Nazis Are from MARS

Iron Sky is real, goyim, but it ain't on the far side of the moon or inside the Hollow Earth, no, the Nazis are actually from MARS. M-A-R-S! MARS, bitches!

OK, not literally. But to understand the dynamic I'm about to present, foreigners especially but also burgers have to realize how the US political system works. We have what's known as a "first past the post" voting system for elections, which as described in the vidya below, inevitably collapses into a two-party system.

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

The TL;DW is that minority parties and points of view realize that they cannot win any representation in such a voting system, so they cast their lots, one by one, into the largest and most viable parties that represent the lesser of two evils to them. As a result, the USA tends to have only two viable parties at any one time, and these parties do not represent opposites on a spectrum but rather somewhat loose coalitions of minority interests who form alliances before the elections, rather than after the elections, as they do in Europe. That's what the Primary Election represents in the USA, it's a fight between the different factions to determine whose representative will carry the Party banner. Incidentally it's also the reason why there are sometimes mass defections from one Party to another, as was the case in Texas with the Democrats becoming Republican en masse a couple of decades ago, and why the whole "left versus right" paradigm needs to go to the shitter.

I've often described the Democrat Party as the "coalition of hate" as their only guiding principle seems to be a need to destroy everything that made Western civilization great, a hatred of the Huwhyte Christian Family. Everybody in the Dem coalition hates the White Christian Family: Negroes, Mestizos, welfare slugs, faggots, dykes, Jews, feminists, Marxists, blah blah yada yada. The Negro/Mestizo/faggot/dyke/Jew coalition of anti-Huwhyte and anti-Christian voting blocs by themselves represent 45% of the Dem registered vote. Of course, the Party bosses at the top are a group of (((cosmopolitan international elites))) who manipulate the process through large d'nations.

On the other hand, the GOP by default attracts the Huwhyte Christian Family, but by and large doesn't represent them through its typical (((chosen))) candidates, even though the GOP vote is over 90% Huwhyte. Much of the GOP coalition includes domestic businessmen, meritocratic types, free trade enthusiasts, LOLbertarians, MUH CONSTITUTIONALISTS, etc., but again, the Party bosses at the top are a group of (((cosmopolitan international elites))) who manipulate the process through d'nations.

The typical election in the USA, for the Huwhyte man, is a game of "heads you win, tails I lose." Which is why Trump has turned this thing on its head.

Donald Trump appeals to a pre-existing and actually well-documented group in the GOP coalition which has been referred to as Middle American Radicals, or MARS. As you can see from the quote below, all of the #CUCKservatives who want to attribute Trump's appeal to a "cult of personality" or a lack of "political correctness" are wrong; dead wrong. His appeal is strictly ideological.

In 1976, Don­ald War­ren—a so­ci­olo­gist from Oak­land Uni­versity in Michigan who would die two dec­ades later without ever at­tain­ing the rank of full pro­fess­or—pub­lished a book called The Rad­ic­al Cen­ter: Middle Amer­ic­ans and the Polit­ics of Ali­en­a­tion. Few people have read or heard of it—I learned of it about 30 years ago from the late, very ec­cent­ric pa­leo­con­ser­vat­ive Samuel Fran­cis—but it is, in my opin­ion, one of the three or four books that best ex­plain Amer­ic­an polit­ics over the past half-cen­tury. . While con­duct­ing ex­tens­ive sur­veys of white voters in 1971 and again in 1975, War­ren iden­ti­fied a group who de­fied the usu­al par­tis­an and ideo­lo­gic­al di­vi­sions. These voters were not col­lege edu­cated; their in­come fell some­where in the middle or lower-middle range; and they primar­ily held skilled and semi-skilled blue-col­lar jobs or sales and cler­ic­al white-col­lar jobs. At the time, they made up about a quarter of the elect­or­ate. What dis­tin­guished them was their ideo­logy: It was neither con­ven­tion­ally lib­er­al nor con­ven­tion­ally con­ser­vat­ive, but in­stead re­volved around an in­tense con­vic­tion that the middle class was un­der siege from above and be­low. . War­ren called these voters Middle Amer­ic­an Rad­ic­als, or MARS. “MARS are dis­tinct in the depth of their feel­ing that the middle class has been ser­i­ously neg­lected,” War­ren wrote. They saw “gov­ern­ment as fa­vor­ing both the rich and the poor sim­ul­tan­eously.” Like many on the left, MARS were deeply sus­pi­cious of big busi­ness: Com­pared with the oth­er groups he sur­veyed—lower-in­come whites, middle-in­come whites who went to col­lege, and what War­ren called “af­flu­ents”—MARS were the most likely to be­lieve that cor­por­a­tions had “too much power,” “don’t pay at­ten­tion,” and were “too big.” MARS also backed many lib­er­al pro­grams: By a large per­cent­age, they favored gov­ern­ment guar­an­tee­ing jobs to every­one; and they sup­por­ted price con­trols, Medi­care, some kind of na­tion­al health in­sur­ance, fed­er­al aid to edu­ca­tion, and So­cial Se­cur­ity. . On the oth­er hand, they held very con­ser­vat­ive po­s­i­tions on poverty and race. They were the least likely to agree that whites had any re­spons­ib­il­ity “to make up for wrongs done to blacks in the past,” they were the most crit­ic­al of wel­fare agen­cies, they re­jec­ted ra­cial bus­ing, and they wanted to grant po­lice a “heav­ier hand” to “con­trol crime.” They were also the group most dis­trust­ful of the na­tion­al gov­ern­ment. And in a stand that wasn’t really lib­er­al or con­ser­vat­ive (and that ap­peared, at least on the sur­face, to be in ten­sion with their dis­like of the na­tion­al gov­ern­ment), MARS were more likely than any oth­er group to fa­vor strong lead­er­ship in Wash­ing­ton—to ad­voc­ate for a situ­ation “when one per­son is in charge.”

Hmm, racially aware, authoritarian, nationalist, interested in the welfare of the people they see as their own ... these fuckers sound a lot like Fascists to me. Damn Nazis, as a matter of fact! No, I'm not being facetious. Take a look at the tenets of Fascism at Kikepedia or peruse my own summary TL;DR below:

  • Nationalism: the natural unifying force of people is a shared ancestry (sometimes merely shared culture, sometimes also requiring shared religion) which creates a Nation, and the purpose of the State i.e. the governing polity is to further the interests of said Nation
  • Authoritarianism: the State must have the power to achieve its goals, and the interests of any individual must be subsumed under those of the Nation, and if necessary, overruled by those of the Nation
  • the twin pillars of Nationalism and Authoritarianism lead naturally to a form of "social safety net" or "welfare State" as the poor of the Nation are cared for if needed, protected from abuse by wealthy members of the Nation (often through institutions such as Labor Unions), and this is paid for by those wealthy members, through coercive measures if needed
  • Autarky: in order to protect the Nation, the State's economy must be as self-sufficient as possible, and this expresses itself through protectionist trade policies internationally and subsidies for those industries which are viewed as essential for the State's survival
  • the three main tenets above lead Fascism to be viewed as a "3rd position" between Capitalism and Communism (although in reality it was the FIRST position), and it's easy to see how this blend of positions could be termed "national" "socialism".
  • Realpolitik: if, as Clausewitz said, "war is politics by other means," then it follows that "politics is war by other means." Since the State is force used to impose the will of those who rule, politics is merely a "gentlemen's agreement" on the method used to determine who is the ruler. This is different from war only in the methods used to determine who the ruler is, because both are, in essence, about one party using force to rule the other. The view of politics as an "ivory tower" experience is a particular disease of the post-Enlightenment West.
  • Morality: the Nation is more than a biological entity, it is also a spiritual entity, and the spirit and morality of the people must be preserved, or if it is degenerate, it must be restored. This applies on both an individual level, i.e. those of high character should be encouraged to rise in society, and on a societal level, i.e. those of degenerate character should be rehabilitated or rooted out. Therefore a 20th or 21st century fascist society would have an emphasis on what we would now call "traditional" gender roles.

If you think about it, these actually were the characteristic tenets of most societies in the West prior to the so-called "Enlightenment" and of course the invention of the Siamese Twins of Capitalism and Communism. Note carefully that the tenets of Fascism are irrespective of the polity of government—it matters not whether the society is a monarchy or republic or democracy, so long as the tenets hold. Only the NAMES are new. Nothing else. So in my opinion, we shouldn't be too attached to the names from the 20th century other than as a useful label for understanding, although unfortunately they're used as epithets by most today.

No, the description of MARS, above, doesn't exactly tick every single box in the tenets of Fascism.

But on the other hand, when you combine the ideological boxes that it does tick with the Donald's mastery of propaganda and public speaking skills, those #libshit comparisons of Trump to Hitler or Mussolini make more sense than they could ever imagine.

Nazis. MARS. Who'd a thunk it?

Author image
Get off my lawn, whipper-snappers!