk just to walk, those with conservative habits don't use them just be conservative. People walk to go to places. And elite liberals use their conservative habits to liberally venture into new ideas and possibilities.
This may be where Jews have a decisive advantage over East Asians. Jews have conservative habits but use them for liberal venturousness. East Asians have lionized conservative habits as the highest virtue. So, if Jews study hard to think new thoughts and do new things, East Asians study hard to maintain the old virtues. Jews have conservative habits but liberal attitudes. East Asians have conservative habits and conservative attitudes. It may be changing in the US as East Asians become Americanized, but it seems more like they are bowing before the new boss: the Jews. As such, Asians will always be followers than leaders.

While dumb and trashy liberals, lacking conservative habits, indulge in stupid liberalism--like Lindsey Lohan among others--, liberal elites work with a higher form of liberalism. Having conservative habits, liberal elites went to good schools, worked very hard, are very dedicated and committed, very serious and sober in their thoughts. For them, liberal freedom doesn't mean obeying the lusts of guts and groins as the case is with trashy liberals. It means using higher freedom to find things of higher value and deeper meaning. There's a world of difference between a trashy liberal whose culture revolves around video games or gossip magazines and higher liberal whose culture revolves around classical music, serious literature, and intellectual stuff.
The difference is the higher liberal has conservative habits--plus of course higher intelligence--that drive him or her to freedoms of higher value. There's a big difference between readers of People magazine and the New Yorker.

Consider the author of BATTLE HYMN OF TIGER MOTHER, Amy Chua. She's a liberal but a habitual conservative. And though her husband may be easier-going than she is, he too is a habitual conservative as he's focused on studying, going to top schools, being a responsible father and husband, and etc. If you were to just look at their habits, they are very conservative. And though Chua says her friends were shocked by her hard parenting ways, the fact is most high liberal parents are also into success, hard work, stable relations, and drive their kids to make the social climb.
Most Jews are habitually conservative, and it's because their habitual conservatism comes so naturally that they don't bother with conservative values but instead on using conservative habits to find, discover, and conquer new things.
A values conservative looks at the hammer and waxes about its importance as a tool. A habits conservative--or higher liberal--just uses the hammer to hit the nails; he thinks of the hammer not as the end but as a means to other ends.

It is no wonder then that so many Jews, elite wasps, and East Asians have become liberals. They mostly take their habitual conservatism for granted. Why think conservative when conservative habits are a part of your very being? Why not use conservative habits to be liberal and adventurous in thought? Also, even as conservative habits are very useful, they are kinda boring, 'lame', and square. Especially in America where everyone is supposed to be marked by his individualist 'difference', it's not enough to be a model citizen with responsible conservative 'bourgeois' habits. One has to have some spice, some pizzazz, and that comes with liberal affectations. So, if you're a habitual conservative who went to good school, has a good job, a loving family, and etc, it's all very nice but it's 'boring' and 'lame'. You want to be 'different'. And so, there is the affectation of 'cultural liberalism'. So, in the areas of habits, you could really be as conservative as a Mormon, but by going to art galleries and praising some post-modern art or by espousing 'gay marriage', you can come across as 'different', 'special', 'radical', 'rebellious', or whatever. Or, if you're a successful Hollywood producer, you might win some 'culturally eccentric' points by having a Che Guevara poster in your office. But these are mostly affectations. Do higher liberals really want to live in a social order run by the likes of Che Guevara? Do higher liberals really want to live next to poor blacks in the name of equality? Do higher liberals really want elite institutions to look like America? For the sake of fairness, do Jews really want Wall Street to be only 2% Jewish? Does Amy Chua and her husband really want to live in a 'diverse' community with too many blacks and browns? Chris Matthews says he lives in diverse Washington DC but his neighborhood is actually almost entirely white. And notice how Hyde Park is closed off from the rest of the black community in the South Side of Chicago. So, much of liberalism is really an affectation than a form of real-life practice. And so much fuss of this affectation is made because it diverts our attention from the sheer phoniness of elite liberal reality.

For most Christians, Jesus is just a symbol or affectation worn as a golden necklace. Cultural liberalism has the same kind of appeal. That way, higher liberals can live the good life of stability and privilege but put on airs of 'social justice' and 'being radical'.

Is the 'Conservative Media' Really Retarded?

My Commentary on Conor Friedersdorf's ATLANTIC magazine piece on the delusions of the 'conservative media'.

This is an interesting piece and well-worth reading but ultimately more a tirade than a honest investigation of what wrong's with the conservative media. While Conor Friedersdorf is right about the shortcomings--to say the least--of conservative journalism and punditry, he fails out to spell out the real reasons for the problems due to lack of courage, honesty, or knowledge. As he works in journalism, I doubt if it's lack of knowledge.

Yes, the conservative media suffered from what might be called the Obama Derangement Syndrome, akin to the Bush Derangement Syndrome among liberals from 2000 to 2008. Back then, liberals were hysterical about the looming 'fascist' state run by Christian Theocrats. They embraced the trashy Michael Moore as truth-teller. They were so sure of Kerry's victory in 2004 and itching to celebrate. And so on.  In a way, the Bush Derangement Syndrome was all the more surprising since there was so much open criticism and denouncement of Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign. Though the media went soft on Bush after 9/11 for reasons for patriotism and unity--and this fatally played a role in the path to the Iraq War--, once the war began to go badly, the media rolled up their sleeves and did the job of reporting the truth on Bush's abuses. This was especially true after his re-election and Hurricane Katrina disaster. Given the opposition against Bush from the academia, media, Hollywood, musical celebrities, TV comedians, and etc., there was really no need for the Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush's power was watched, investigated, and checked. Consider the whole Valerie Plame scandal. And much of the media loathed Karl Rove, Cheney, and others, and did their job in digging up dirt on them.

The problem with Obama is the media have been uncritically with him from day one. While Birthers may be on a wild sheep chase, the whole phenomenon was the result of the media's refusal to dig deeply and honestly into Obama's past. During the Democratic primaries, the media even covered up John Edwards' sex scandal in order to split the white Democratic vote between Hillary and Edwards to benefit Obama. When Sarah Palin's VP candidacy was announced, a huge crew of MSM went snooping all over Wasilla, Alaska to dig up all the dirt on Palin. But the media were mostly busy building up the cult of personality of Obama as 'black jesus' or 'the one'. It was as if the media became part of the Democratic Party in Cecil B. DeMille Hollywood tradition. Instead of doing their job of investigating a presidential candidate's past, they mostly tried to shield him from criticism, refused to ask him tough questions, and favored him in the overall coverage. The media didn't cover but covered up for him. The media promoted and hyped him. They were part of his marketing and advertising campaign. And many words written about him by journalists had a 'spiritualist' tinge, as if he could walk on water or something.

It wasn't the MSM that uncovered the fact of Obama's long, close ties with the vicious Jeremiah Wright. Indeed, had the media revealed that earlier--along with Edwards' sex scandal--, Hillary might have had winning chance in the 2008 primaries. But the media were in Obama's pocket and vice versa. When the Wright scandal finally became news, MSM reported it as objectively and coldly as possible WITHOUT judgement. Now, suppose McCain had been found to have been associated with a deranged nut for 20 yrs and lied about never having heard the man's crazy rants.
Obama had known all about the Wright but called him his spiritual guide and mentor(mainly of course to gain street cred among black voters in the Chicago South Side). But he was able to ride out the storm because the media provided him with an umbrella. He was mostly evasive about the subject, and the media refused to judge him, and then dropped the story because it was said to have 'no traction'. But whether a story has traction or not is dependent on the mainstream media. After all, the Don Imus 'nappy headed ho' story would have had no traction if the media hadn't jumped all over him for weeks on end. And Buchanan's convention speech in 1992 was considered a success... until the media jumped all over him with judgmental fury.

This refusal to be tough on Obama--as on the other candidates--is what made so many American distrustful of the whole Obama narrative, and this is what gave birth to Birthers and other conspiracy theories. Though I never cared for Birtherism, it is funny that the most hyped politician in American history is also the most secretive and protected. Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER is mostly a self-created myth with little substance, and much of Obama's records have been kept sealed and hidden. Why? It's almost like the secrets in THE DAVINCI CODE. If Obama has nothing to hide, why has so much been hidden about him? Why are the media giving us the myth and not the real man? I think because there isn't much to the real man, just like there isn't much to the real person behind the Hollywood actor. Now, it's the role of Hollywood and marketing to put forth the myth than the man. But it is the role of journalism to ferret out the man from the myth. Have the media done that with Obama? Indeed, the Obama Derangement Syndrome is actually bigger among liberals than among conservatives, albeit in a pro- than con- way.
Some liberals were fainting and foaming at the mouth at the mere sight of him. They were describing him akin to a god. Chris Matthews said he had tingles going up his legs and compared Obama's Wright speech with those of Lincoln. He even thanked the devastating hurricane for coming to Obama's aid in the election. In other words, Obama's victory is more important than all the flood damage and people freezing in the cold. Newsweek ran covers of Obama as something like 'gay jesus'. This is journalism?
It is no wonder then that some on the Right decided to fantasize the worst possible scenarios about Obama. The funniest is Obama being a secret Muslim out to destroy Israel. Ridiculous since no politician in recent memory has been more controlled and owned by Jews. And favored by Jews.
But, it was not wrong for many conservatives to try to do the job that liberals refused to do. Especially since liberals make up over 90% of MSM and since the media are supposed to serve as a check on the powers-that-be, there is something seriously wrong when the media refuse to do their job with the 'most powerful man in the world'. Even leftists like Glenn Greenwald have written about the failure of the media to look into Obama's real record and deeds.

What Friedersdorf refused to discuss is the power of Jews in all this. The problem with the media is not so much liberal domination as JEWISH liberal and neocon domination. Not all liberals are the same, not all conservatives are the same. Some liberal groups are far more powerful than others. On the Democratic side, Jews followed by gays are by far the most powerful and influential. Polish-American liberals and Arab-American liberals don't have anything like the power of Jewish liberals and even gay liberals. Since Jews are so powerful on the liberal side, one would think the American Right would be the bastion of forces critical of Jewish power. When Wasps were the dominant elites in America, Jews called out on Wasp power, privilege, connections, and influence. Since Jews are the new elites of America, naturally we expect there to be criticism of Jewish power, privilege, connections, and influence. And since most Jews are liberal, we would expect this criticism tto come from the Right. But there isn't any. So-called 'conservative media' is really neoconservative media.  Though there are non-Jewish conservative voices all over the so-called 'conservative media', they all got their gigs with the blessing of the Jewish neocon establishment. They must be mindlessly uncritical in their support of Israel. They must be foam at the mouth about the 'Muslim Threat' to please their neocon bosses. They must be for 'diversity', which is what neocon Jews want, indeed no less than liberal Jews. The reasons for the Jewish love of 'diversity' is simple. It serves Jewish elite power. Just like the diversity of India allowed the small British elite to rule for two centuries by resorting to 'divide and rule' among diverse groups, Jewish elites seek to increase non-white diversity in order to play gentiles against one another. (Of course, Jews don't want diversity in Israel where they are the majority.) And it worked this time, with Jews using blacks and browns to ensure that white majority can no longer elect the candidate they want. But of course, Romney is no less owned by Jews, namely the neocons.
What with up to 60% of Democratic funds and 40% of Republican funds coming from Jews, Jews pretty much control both parties. And with Jewish oligarchs owning most of the media--and with Jews serving as managers in most media companies--, both the liberal and conservative media are really about serving Jewish power and interests. Indeed, liberal MSM has over the yrs favored neocons as the voice of American conservatism, and, as a result, much of the political discussion has turned into liberal Jews and their goy puppets bickering with neocon Jews and their goy puppets. And both sides have been purging people they don't like. Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas were purged from  liberal media for daring to speak out about Jewish power and privilege. And so-called 'paleocons' and 'Arabist realists' have been purged from GOP ranks.
The fact is there is a great disconnect between so-called 'mainstream conservatism' whose script is written by cynical neocons(whose main objective is to use to Christian Right dummies to serve Zionist interests) and other conservatives who've come to hold most 'conservative leaders' in contempt as shills for Zionist and Wall Street interests. The main reason why most conservatives lost interest in the Tea Party was because it was co-opted by Wall Street neocons. Tea Party originally began as an attack on Wall Street/Big Government collusion--aka crony capitalism--, but neocons and their puppet hacks like Sarah Palin turned it into mindless support for Israel and Wall Street. It was this disconnect that discouraged so many white voters who chose to stay home this time around. Most people I know who supported Ron Paul refused to vote, so disgusted were they by how Romney was cherry-picked by the neocon establishment. This simmering disgust with neocon Zionists among conservative is the great untold story of this election. We hear nothing of it because both the MSM--which really should be called the liberal Jewish media--and the 'conservative media'--which really should be called the neocon Jewish media--suppress stories about Jewish power and influence. For many real conservatives, Romney is just another shill of Wars for Israel and Wall Street Zionist-globalist financiers. The real story of this election isn't who voted for Obama or who voted for Romney but who DIDN'T vote for Romney and why? Many conservatives saw Romney as the product of neocon cheating in the primaries. But the liberal Jewish media colluded with neocons. Because of Ron Paul's critical views of Israel, the MSM did all it could to bury coverage of him and his arguments. In some debates, he wasn't even asked any questions. Though Paul was polling well in the early rounds, the scripted grand narrative was he was a 'fringe candidate'. The real problem of American politics is that both liberal Jews and neocon Jews are not enemies. They see eye to eye on most issues. Neocons are essentially socially liberal Jews working in the guise of 'conservatives' to win conservative support for Israel. Also, neocon presence in the GOP serve to dampen any possible criticism of Jewish power from the Right. Since American conservatives are so grateful to have some Jews on their side, they go the extra-mile not to do or say anything that might offend Jews. And if something conservatives do or say may offend Jews, conservatives go out of their way to praise Jews, memorialize the Holocaust, and support Zionist dispossession of Palestinians in order to show they don't have an 'antisemitic' bone in their bodies.

Why was the neoconservative media so deluded? They cherry-picked the 'conservative' candidate that most conservatives didn't trust or like. They got so swept in trying to fool people that Romney was a true blue--or red bled as the case may be--conservative that they were not only disconnected from political reality but from conservative reality: the fact that many conservatives didn't like Romney at all. While many conservatives did vote for Romney out of hatred for Obama, many hated Romney too much to bother going to the pols, which is why so many white voters chose not to vote.

American Conservative magazine is a good barometer of how a lot of conservatives really felt about Romney. Neocons are a small part of conservatism, but they hog most of the elite positions in the GOP and 'conservative media'. And even non-Jewish conservatives working in the media and government are so careful as to not offend neocons in any way. Though the Jews are the natural enemies of white gentile interests in America, white conservatives have this fatal alliance with neocons that prevents them from taking on Jewish power. When Jews rose to power, they attacked Wasp power and privilege with full force. But this is not allowed with Jewish power, and this is the most dangerous reality in America. Consider. Wall Street is dominated by Jews. Media are dominated by Jews. Elite academia is dominated by Jews. Upper echelons of government is dominated by Jews. Top law firms are dominated by Jews. Foreign policy is dominated by Jews. We have Jewish power-networking that goes beyond anything Wasp networking in the past. Wasps also never hid their power. They admitted their power and were even self-critical to settle for reforms. But Jews, though the most powerful people in America, have used the Holocaust card to play the Eternal Victims of history. So, even though Jewish Wall Street played a significant role in the economic debacle and neocon Jews played a key role in the Iraq War, the Jewish-controlled media and Jewish-controlled courts allowed Jews who were responsible to get off scott free. In 2008, Wall Street put their money on Obama. Obama served Wall Street by filling up his economic team with Wall Street insiders. Few Wall Streeters had to face any kind of justice. If anything, they got huge 'bail outs'. Now, where were the media on this? They made some noise, but they let it pass because Jewish oligarchs who own the media are friends with Jewish oligarchs who run Wall Street. And Jewish controlled Hollywood made only tepidly critical movies about financial wrongdoings. Jewish Hollywood would rather make movies about all those 'crazy terrorist Muslims'--superhero war porn movies set in the Middle East where US blows up all those swarthy 'muzzies--and the remake of RED DAWN as yellow peril dawn. Or the remake of STRAW DOGS where a white woman is raped by rednecks when the real problem of rape--indeed the real war on women--involve astronomically high black rape rates.
And consider both the liberal Jewish media and neocon media's coverage of Iran and Israel. Israel has 300 illegal nukes and crushes Palestinians on a daily basis. Iran has no nukes and has passed every international inspection. Yet, Israel is showered in billions in aid while Jewish-controlled US uses its muscle to economically strangulate Iran to death. Even so-called liberal Jews support the economical strangulation of an innocent people to serve Zionist interests. And though the president of Iran never said, "Israel will be wiped off the map", that trope was allowed to fester in the media forever.

There can't be an honest conservative media until conservatives break out of the stranglehold of neocons on the GOP and conservative think tanks. But then, the liberal Jewish media have always favored neocons as the Voice of Conservatism. Liberal Jewish newspapers mostly choose neocon columnists, and liberal TV channels invite mostly neocons to speak for conservatism. Yes, there are lots of dumb conservatives regardless of neocon domination, but it's the neocon domination that makes American conservatism obsess mainly over the interests of globalist Wall Street and the Jewish Zionist Apartheid State of Israel. But then, liberal Jews want to keep things this way because if American conservatism was reclaimed by real conservatism, there may finally be a power that speaks truth to Jewish power that happens to be overwhelmingly liberal, globalist, and anti-white. (Jews are more anti-white working class and anti-white middle class than anti-white elite class. Jews shower white elites with all sorts of rewards as long as the latter play to Jewish demands like 'gay marriage'. And 'affirmative action' is geared to favor smarter/richer whites and Jews over poorer white gentiles, and so both Jews and affluent white liberals have little to fear from 'affirmative action'. It's white poor and white working class who bear the burden of affirmative action.)

Friedersdorf writes:

"In conservative fantasy-land, Richard Nixon was a champion of ideological conservatism, tax cuts are the only way to raise revenue, adding neoconservatives to a foreign-policy team reassures American voters, Benghazi was a winning campaign issue, Clint Eastwood's convention speech was a brilliant triumph, and Obama's America is a place where black kids can beat up white kids with impunity. Most conservative pundits know better than this nonsense -- not that they speak up against it. They see criticizing their own side as a sign of disloyalty. I see a coalition that has lost all perspective, partly because there's no cost to broadcasting or publishing inane bullshit. In fact, it's often very profitable. A lot of cynical people have gotten rich broadcasting and publishing red meat for movement conservative consumption."


Here, he's mostly wrong. Richard Nixon has never been seen as the champion of ideological conservatism by most conservatives. If anything, conservatives have been bashing him over the years as a traitor in just about everything. He came to be loathed by much by conservatives as by liberals.
'Adding neoconservatives to foreign-policy team' is a NEOCONSERVATIVE fantasy because neoconservatives dominate American 'conservatism. I mean duh. Friedersdorf got it backwards. He seems to think conservatives cooked up this neocon fantasy. No, neocons eventually took over the GOP and 'conservative' think tanks, and they cooked up the fantasy of neocon foreign interventionism as the cornerstone of conservatism. Most conservatives don't want war with Iran and want to bring the boys home.
As for Benghazi, it was indeed a great issue for conservatives, and liberal media's actions prove it. If it was not damaging to Obama, why did the media go along with his lies and help him cover up the truth of what happened? Here, I'm afraid, it's Friedersdorf who's playing the partisan hack. Obama lied about Benghazi, and if the media had covered it honestly, it could have been fatal to his re-election. That is why the media made sure it didn't get any 'traction'.

As for black kids beating up white kids, this isn't just something that happens in Obama's America but something that's been going on for some time. Maybe Friedersdorf is one of those affluent white liberals who lives in gentrified or gentrically cleansed 'Europeanized' American cities with relatively few blacks. The fact is most racial crime in this country is black on white. Blacks are physically tougher, stronger, and more aggressive. Just like most sexual violence is mostly male on female, most racial crime is black on white. And it's not about poverty since most white victims are poor whites attacked by stronger black thugs. But there's also lots of black crime on Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, and gays--most of it suppressed by the media unless the victims happen to be Jewish or gay, the two most favored groups in America. Blacks know they are tougher; blacks know that non-blacks are afraid of them. Indeed, we can see this in blue states. How many white liberals live in Detroit? Property is cheap, but white liberals stay away out of fear of black violence. And Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and etc--though they are all blue Democratic cities--are divided along racial lines. NYers elected Giuliani to deal with black crime. NY is one of the main practitioners of racial profiling, and most NYers support the policy because of fear of black crime. This is where Friedersdorf shows his true colors of politically correct lies and deception. But he can afford the fantasy of wonderful relations between blue state whites and blue state blacks since he probably lives in one of those urban places that underwent gentric cleansing. Affluent white liberals and Jews have reclaimed the choicest parts of big cities by hiking real estate prices and shipping dangerous blacks to suburbs or small towns where poorer whites will be prey to black crime. We all know about this dirty secret. It's the Parisian model where the metropolitan areas are kept white while blacks are relocated in the suburbs. White urban liberals are following the same model. If blue states are so friendly and welcoming to blacks, why are blue cities getting whiter via gentric cleansing and why are blacks being driven out to small towns and suburbs by section 8 housing programs? Why are so many blue state blacks leaving for red states to look for jobs? What have white liberals in Michigan done for people in Detroit? How come blacks in Chicago keep losing jobs and housing in the city? Why is Chicago being 'Europeanized' through gentric cleaning under liberal Democratic rule?

Friedersdorf makes some important points, but he fails to go all the way because he's too politically correct, too afraid, and too partisan. He too is just another hack, and for that reason, he fails to see the looming defeat of liberalism as well as conservatism in the coming future. While the GOP may well be dead as a national party, it was the existence of the GOP that held the Democratic coalition together, just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan kept the alliance among USSR, UK, China, and the US. Once the Axis fell, those powers all eventually became enemies. The Democratic coalition of rich Jews and privileged gays, affluent white feminists and angry black welfare mothers, Hispanics and Asians, and etc and etc cannot hold once the GOP throws in the towel. Indeed, go to any blue city, and you can see how divided it is along racial lines. In NY, Jews occupy the upper echelons. Asians tend to do well, along with gays. Most Hispanics work at menial jobs while many blacks sit in jail or work in government that is fast running out of money. Without the GOP, no way this alliance can hold together.

As for Glenn Beck, yes, he's a self-promoting lunatic, but his form of hysteria is quite common among leftist academics, intellectuals, and media people who see 'racism', 'fascism', 'nazism', and 'antisemitism' everywhere. Just go to any college campus and take any course on all those 'evil white males'. Or consider how opposing 'gay marriage' makes one a 'homophobe'. It used to be that gays were thought to be mentally ill. Today, hysterical liberals say you're clinically sick in the head if you don't like the idea of fecal penetration among men as the basis for marriage.

The Hispanic Vote: Can Republicans Compete with the Illegalism of Democrats?

Some commentators say that the GOP must appeal to the Hispanic(and black) votes in order to win future elections. The problem is the only way to appeal to Hispanics is via Illegalism. There is nothing in the GOP platform that is anti-Hispanic. GOP welcomes Hispanics and wants Hispanics to succeed in America. GOP doesn't call for discrimination against Hispanics of any kind. Under rules of legality, GOP is a pro-Hispanic party.

What commentators mean when they say the GOP must appeal to Hispanics is it must be done on Illegalist terms. In other words, GOP mustn't only be equally welcome to Hispanics but must favor (even illegal)Hispanics over the legal white constituents who support the GOP; the GOP must favor illegal aliens over legal citizens and favor 'affirmative action' for Hispanics over non-Hispanic whites who are the mainstay of the GOP.
In a nutshell, it's not enough for the GOP to offer equality of law and opportunity to Hispanics; instead, Hispanics must be treated to extralegal privileges--such as 'amnesty' and 'affirmative action' over whites.  So, even though more than 70% of Hispanics go with Democrats, the GOP must offer better terms to Hispanics than to its loyal white supporters. (Extralegal privileges used to be the tool of European imperialists in non-white lands. Today, it is the tool employed by Jewish Supremacists to favor non-whites over whites in majority white lands.)

Democrats use terms like 'inclusion' and 'diversity', but their means of winning Hispanic vote has been through sheer favoritism and bribery. Hispanics are offered favors and things that should be illegal under the American Constitution. Illegal aliens are called 'undocumented immigrants' and showered with all sorts of benefits--though many of them don't even pay taxes. In other words, Democrats buy Hispanic votes. Worse, these votes are bought largely with white money. Whites pay bulk of the taxes, but liberals control most of the governments and bureaucracies--and courts--, and so Democrats get to decide how white tax-payer money is used. And it is used to bribe Hispanics to vote for Democrats.

No less importantly, the GOP cannot compete with Democrats even in the bribery game because the Democrats will always offer more. If GOP goes for amnesty, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits, Democrats will go for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration. If GOP goes for amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration, Democrats will up the ante with amnesty + more benefits + more illegal immigration + even more benefits. GOP can only hope to win over Hispanics if it can offer MORE goodies and freebies to Hispanics, but Democrats will always offer more free stuff to Hispanics(and to blacks).
And if the GOP goes whole hog and tries to match the Democrats on everything, it might as well be the Democratic Party.

Ideally, the GOP should appeal to Hispanics according to principles and not with payoffs. The principle should be EQUALITY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. But, as it stands, America has gotten into the habit of winning over minority votes with bribes and special favors, something that began in the 60s with the Civil Rights Movement. Originally meant help blacks, it is now used to win minority votes across the board. Though the Nixon administration may have supported 'affirmative action' program for Hispanics in order to pit 'browns' against blacks to fight for welfare spoils, what it ended up doing is creating an alliance of blacks and 'browns'.

Anyway, as long as Illegalism is the mode of politics in winning minority votes, the GOP cannot win.