In April, the entire media apparatus, including allegedly independent media, acted in unison to support the coronavirus lockdown.
The virus was presented as a public health crisis that was beyond politics, and it was claimed that there was a single possible response to it, which was for the government to lock people in their houses by passing decrees which effectively totally nullified every single basic right that we as Westerners established with the Magna Carta in 1215 AD.
I was not paying any attention to the National Review at the time, because I don’t really pay attention to the National Review generally, but like all other media, they were shilling the lockdown and attacking the protesters.
On April 22, 2020, the awful Jew Jonah Goldberg penned a piece entitled, “Quarantine Protesters Are No Heroes of Civil Disobedience,” where he condemned the protesters as a threat to public health and demanded that everyone just trust the government and obey.
Goldberg claimed explicitly that the lockdown was “not tyranny” and that anyone who thinks there is another agenda behind it is a kook. Bizarrely, he went so far as to claim that the Founding Fathers would support the lockdown. Goldberg’s assumption is apparently that the virus is not political, though it is impossible to understand how he would come to that conclusion.
Goldberg is of course a Jew, and you expect Jews to support tyrannical policies designed to destroy Christendom. However, typically, the Jews “play both sides,” as it were, using all of these different ideologies.
The National Review promotes “the conservative ideology.” They play the side of supporting the alleged “free market,” and claiming that the free market gives elite private interests all of these rights to abuse you in various ways, and prevents the government which you pay taxes to from protecting you. For example, when someone needs an explanation as to why Twitter is allowed to take your First Amendment rights away, or why corporations are allowed to sell us known poisons and the government won’t implement any regulations at all, they go to the National Review.
While claiming that the US government has no right to protect the American people from threats to their Constitutional rights and to their health inside of the United States, the conservative ideology also claims that the US government has an absolute right to invade foreign countries, either to stop terrorism or to bring them democracy. (Honestly, I don’t even remember how support for wars of aggression fits in with their “small government” positions, but there is some ideological explanation.)
The National Review of course ostensibly tries to convince people to agree with their ideology. However, given that Donald Trump has taken a different view on these things, and the masses of Republicans like Donald Trump, they are significantly less influential than they were before. In particular, people do not like this thing where we move all of our jobs out of the country and the government throws their hands up and says, “there’s nothing we can do, because we have to follow the conservative ideology of free trade. If it destroys your life then sorry, but that’s the cost of our values.”
However, more than actually trying to convince people to agree with them, the conservative publications and think tanks fill a place and provide an explanation as to why these horrible things are allowed to happen. For example, if someone asks why all of our jobs were moved overseas, or why we are involved with endless wars in the Middle East, the system can point to the National Review and say that “conservatives” supported these things and all they were doing was performing the will of the people.
In general, the purpose of this grid of ideologies in our political system is to provide an excuse for whatever the government wants to do. The Jews hold no ideology, functioning purely on a tribal drive to dominate other tribes, but they can always find some ideology that will back up any terrible action.
But if the National Review has gone out and said that the government has an absolute right to collapse the entire market economy, destroying all small businesses, citing data that was known to be false when they cited it (Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College London graphs), then what possible credibility could they have in claiming that the government has no right to regulate multinational corporations?
Obviously, not much.
The average person doesn’t really understand that he’s been sold an ideology, or what an ideology even is, but he is capable of looking around himself and he is capable of identifying contradictions. Trump had been picking apart conservative ideology since 2015, on the dual-front of both the wars and the loss of jobs, and Tucker Carlson has been backing him up, fleshing a lot of this stuff out so normal people can wrap their heads around it.
It was a powerful thing when Lindsey Graham told Tucker Carlson that he believes “America is a nation of ideas,” and Tucker said, “it’s a nation of people. People live here.”
A lot of normal people, who do not understand the role that ideology plays in our political system, saw that interview and said: “Yeah, what the hell is this faggot babbling about, ‘nation of ideas’? What does that phrase even mean? I live here and I’m not an idea.”
But the history books will record that ideological conservatism as having officially died when Sean Hannity attacked Tucker, giving him no room to respond, to defend Jeff Bezos making $13 billion in one day as a result of the lockdown.
Here was Tucker’s segment on Jeff Bezos that proceeded this exchange
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 22, 2020
Hannity said that making money is morally good, and there is nothing wrong with Bezos getting rich while everyone suffers. It’s a very strange position from a moral standpoint, and from a political standpoint, it is incoherent. Bezos is an extremely powerful enemy of the right, who actively uses his wealth to harm America, Donald Trump, white people and heterosexuals in general. But ideology is not about morality or practical political realities – it is about a perceived consistency. And that is why it falls apart here: Jeff Bezos made that money because of the lockdown, which was ordered by the government.
The economy is a zero sum game. This was a massive transfer of wealth from middle class small business owners to the ultra wealthy ruling elite, and it was enabled by the government. The fact that ideological conservatives would defend the greatest heist in history – the looting of the entire middle class by the elite, a heist enabled by the government – proves that conservatism as an ideology was always about manipulating people into the service of a completely unrelated agenda.
The contradiction is this: people duped into actually believing in conservatism are too moral to actually benefit from it. Someone like Mitt Romney is corrupt enough to benefit from conservatism while promoting it, but he is also a snake who will turn heel and start promoting extremist black communism if he thinks that will benefit him. He believes in nothing at all.
The long and short of it is that ideology is promoted by Jews to harm Christians.
And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called “browning of America.” Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 16, 2017
No one can explain how anyone but Jews and other globalist elites have ever benefited from any of it. Frankly, it simply is not helpful.
Jeff Bezos doesn’t believe in conservatism, but conservatism defends his right to loot the country. That sums up the whole thing: it is an ideology for dupes. That is every other ideology as well: they are all designed by cynical snakes to manipulate gullible people, who are confused by the complexity of society, into working against their own interests in the pursuit of a utopia, thereby providing an excuse for any behavior. In a normal reality, where people just dealt with what they see as they see it, no one would ever defend Jeff Bezos. In the reality of ideology, the people who he hurts the most are told they have to defend him, “because it’s our values.”
Thus far, no bad outcome has turned people off of ideology. The silent chant of the ideology-believer is this: “the means justify the ends.” That is: “As long as we follow our ideology, it doesn’t matter if we lose, because we lost in pursuit of the highest ideal, which is a weird abstraction that has nothing to do with actual reality.”
But thus far, people have not really suffered much for putting the abstract before the real. Now, we are entering into a time of real suffering. The chickens are coming home to roost.
We need to remember that in April of 2020, the National Review and the rest of the conservative ideologists supported the destruction of the middle class, throwing away their entire ideology in the name of an obvious hoax. It is fundamental to the concept of ideology that it remain static, that it be continually implemented in every situation.
That agreement is now voided.
Note Regarding the Term “Conservatism”
For most normal people, the term “conservatism” exists independently of the ideology of conservatism. Most people who identify as “conservatives” do so because they support Christianity, guns and family values, and they’re against abortion and homosexuals.
It’s unfortunate that the term has these two meanings, because this can lead to confusion. To make the best of this, we should begin to redefine the term itself, removing the ideological connotations. Nick Fuentes has been doing a good job with this.
“They’re not promoting conservatism, they’re promoting ideology,” is I think a good line to use in order to distinguish between personal values and an ideology.
It’s not really hard to explain how support for the ideology is in conflict with conserving the family. You can’t conserve a family when you don’t have a job because your ideology said you had to send it to China, and you can’t conserve the innocence of children when your ideology said you have to defend the complete domination of your entire society by a private company that promotes abortion and teaching gay sex to your kids.
Jeff Bezos was one of the key funders of the campaign to legalize so-called “anal marriage” all the way back in 2012. This Sean Hannity position of “I may not agree with where you stick your penis, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to ram it into another man’s anus” is untenable and ridiculous. No Christian is obligated to support anal sex and every Christian who fights for anal sex is going to be judged for it. By defending Amazon’s absolute right to dominate society, you are defending gay anal.
Furthermore: you can’t conserve or defend anything if you’re not allowed to speak your mind, so when your ideology puts you in a position where you have to support having your freedom of speech taken from you, you’ve got a serious problem.
The biggest thing you can point to when addressing the ideologists is that they violated their ideology in supporting this lockdown, which effectively voided it. No one knows just how bad things are going to get as a result of this lockdown, but we know for a fact that it is the defining event of our lives. Pointing out that these alleged ideological conservatives supported this destruction and now want to go back to their old rules of “no government intervention” so they can transfer all the wealth to Bezos is really going to rub people the wrong way.
What we should not ever do is go out and say, “I’m against conservatism.” In order for that to make sense to a person, they have to understand everything that I’ve written in this article, and the average person has no need or desire to do that. So, use the term “conservative,” but make sure it is about defending the family in real terms in reality, not some weird economic gibberish.
Another phrase that should be helpful in dealing with the people: “the family is not a political institution.”
Ideology, invented by the Jews, attempts to transpose the personal and the spiritual into the political and the economic, as this way nothing can remain sacred. The family should be sacred, and there shouldn’t be any political doctrine that can justify the destruction of the family. Conservative ideology, with its war on normal people, destroys the family.
Also Note That I’m Not Promoting Socialism
In recent years, presumably as a result of the work that has been done to pick apart conservative ideology, some on the right have started claiming that socialism is actually good.
“Conservative ideology is bad so that must mean that socialist ideology is good” is the absolute epitome of “goy thought,” and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
My position is this: all ideologies are bad. The core concept of “ideology” is in itself negative. This would include virtually every “ism,” save for some forms of nationalism, which is a word that at least can be used to define practical defense of the family and nation.
Importantly: we are not going to have right-wingers running the government in any immediate future, so what we need to be doing right now is building a base of people who agree with us. That means we don’t want to turn them off. We want to speak to the masses of right-inclined people in language that they understand, and communicate our end goals. We do not necessarily need to be explaining how we will accomplish these goals.
We certainly do not need to be putting forward an economic platform. When I see people in the far-right laying out the details of an economic platform, I am shocked and appalled. Whether they believe in some form of libertarianism, or whether they promote socialism, it is always stupid to promote an economic policy. Economics are not an end unto themselves.
This is what an economy needs to do:
- Provide people of every class with meaningful work
- Provide people with the ability to generate wealth
- Provide people with an ability to be independent
- Provide an opportunity for social mobility
- Create security and stability that allows people to plan their futures
- Prevent abuse by parasites – both welfare leeches and elite predators
- Allow for both poor and rich, but always reinforce the middle class as the default
That’s all. And there are an infinite number of models that would work.
Economic policy should be shaped around accomplishing those goals, and not some bizarre ideological agenda to create a utopia using governmental policy.
This should be the economic policy of the right: “The economy exists to serve the people, and we will implement economic policies that are good for the nation and the family.”
It’s not hard to do if you have two things:
- A population of decent, hardworking people, and
- A government that is not managed by Jews and psychopaths
In every white country, we have one of those things. Our goal is to establish the other.
The economy should be wallpaper: it’s all around us, but no one is thinking much about it as long as it is accomplishing its function.