One of the biggest stories to emerge from the last election cycle was the elevation of Robert Kennedy Jr. as an ally of Donald Trump, one of the true surprises in the American political(and cultural) landscape, along with the saga of Tulsi Gabbard. Part of the reason is the utter corruption of the Democratic Party as the dominant faction representing the Deep State, War Industry, Big Tech/Media/Pharma, and ‘wokeness’(as a ploy of Jewish Power to suppress any expression of white, conservative, and/or nationalist sentiments). Given the copious levels of corruption and degradation in the GOP as well, things must be really bad among the Democrats for certain of its key figures to have migrated ‘rightward’ to the center, even to the side of MAGA. Most likely, such shifts would have been inconceivable minus the Donald Trump phenomenon. After all, what would have been the point of going from the Party of Obama, Hillary, and Biden to the Party of Romney, Graham, and McConnell. In contrast, Donald Trump, for all his lies and betrayals, has struck a nerve in American politics(and society at large) that something has gone terribly wrong in America but most worryingly at the top because, as the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down.

To the best of my knowledge, RJK Jr. had stirred up controversy with issues pertaining to HIV and vaccine efficacy, but the Covid hysteria really placed him in the limelight, hero to many but villain to others. Regardless of the validity of his views on Covid, it brought him to prominence and provided a pathway for his political ambitions in 2024. When foiled by the Democrat bigwigs in his own party, he opted for an Independent run but finally decided to throw in his lot with Trump as the lesser of two evils. His gamble paid off.

But as crucial as the Covid mania was in the making of RFK Jr’s fortune(or notoriety), his success in winning the trust of a considerable segment of the population seems part of a trend, one sensing something has gone terribly awry in American Health in general. Indeed, his slogan was a play on MAGA: MAHA, or Make America Healthy Again.
Of course, given the nature of ‘democratic’ and/or ‘populist’ politics, the trick is to spare the people(and their preferred mass culture) of blame and instead dump it all on the Big Fish, the Food Industry and Big Pharma(and the Big Media that shill for them). It’s almost as if these Big Bad Wolf industries are driven by not only insatiable greed but malicious intent to do harm, as if they’re downright wicked.

But when it comes to health problems, there’s surely plenty of blame to go around, and it’s far from an ideological or partisan issue. Take the fate of Rush Limbaugh, the whole brouhaha about limiting the size of soft drinks in Michael Bloomberg’s New York, and the mockery of Michelle Obama’s proposed policy on the school lunch program. Limbaugh represented the individual liberty to satiate oneself, a celebration of hedonism against the scolds, aka Health Nazis. His overindulgence of satisfactions led to a host of health problems and an early death.
Michael Bloomberg drew the ire of many(and not just conservatives) for his proposal of the limiting serving sizes of soft drinks, and the popular reaction was understandable given most people don’t want to be told what to do. Besides, there’s a matter of slippery slope and statist overreach, as well as the matter of the law, but Bloomberg did raise a serious issue about the impact of excessive sugar intake and the related problems of obesity and diabetes that indirectly burden all of society in increased insurance premiums and government spending. But, instead of addressing those issues, too many ‘conservatives’ only barked about ‘muh liberty’.

Michelle Obama as First Lady took up healthy school meals as her pet project. Given some of the menu items and the banning of candy machines in schools, the backlash was predictable and understandable. But whatever the merit of the project, there was no getting around the fact that health problems for many Americans begin early.
Even in rejection of Michael Bloomberg and Michelle Obama, there was a need to address the problems of health, especially in a country with skyrocketing medical costs. But, for the longest time, the ‘conservative’ side pretended the problem didn’t exist. Given the popularity of fatso Michael Moore(and boastful obesity among black women), it wasn’t an urgent issue among the so-called ‘liberals’ either, the camp more ‘triggered’ by stuff like ‘climate change’, globohomo, and BLM(as if angelic Negroes are being gunned down by KKKops in the streets of blue cities).

A matter that many people prefer to overlook is how the obesity-and-diabetes problem may well be the product of a larger cultural trend fueled by hyper-consumerism as the byproduct of capitalism’s emphasis on hedonism. It isn’t difficult to notice the parallels between the current food culture and pop culture, or junk food and junk culture. Hedonism that favors immediate gratification and wanton pleasure at any cost and by any means is bound to result in a society where excess is the New Normal. Remove the element of shame(and the related mode of self-restraint), and people are prone to indulge in all manners of pleasure and thrills without much reflection on the outcome of such behavior.
After all, in a world where self-control is often a dirty word — you see, it stands in the way of full ‘liberation’ and its ecstasies — , one is regarded as a kind of Neo-Victorian for refusing to take the plunge. What one of the Founders called the “pursuit of happiness” has turned into playing-for-pleasure. Whereas ‘happiness’ connotes something broader and a tad meaningful — the happiness as reward for achievement after dedication and struggle, for example — , ‘pleasure’ simply means joy in the moment, anything from a child licking ice cream to a junkie snorting heroin.

So much of our ‘values’ and ‘principles’ are really centered on an over-emphasis on pleasure as liberty(favored by ‘conservatives’) and liberation(favored by ‘liberals’). Whether it’s glutton Rush Limbaugh poo-poohing Michael Bloomberg’s proposal for limiting the serving sizes of soda pop or some ‘slutton’ howling about ‘muh body’ in defense of abortion, much of the passion is really centered on pleasure-centrism, or orbism(as presented in Woody Allen’s SLEEPER).

Video Link

There’s a good chance that the great majority of ‘pro-choice’ women regard any restriction on abortion as a threat to their freedom to indulge in licentious behavior. Even if they haven’t resorted to abortion themselves, they see it as an option to end an unwanted pregnancy that interferes with their sexual indulgence. Of course, they wrap their position in the rhetoric of ‘rights’ and women’s safety, but notice they never emphasize the fact that so many unwanted pregnancies could be avoided with more responsible behavior; but then, such self-restraint would go against the spirit of ‘liberation’.

But then, it’s likewise with the conventional ‘conservative’ opposition to any regulation of the food industry. While some libertarian-minded folks may genuinely believe in the primacy of individual choice in defiance of statist intervention, it’s likely that many more view any restriction(or regulation) as a threat to the pleasure of pigging out. After all, it’s one thing to argue in favor of liberty but also to emphasize the necessity of self-control and responsibility. But, such wasn’t Rush Limbaugh’s brand of piggery that defined freedom as devouring copious amounts of food and drink to excess.

A truer conservatism would emphasize self-control to balance the excesses of freedom, as well as healthy living, but much of American Conservatism has been receptive than active, e.g. watching NFL(Negro Felon League) on TV as a couch-potato than engaging in, say, hiking or biking. Rush Limbaugh for one watched a lot of football sitting on his lardy arse devouring junk food. It’s no wonder Americans are sports-obsessed but so unhealthy. If the time they spent watching sports was expended in the gym or just going for walks, they’d be a lot healthier. It’s almost as if the American male psyche has outsourced physicality to the athletes. Sitting in front of the TV getting fatter and flabbier with snacks and soda/beer but feeling ‘manly’ by projecting oneself onto the game(dominated by blacks). Ultimately, feminist sluttony and populist gluttony are both expressions of ‘my body, my choice’, except one focuses on vagina/uterus while the other focuses on the mouth/stomach. Be a whore and eat more.

There are mixed signals from Donald Trump’s appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to implement the MAHA policy. Didn’t The Donald serve McDonalds burgers & fries in the final leg of his campaign? No doubt, Trumpism is an extension of Rush Limbaugh conservatism, one of populist excess, though, to be sure, for all his partiality for fast food and diet coke, Trump has been known to be a germ freak and teetotaler. For all his riches, he was never respected by the establishment elites and merely tolerated/indulged as an amusing figure who embodied the vulgar nouveau riche fantasies of the masses.
The last vestiges of old school conservatism as standard bearer of ‘bourgeois’ virtues of self-restraint and responsibility passed with the fading of George H.W. Bush’s generation. The rise of boomer-style modes of ‘liberation’ emphasized the self-indulgence of the moment over anything that could be ridiculed as ‘inhibited’, and the ‘conservative’ boomer outlook wasn’t all that different, as represented by such figures as George W. Bush the clown, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh the pig.

Indeed, where was the demonstration of responsibility in Limbaugh who couldn’t even control his appetites, not only for food but for drugs? If Ron Paul’s libertarianism championed freedom on the assumption that most sensible people would say NO to harmful drugs and the like — perhaps delusional on his part but practiced in personal life — , the new libertarianism seemed to embrace the vices, not only as a matter of freedom and choice but as a celebration of abandonment to pleasure.
How can any meaningful conservative movement rely so heavily on industries such as gambling that really boils down to addicting people into throwing away their precious earnings to be raked in by Zionist moguls who feel nothing but contempt for the suckers? Granted, with the boomer takeover and makeover of values and attitudes, everything had to be ‘cool’ to obtain cultural cachet, and it’s no surprise that so many ‘conservatives’ were drawn to the libertarian paradise of the US as one big casino with room enough for Evangelicals and American Indians at the craps table. Consider the alliance of the religious right and the libertarians in the shameless saga of Jack Abramoff whose hijinks were the basis of the film CASINO JACK.

Video Link

One analogy between physical health and cultural health concerns the dangers of the process of refining(not to be confused with refinement as in haute cuisine or high culture, though that has problems of its own). This refining process is figuratively ‘chemistric’ in distilling those elements that seemingly possess the greatest potency for popular appeal. As such, the refined material has an instant, jolting or explosive, effect on the consumer. It’s the difference between a fruit and sugary drinks(including fruit juices that, while natural, essentially separate the sugars from the pulp that compose the bulk of the fruit). The sugary impact is instantly gratifying but also overwhelming on the body. When a fruit is consumed, the process of sugar absorption is slowed by the pulpy material that constitutes the bulk. Thus, the human body is better able to process and break down the sugars. In contrast, a sudden elevation of sugars in the bloodstream triggers an extreme reaction of insulin production to regulate the sugar level gone haywire. When this process is repeated over and over, it may lead to diabetes. And of course, many people become nearly addicted to sugary intakes, thereby unwilling to stop their dietary habit despite being aware of the harm.

Especially when children are allowed, even encouraged, to develop such habits, their over-preference for ‘junk food’ is likely to impede their appreciation of better kinds of foods. If one’s taste-buds crave only foods that are sugary, creamy, and/or crispy, they’re less likely to be curious and open to various dishes that are more varied in their ingredients and flavors. While fried chicken isn’t all bad, it’s very bad if it’s the only kind of chicken on one’s menu. Worse than the general run of ‘junk foods’(that nevertheless have some protein and vitamins) is the over-consumption of snack items. Ideally, snacking is something one does sparingly, like a donut here and there, some potato chips while watching TV. But for many Americans, the amount of snack intake equals or even exceeds their daily meals. And the dessert, far from being a bit of after-meal closer, comes in big portions. Clearly, things are out of balance. While the current nutritional pyramid promoted by the government and health institutions may not be ideal, the bigger problem is the prevalence of junk intake in the form of daylong snacking.

The body needs proteins, vitamins, minerals, fibers, and etc. and ideally those could be delivered in healthy dishes that are also rich in flavor.
While ultra-health-obsessed or ‘health nazis’ will obsess over everything and sound the alarm on 99% of available foodstuff as unhealthy or dangerous for one reason or another, the fact remains that the main dishes of most national cuisines are reasonably healthy and flavorful. But, even such savory and rewarding dishes may be rejected out of hand by those who crave something familiar and instantly gratifying(in the way illicit drugs are).
As so much ‘junk food’ was specifically formulated for its near-addictive appeal, the subconscious message for consumer-minds is that the ‘zinger’ is the essence of every meal. However, many dishes require some degree of time to appreciate, and that element of patience and delay requires a measure of cultivation. It’s easy to make children love ice cream and cookies, but it takes time for them to appreciate the richness of foods prepared with natural ingredients. If children are weaned on junk food and fast food culture without developing an appreciation for finer foods, it will likely be more challenging to correct their eating habits and preferences later.

What goes for food also goes for culture, and the problem is easily observable in a world saturated with pop culture. As with ‘junk food’, pop culture, most of which is junk culture, is the product of endless processes of refining. Over many generations, the popular culture industries have been refining their products to the point of distilling those elements that have the biggest and most immediate impact on the audience. Thus, certain contents and expressions are disproportionately favored over others.
Take the superhero blockbusters that, threadbare to begin with in terms of substance, increasingly emphasized the ‘rollercoaster ride’ thrills at the expense of whatever else. Some even brought together a host of superheroes in a single movie, leaving no room for anything but a series of wild spectacles(and lots of explosions) that left the product seem more like a videogame than a discernible narrative. It’s no wonder Martin Scorsese remarked that these movies are more like amusement park rides than ‘cinema’(as it came to be appreciated in the 20th century). Much the same could be said of Peter Jackson’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS movies that adapted little from the book but an endless series of action adventures, most of them done in the most outlandish manner. Compared to these, the SUPERMAN movies of the 1970s and 1980s seem downright ‘classic’. Silly as they were, they had something like characters and stories along with the special effects and outlandish moments.

Perhaps, part of the appeal of ‘wokeness’ to Hollywood has been as a shortcut substitute for true content, something of inspiration, originality, and/or meaning. If it’s too bothersome to imagine compelling scenarios and to create engaging heroes & villains, the easy way to feign ‘quality’ or ‘substance’ is by claiming that the work is ‘progressive’ or on the side of ‘social justice’, usually by the gratuitous casting of blacks and homosexuals or by featuring ‘girl power’. Thus, a work that excludes everything that makes a story worthwhile can, at the very least, claim to be ‘inclusive’. Take the new STAR WARS franchise from Disney, for example. George Lucas’ original saga was hardly a work of art but still offered something like an original vision and engaging storyline. The new iteration offered nothing that was new and sought to compensate for its utter vacuity with ‘virtuous’ claims of ‘diversity’.

What happens to the human heart and mind(or soul) when what is done with food is done with culture? When foods are overly refined to produce sugary-creamy flavors, we know it leads to diabetes, obesity, and a host of other problems. It makes people physically sick.
Might not something similar happen to the human soul when the culture is similarly refined/processed to offer maximum thrills and excitement at the expense of all else? THE FRENCH CONNECTION and TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. have some of the most exciting action scenes, but the violence happens within a social and moral(even philosophical) framework, thereby engaging our minds as well as our senses. Indeed, their action scenes are so powerful precisely because we are invested in the people and their situations. In second-rate works, there’s a bare minimum of ‘substance’ to justify the violence. But even more problematic are works that don’t even bother to rationalize the mayhem. And then, you have works that cast away all inhibitions and celebrate nihilism for nihilism’s sake.
The result is sensory overload that, in time, has a desensitizing effect. It’s been said of illicit drugs that people require ever higher doses to get the same high. And studies have shown that porn addiction leads to ever raunchier depictions of sex to maintain one’s level of excitement, resulting in young people, even females, getting hooked on something close to torture-porn. The saying ‘too much of a good thing is a bad thing’ applies here.
For example, brown bears love honey, but it’s no easy task as attaining it comes with bee stings. As terrible as the bee stings are, would it be better for the bear if it had limitless access to honey without pain? It would likely gorge on the stuff and grow sick from an excess of sugars. Instead of a piece of cake as dessert, imagine a dinner consisting of nothing but cakes and sweets. It’d be diabetes heaven.

The deterioration of physical health is readily observable, and despite the reverse-stigma on obesity — shaming those who shame fatness instead of shaming the fatness, which is celebrated in some quarters — , there’s a medical consensus that an excessively sugary/creamy diet is a health hazard, and of course, one would have to be nuts to defend diseases like diabetes, cancer, and heart problems.
But because the human heart and mind are harder to grasp as tangible entities, the cultural diet receives far less attention. (To be sure, cultural moralizers usually offer no alternatives as they tend to be disinterested in creativity and originality. Whether the ‘woke’ types or the religious crowd, they only know how to complain without forming ideas of their own.) And there are plenty of people who see no harm and no problem in the current state of narco-pornified popular culture.
To an extent, such a knee-jerk response is understandable given that the cultural moralists have tended to be like puritanical Church Ladies, spiritual hypocrites, or political opportunists. Who wants a bunch of church lady types telling us what we can’t read, watch, or hear? Who wants a sermon from Televangelist types, many of whom have been mired in drug/sexual scandals of their own? Who wants censorious BS from politicians who pretend to care about ‘family values’ or ‘community values’ when they’re just milking the anxiety of parents for easy votes?
The disdain for the public moralists come from both the libertarian types and the so-called ‘progressive’ types, of course depending on who’s doing the lecturing(or hectoring). When PC or ‘woke’ types say certain ideas or expressions are ‘toxic’, the libertarian types defend them on grounds of freedom of speech. When ‘conservative’ types raise the alarm, like when police organizations and Charlton Heston did in regards to Ice-T’s rap-metal song “Cop Killer”, the ‘progressive’ types cry ‘racism’ or, even as they admit the song is troubling, defend it on grounds of understandable black rage or despair.
But, one can totally defend the freedom of speech while also using that very principle to decry or denounce certain views. Indeed, harshly criticizing a view doesn’t mean that view should be banned from being voiced, but people often forget this and conclude that a denunciation is synonymous with censorship.

Sensation, violence, and thrill, these are all elements of storytelling. But a worthy story places them in a meaningful context. Why are the characters angry or hostile? What were the options other than violence? What are the odds involved? What are the consequences and the psychological toll of violence? Is it a contest of good vs bad or one between two or more parties, each of which feels equally justified? One gets a basic sense of these questions in John Ford movies(even if most of his Westerns were rather crude on the Indian issue). Prior to the growing permissiveness for violence and sex in movies, even lesser works had to focus more on story and characters because wall-to-wall bloodbath simply wasn’t an option.
But once the censorship faded, movie makers could emphasize thrill over all else. While greater expressive license could be used to powerful effect by genuine artists, it was an irresistible incentive for exploiters to draw in the audience by peddling little more than sexual vulgarity and violent kicks.

One wonders about the cumulative effect of all this over several generations. The degeneration of black music from blues to soul to rap is one troubling indication. The elementary qualities of blues are at least organic, a natural product of musical expression that developed in the absence of higher education and cultural sophistication. As such, it has genuine worth as folk art.
In contrast, hip-hop was quickly adopted by the industry and ‘chemistically’ processed for maximum instant thrills, which accounts for its global appeal, much like candy bars and soft drinks. Thus, unlike blues that retains the fiber of real experience and emotions, hip-hop has been ‘refined’ to the point where only the thrill elements remain.
Granted, given the crudity of the emotions often associated with hip-hop and related rap(especially gangsta rap), many have mistaken the musical genre as an expression of real life, of ‘survival’ in the streets. But the only emotion distilled in the musical process is childlike vanity, nasty petulance, disdain for any kind of self-reflection(and remorse), and infatuation with ignorance as knowledge. It’s all a stunt and strut. Saying that it’s the genuine reflection of life in the streets is like saying junkies and skanks are the truest messengers of da hood. After generations of fostering such hostile egomania with virtually zero counterbalance, is it surprising that the typical expression of blackness today is ‘twerking’? Likewise, when hard rock was caricatured into Heavy Metal and Punk, the young ones were disinclined to bestow value to anything that wasn’t the loudest and most outrageous, not a good cultural attitude for curiosity and patience(without which curiosity isn’t possible).
Darron Aronofsky was onto something in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM where various lives, from mother to son, are caught up in cultural consumption based on thrills of an addictive nature.

Video Link

As we believe in a free society, we should allow for all views, ideas, and expressions, but we shouldn’t refrain from raising alarm about their negative impact. To be sure, there’s a lot of alarmism, but it’s often misplaced, misdirected, or misconstrued. First, if criticism calls for the outright censorship of its target, it has lost the argument there and then by unwittingly acknowledging that it cannot prevail in a court of free discourse.

Video Link

Also, one-way criticism is a form of dogmatism characteristic of a theocracy. Over the years, the most powerful moral criticisms have been centered on themes of ‘antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. Christian church ladies are a thing of the past, but their ‘woke’ reiterations are everywhere. Nowadays, you don’t get in trouble for making fun of Jesus or mocking the Pope. You get in trouble by denouncing sodomy as gross, a grave ‘sin’ in the eyes of the church of Wokery. And there have been endless panics and hysterias about ‘racism’ and ‘antisemitism’.
Now, if indeed the KKK are on the loose and hanging innocent blacks from lamp-posts and if Cossack ghost riders are rampaging around Manhattan and running down Jews(and raping Jewish women as Woody Allen has joked so often), such outcries would be understandable. But Jews are the most powerful and privileged group in the US. And they’ve waged the biggest wars in the 21st Century that killed millions of people from Ukraine to Gaza. And blacks are by far the most violent and destructive group in the US. Entire city blocks(and even entire cities) have been decimated by Negrocalyptic behavior.
Yet, an endless array of movies, books, lectures, college courses, government pronouncements, and etc. have been about noble black victims and how we must all try to do better by them. And given what spews forth from the Jewish-run media, one would think homos are the nicest angels and finest saints.

It’s One-Way Criticism because we can condemn the purported failings of humanity in deference to Jews, blacks, and homos, but we better not criticize the problems of Jews, blacks, and homos in defense of humanity. BLM was premised on one-way criticism if there ever was one. We were all admonished to take the knee in worship of St. George Floyd who most likely died of drug overdose. And even though blacks routinely kill one another as well as members of other races, we were supposed to believe that innocent blacks were being gunned down by sadistic white policemen. And even though Jewish Power has made the US complicit in the horrible wars against the Arab/Muslim world over generations, as well as economically manipulating the system to concentrate wealth in the hands of Zion, we’re supposed to believe that one of the great pressing issues of our day is ‘antisemitism’, when clearly the moral failing of the current West is the mindless philosemitism that has the white race fawning over Jews as the rightful Chosen-Master-Race.

True criticism has to be a two-way street. We can’t have Bob doing all the criticism of Bill while Bill must always listen, nod along, and concede while never ever daring to criticize Bob in turn. One of the worst legacies of the faith in the one and only perfect God is the mental habit that some things that are deemed holy are never to be questioned(or blasphemed).
True criticism is most welcome. Not the kind that favors one side, protecting it from criticism from the other side. And not the kind where the range of debate is severely restricted, e.g. both the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ in the West having to conform to the official consensus imposed by Jewish Power that demands veneration (or at least excessive toleration) of Jews, blacks, and homosexuals — it’s no wonder that the Western Right has been so useless, compelled to defer to the very ethnic group, the Jews, that has been most hellbent on pushing the anti-white agenda. True criticism would air views not only from the National Review crowd but from the likes of David Duke, Kevin MacDonald, and Nicholas Fuentes as well.
Sadly, the establishment Right has been corralled and steered by people like Ben Shapiro. GOP politics is like one big cattle drive with Shapiro, his fellow Jews, and cuck goy henchmen leading the masses of idiot cons to their eventual demise.

The current West has all the visible signs of a Liberal Democracy with its electoral noise and incessant ideological buzz in media-space, but scratch the surface of all the ‘vibrant’ happenings, and it’s very much a rigged game where anyone who deviates from the official script is either censored or blacklisted or prevented from rising up the echelons of institutional power.
The fact that certain ‘notorious’ personalities have gained traction despite all the discouragement and deplatforming is a sign, a healthy one, that growing numbers of people, especially among the young, are wising up to the fact that much of what’s paraded as ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ in the West is a sham, a charade perpetuated by charlatans in service to globalist imperialist power.

In a way, one might argue that the current ideological diet has made the masses soul-sick or mind-sick in the way that overly sugary-creamy food has made the people body-sick. Just like sugars extracted from their original sources(which are otherwise discarded) have an overload effect on the bloodstream, the sensationalism of news coverage(that removes the complex fiber of context) results in junk news, which is usually ‘fake news’. For example, consider the sugary overload of the Ukraine War narrative, i.e. that the Russian invasion was ‘unprovoked’. Just like sugars are distilled from fruits & vegetables and processed & delivered by food companies to provide consumers with sugar highs, sensations(and insta-passions) are filtered from complex world events to serve and manipulate the cravings of news junkies.
Thus, stories from around the world are turned into easily digestible snacks of moral outrage, quasi-missionary fervor, heroic myths, and ideological comfort. Among the simplest formulas of this is to paint any problematic political figure in the world as the ‘New Hitler’. Or to demean someone who calls for a more balanced interpretation of events as an ‘appeaser’(and it’s Munich all over again). Or the media will tug at people’s heartstrings or push the buttons of instant moral outrage, thereby justifying American presence in Iraq or invasion of Syria to, for example, ‘save the Kurds’.

With such sugar-high media reports, it’s no wonder so many Western minds are ideologically diabetic, unable to reject the comic book ‘unipolar’ vision of the world in favor of one that regards other nations, cultures, and civilizations with a measure of empathy, curiosity, and respect.
For the idiots on the American Right, the only thing that matters in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the sugar high that Jews are a bunch of Anne Franks, a Holy Holocaust people, and rich & powerful as hell to boot, which is why it’s so enticing to suck up to the Zionists(even if engaged in genocide) in the hope of turning more Jews into Republicans. That’s the sugar-addiction among the Conservatives. Of course, these cuckservatives aren’t hoping that Jews will join them on an equal footing as Fellow Republicans; instead, they are hoping for Jews to take on the role of the master-race-overlords over white conservatives in the Republican Party — Netanyahu as Prophet Moses and King David of the GOP. It’s not “join us and stand by our side” but “lord over us, oh great Jew, aka super-white man.”