Problems of Rush Limbaugh & the Delusions of Dittoheads — The False Dichotomy of 'Right-Wing' Capitalism vs 'Left-Wing' Socialism

Did Rush Limbaugh really make a difference?

Ironically, Limbaugh paved the way for the triumph of the New Liberals who should now be called Uberalls as they stand for Shlomo-Globo hegemony uber alles. Maybe, Limbaugh should be called a 'Limberal' given he unwittingly lent a hand to the Globerals and Uberalls in their total usurpation of power. How was Limbaugh a tool in this?

He was a total cheerleader for US corporations, 'free trade', 'private enterprise', Wall Street, Las Vegas, and money-money-money on the supposition that those are intrinsically 'conservative' forces. His was a pro-rich message though his main appeal was to the rubes. Thus, he helped create the situation of "What's the Matter with Kansas", i.e. so many American social conservatives who were have-lesses supporting policies that favored the have-mores and have-lot-mores in the mistaken belief that Big Money was on the side of Americanism.
Perhaps, Limbaugh's blind spot could be forgiven as his formative years were the Cold War when global conflict according to the US Narrative boiled down to God, Enterprise, & American Patriotism versus Godless Communism & Anti-Americanism. Also, when Rush Limbaugh was young, the face of capitalism was General Motors and good ole boys making things in factories. And the GOP was powerful in California — none other than Ronald Reagan won twice there as governor and dominated in 1980 and 1984 — , and the initial high-tech start-ups had many libertarian-leaning individuals who preferred GOP's pro-entrepreneur policies.

Limbaugh was blind, willfully or otherwise, as to how much things had changed in American Capitalism with the ascendancy of boomers(among whom Jews were especially powerful). And had he inspected matters more carefully, he would have realized that Eastern Bloc communist nations were, in more ways than one, culturally and socially more conservative than the Liberal West(that, under the power of PC, became both less conservative and less liberal, rejecting both traditional values and civil liberties in favor of the Tri-Supremacist Idolatry of Jews, Negroes, and Homos enshrined as the Holy Three). Limbaugh clung to Cold War formulations of the Left vs Right, and his continuing influence after the Cold War turned out to be corrosive. In his twilight, he warmed to Donald Trump, but it was too little too late(and besides Trump turned out to be a clown).

In the 1990s, a boomer civil war broke out between Rush Limbaugh(and Newt Gingrich) and Billy Boy Clinton(and Jews securing their position as the new ruling elites). With the defeat of George H.W. Bush, the so-called Greatest Generation's fall from power(and grace) was swift, and the boomers, biggest generation in US history, took total power(though Clinton did appoint some of the older generation). Bob Dole was useless in 1996, and the death of Richard Nixon marked an end of an era.
According to Limbaugh, Bill Clinton and his crowd represented the Radical Sixties, Socialism, and Anti-Americanism. But the real conflict wasn't about capitalism vs socialism but about trying to win over Big Capital. Under Bill Clinton, the Democrats had pretty much given up on Big Labor and fixed their gaze on Wall Street, Big Tech, and other Big Money players as the main prizes. It was as if both Limbaugh and Clinton in drag were doing lap dance for Bill Gates and the like. They were both going 'me so horny, we sucky sucky long time'.
In time, Boomer Big Money went with the Democrats, something American Conservatives were reluctant to face until the likes of Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson finally began to gripe about traitorous Chamber of Commerce and 'woke capital'. But even now, so many American Conzos yap about 'socialism', 'communism', and blah blah. Right, the mega-billionaires of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Hollywood, Wall Street, and etc. are all a bunch of 'communists'. And those vain homos and trannies funded by the super-rich represent what? Leninism and Stalinism?
Bill Clinton, a sleazebag but an astute observer of human nature, understood that the rich aren't only materially greedy but morally vain and status-anxious. As long as Democratic policies were overly punitive on the wealthy, many among the rich would reluctantly stick with the stuffy-and-square GOP as the pro-business party. But once the Democratic Party became reasonably pro-business, many(even most) rich folks would come over to the Democrats(even if GOP remained more pro-business) because the Democrats control the gods and own the 'cool'. Especially with Jewish control of academia and media, the gods of the US became the Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and increasingly Holy Homos. As the Democratic Party was the home of most Jews and blacks, it held the moral high ground. And as Jewish Power made homos ever holier, the young generation increasingly went with the Democrats as the happy globo-homo party.

Of course, the GOP had given up 'racism' long ago, but why would blacks accept racial equality from the GOP when they can get racial sanctity from the Democrats? Some Jews, as 'Neocons', did join the GOP because it was even more pro-Zionist than the Democratic Party, but it was a matter of inches(and besides, the Neocons were merely using the GOP without offering much in return: "I eat your lunch, and I eat my lunch."). If the Democratic Party was 200% for Israel, the GOP claimed it was 210% for Israel. It hardly made a difference. Also, despite GOP's ultra-hardline support for Israel, many American Conservatives opposed or or were at least less enthused about Jewish-favored policies in the US, such as gun-banning, more mass-immigration, anti-white rhetoric, Christianity-bashing, and promotion of globo-homo. Indeed, GOP's extreme obeisance to Israel and Zionism was really a crutch, a desperate compensation for its disfavor among most Jews. If anything, it betrayed GOP's anxiety as the party of disdain among Jews. In a sane world, those attacked by Jews should attack them back, but as Jews became holy in the US, you had to praise them and seek their approval EVEN when they attacked you. As the GOP couldn't win favor from Jews on domestic issues, it went full-steroids on Israel. GOP gushed as if Jews are the very best, and yet most Jews stuck with the Democrats. If indeed Jews are the best yet most remained with the Democratic Party, didn't it imply that Democrats are morally superior? After all, it seems a happier home for the Very Best.

Anyway, as the party of the three most 'sacralized' groups(of Jews, blacks, and homos), the Democrats had a decisive moral advantage over the GOP, and this state of affairs hasn't changed after four years of Donald Trump whose message was, "I love Negroes, even as they riot and loot! I love Jews even as they ram me in the arse! And, Trannies can use women's room at Trump Tower." Rich people love money but are also anxious about their reputation, and as the Jews/Democrats controlled the gods, most rich folks moseyed on over to the Democratic Party. Besides, it was also the party of big Hollywood stars and rock stars, thus more fashionable and 'cool'. In contrast, GOP was associated with 'racist' redneck Neo-Confederate South & 'homophobes' and Nashville hillbillies. (Its moralism came down to Ann Coulter and Dinesh D'Souza yapping about how the Democrats are the 'real racists' because the KKK members were historically Democratic.) And when the Jew-run media made Trump and 'Deplorables' out to be Worse-than-Hitler and the new nazis, most rich folks(shallow and vain) wanted nothing to do with it. And the likes of Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney know only one trick: Try to win back the rich with even more tax cuts and other cucktivities.

Limbaugh of the Cold War mentality thought that the triumph of global capitalism was synonymous with victory for conservatism against Godless Communism and leftover radicalism from the Sixties, but the success of everything he'd championed came to mean the death knell of American Conservatism(and also of American Liberalism as the current power is anything but liberal in the traditional or even radical sense). The great irony is that Limbaugh lost precisely because he won. The Big Money that he so idolized won many times over, and its power led to censorship of conservatives, deplatforming of patriots, denial of financial services to rightists, defamation of people like him, and the rise of global-gangster-fascism(as opposed to good humanist fascism). Limbaugh and the dittoheads assumed that Big Capital was at war with Big Government, and the triumph of the former would ensure more liberty, more freedom, and more patriotism. Actually, the result was the fusion of Deep Pockets and Deep State. Also, Limbaugh and his ilk hoped that Jews could be wooed over to Conservatism because Jews are rich and GOP is 210% pro-Israel(than merely 200% that the Democrats are). They failed to realize that Jews have an agenda all their own. Jews weren't looking to pick sides but take over both parties and manipulate them to Jewish supremacist ends.

In the end(and from the beginning), Limbaugh was more style than substance, and Trump turned out to be no different. For all his maverick playacting, he cared more about money, success, fame, and celebrity than integrity and truth. Though he stood up to the GOP on occasion, he was more often than not a reliable cheerleader and whore for all its destructive policies.

Could Limbaugh have made a difference? Yes, but he missed the chance. Looking back, the most prescient presidential candidate of the last fifty years was Ross Perot whose campaign took on both the GOP and the Democratic Party as the tweedle dee and tweedle dum of globalism and 'free trade'. Though Perot was far from perfect and a rather unstable personality, he was more right than wrong about the dangers posed to American sovereignty by the rise of globalism and the New World Order. Because the GOP was more invested in 'free trade' than the Democrats back then, Perot was hit harder by the Republicans. Limbaugh, a Reagan Romantic of the Cold War mindset, joined with the GOP in mercilessly mocking not only Perot's looks and personality but his warnings and policies. Rush, the attack dog of the GOP, assured all the dittoheads across the fruited plains(soon to become tutti-fruity plains) to denounce Perot and go with George H.W. Bush, 'free trade', and New World Order policies.
Thus, Limbaugh missed the boat. Another chance came with Patrick Buchanan's remarkable speech at the 1992 GOP convention where he spoke for the common man and the American Worker threatened by globalist 'free trade'. Again, Limbaugh reliably sided with the GOP and repeated all the talking points about how Walmart and the like are the wave of the future, and the American Worker had nothing to fear and nothing to lose and had everything to gain. Or, maybe they can learn to code and become big earners in High-Tech.
And of course, 'true conservatives' know that capitalists are all such swell fellows, mostly patriots and natural conservatives(or at the very least libertarians committed to small government and liberty). They would never betray the GOP for all it has done for them with lower taxes, de-regulation, and the like. Limbaugh and dittoheads were fooling themselves.

While capitalists are surely people of talent, drive, ambition, creativity, and even vision, the world of money isn't exactly one of integrity or loyalty. As it's mainly driven by materialism and status-anxiety, loyalty and integrity are the last thing on the mind of capitalists. Capitalism is useful and productive but shouldn't be the core of any meaningful identity, ideology, or value system. Like Michael Corleone says in THE GODFATHER 2, "all our people are businessmen... their loyalty is based on that..." One may admire businessmen for their ability but never mistake it for integrity.

If Limbaugh had taken a nationalist-populist stance in support of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, perhaps he would have been booted off 'conservative talk radio' that, more often than not, was a propaganda wing of Zionists and the GOP, much like most of so-called MSM is little more than Ministry of Information for the Democratic Party and ADL. Still, he would have been a man of integrity, and had he overcome the obstacles with a populist message, he and his following could have served as a formidable counter-force against globalism pushed not only by the GOP but the Democrats.
But, by working with the GOP to crush people like Perot and Buchanan, Limbaugh unwittingly strengthened the future Democrats who would turn out to be the main beneficiaries of 'free trade', deregulation, Big Tech monopoly, and anarcho-oligarcho-tyrannism. Limbaugh banked on the false hope that triumph of New Capital would ensure dominance of the GOP and American Conservatism. And most dittoheads fell for the myth that the power struggle was about American Capitalism & Conservatism(and Neocons & Israel) versus International Socialism & Liberalism(and all those 'Anti-Semites' eager to throw Israel under the bus) when, in fact, the real tug-of-war between GOP and the Democratic Party was for the 'hearts and minds'(or wallets and vanity) of the rich donor class.

The sad irony is that the rich capitalist oligarchic class won bigger than ever(exactly as Limbaugh and dittoheads wished), and it was this very class(especially dominated by Zio-Globalist Jews) that waged total war on American Nationalism, the white race, Christianity, and populist-conservatism. But American Conzos learned nothing. Again with Obama's win in 2008, there was more nonsensical talk about 'socialism'! True, Obama had links with certain radical figures from the Sixties, some of them Jewish, but most of them had moved on from communism to Zionist-capitalist-supremacism. (Besides, Neocons had Trotskyite backgrounds.) Wall Street was bailed out under Obama, the puppet of the Jews, and Jews got even richer when Main Street took it up the arse. And it was Big Capital that funded globo-homo and tranny-wanny nonsense. It was the capitalists who promoted 'gay burgers'. And it was the capitalists at Chick-Fil-A who, despite so much support from the conservative consumers, caved under Jewish Capitalist pressure and became Dick-Fil-Ass. And while uber-capitalist banks were shutting down accounts of conservatives and rightists, some of the biggest corporations were pumping many millions, even billions, into groups like BLM and SPLC. It was super-rich Hollywood Jews and Silicon Valley Zionists who pumped record cash into Georgia to ensure Democratic Senatorial wins. Joe Biden raised record money in 2020 thanks to Big Capital and super-rich Jews. And Big Capital conspired with the Deep State and Big Media to turn 2020 into a hellhole with Covid nonsense and BLM nuttery just to punish America for having elected Trump. So, the notion that capitalism is automatically conservative was a boomer myth, a byproduct of Cold War mentality.

But the kind of 'conservatism' set by Limbaugh and dittoheads failed to see the big picture because it was stuck on framing the world in terms of capitalism = conservatism versus socialism = liberalism. What's-the-Matter-with-Kansas was a case of "What's the matter with Limby-Dim and the Dittoheads?" Now, it's true that Limbaugh's reach and influence waned in the age of the internet, but much of the talking points remained. So, Steven Crowder the chowder-head still thinks the big enemy is 'socialism'. Andrew Torba, though laudable as founder of Gab and defender of free speech, gripes about 'communism', ROTFL. (China may be ruled by the CCP, but China gave up communism long ago... or haven't they heard? CCP today is about as Maoist as the current Democrats are Pro-Confederate and Pro-Working-Class.) And so many even in the Dissident Right speak of THE LEFTISTS. Anyone with sense would have realized long ago that true leftism is deader than conservatism, though it may not seem that way on the surface as radical 'wokeness' seem to be everywhere. But it's all just labels over trivia and trifles. Jewish supremacist capitalist-Zionism hides behind the 'leftist' label to create the false impression that its side is about 'equity' and 'justice' when it's totally about supremacism, hierarchy, hegemony, and privilege. If the Democrats are really about equal justice for all, what's with all their 'Muh Israel' catechisms and submission to Zionist Jews and total support for More Wars for Zion?

Alt Right could have introduced something new, but idiot Richard Spencer and his retardo crew decided to larp as Nazis and fall into the enemy's trap, which made it even harder for Trump to try something different.

At any rate, one thing Perot got right was going beyond the stunted worldview of left vs right. The Reform Party was a third party that appealed to both rightist and leftist sentiments. Though Nazism 2.0 turned out to be insane with its imperialism and wars, Nazism 1.0 was essentially sound precisely because it combined rightism with leftism. National Socialism was about German Pride but also about the German worker, the backbone volk of the nation. Perot instinctively understood this, and free-thinking Democrats and Republicans were willing to give him a chance.
It attempted a counter-convergence against the convergence happening within both the GOP and the Democratic Party. After the end of the Cold War, the establishment elites of both parties were converging on 'free trade', globalism, the gods of PC, and total sucking up to Jews. For all the bitterness between Billy Boy Clinton and Newt Gingrich, they were totally agreed on More for Wall Street and More for Big Money. Perot's challenge envisioned a different kind of convergence. Not among the elites but among the masses. The American People, instead of being divided by and manipulated with the false dichotomy of 'left' vs 'right', would converge as a broad mass of patriots in defense of national sovereignty and economic justice. Convergence of the people against the convergence of the elites. If not for Perot's instability and the dirty tricks played by both parties(especially by the GOP), it's possible Perot could have changed the course of US history. And Limbaugh could have been part of something truly remarkable but he opted to be the lapdog of the GOP and cheered on the Walmartians.

A third party is useless if it appeals only to one side. Another 'liberal' party will merely take votes away from the Democrats, ensuring victory for the GOP, and another 'conservative' party will shave votes from the GOP, ensuring victory for the Democrats. The only chance for a Third Party is to win over disillusioned people from both sides. Also, its message must be both left and right. After all, there is much that is good about leftism(without which Western progress is inconceivable) and much that is good about rightism(without which there is no civilizational continuity and stability). Conservatism allows for tradition, caution, and continuance. Liberalism allows for novelty, experimentation, and daring. It's like how evolution works. Without mutations, organisms would have remained the same. And yet, most mutations are harmful and must be rejected. Without leftism, there is just moribund conservatism, and many civilizations grew weak and weary as a result, like Ancient Egypt and Byzantium. The West made great leaps because of the revolutionary spirit. And yet, without the stabilizing gyrational force of conservatism, leftism can turn cancerous and crazy, mistaking every novelty as the 'most evolved' truth. Imagine an organism where the mutations take over. It will turn into Elephant Man.

Looking back on 2016, it would have been better for Trump to run as a third-party candidate. Because he ran as a Republican, he was compelled to play the 'rightist', thus needlessly alienating many people with leftist inclinations. Had he run on a combination of nationalism and socialism, he could have done so much more. Of course, had he won as a third party candidate in 2016, he would have been squeezed by both parties in Congress for four grueling years, but many more Americans would have been with him. Being alone with the people isn't the worst thing, and his tragedy would have been heroic. Instead, as a sham 'rightist' in a cucked GOP, the tragedy of 2020 was a clown-show, a farce.
Two realities decide the fate of America: JEWS CONTROL THE GODS and JEWS GIVE YOU MONEY. In the end, despite all his bluster, Rush Limbaugh bowed to the Jewish-controlled gods and took their money as Talk Radio Industry was controlled by Uber-Zionists.

RUSH - AN AMERICAN ICON

Transformation of Diversity Politics from Rule by Anglo-America to Rule by Judeo-America — How Jewish Power used Diversity to divide & rule over Goyim and then formulated New Terms of Goy Unity on terms favorable to Jewish Supremacism

The American Mythos of Anglo Pride

America was diverse from the beginning, predominantly Anglo but with other Northern European ethnicities, and it increasingly grew diverse as later newcomers were less Anglo or Northern European in general. There was also the large number of blacks, but they were sufficiently different to be considered and treated as a separate population, and this was even truer of the American Indians. More immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and then finally from non-Western nations meant that the US would grow more diverse, which could also mean more divided.
Therefore, as counterbalance to the divisiveness wrought by diversity — even the American Civil War resulted from Diversity as an all-white South surely would NOT have seceded from the North; it did so because white Southerners feared the blacks and thought the whites in the North were agitating the Negroes — , the Anglo-American elites devised a formula for unity that roughly went as 'Principles for All, Pride for Us', i.e. the American Ethos would de-emphasize origin, race, ethnicity, color, religion, and etc. BUT the narrative of American Mythos would emphasize the vision, courage, foresight, ability, and wisdom of the Anglos. So, Americanism would appeal to all but reveal the Anglos as the true founders, builders, and settlers for all else for everything else to be possible. So, even as the US grew more diverse, dangers of division would be ameliorated by not only shared principles(in the Constitution) but shared respect for the Anglos as the First and Foundational Americans.

But Jews couldn't abide by that. Now, if Jews were a middling people with, say, an average IQ of 90 and possessed of a milder personality(than a pushy one with chutzpah coming out of their ears), they too would likely have abided by the Anglo Formula for Principles for All, Pride for Us(Anglos). After all, even though every non-Anglo group felt some degree of envy and resentment for the Anglos, there was more respect and admiration. It's like in the traditional Southwest, a Mexican might call an Anglo a 'damn gringo' behind his back but was ever ready to say "Si, Senor" when the Anglo boss needed the Mexican to do something, like saddle a horse in THE BIG COUNTRY. Same with the Negroes. For all their rage and loud talk, blacks on their own are like the Tataglias without the backing of Barzini in THE GODFATHER. Blacks on their own 'could never have outfought (white)Santino'. This is why blacks so eagerly pimp out to Jews. Not that they like Jews, but they know Jews place special value on blacks as bouncers and pimps.

Jews exploited the possibilities inherent in the promise of Principles-for-All in order to gain power over Anglo-Americans. Jews argued, "If the US is indeed all about equality and liberty, why was the history of America 'racist' and why was Free Speech restricted in one form or another?" Taking over the Law and Media, Jews pushed ever harder on civil liberties, especially as many Jews were radical, subversive, criminal, and/or pornographic. And under this pressure, the US did become freer than ever for awhile. Late 60s to the mid-80s were probably the golden age of Free Speech, not just in the US but in world history.

But as Jews aimed to grab more power and take over as the new ruling elites, they believed that both the politics of Pride and Principles as laid down by Anglo-America had to be altered. As long as the Pride of Narrative belonged to the Anglos, Jews would have to play a sidekick role in the American Mythos. Jews might even come to be seen as usurpers than rightful rulers.

Just like Christianity, though owing so much to Judaic tradition and Early Jews, defined itself against Jews as Christ-Killers — it was an effective way for Christians to wrest the rightful ownership of God from the Jews — , Jews felt they must villainize the white race(especially those of Northern European stock) in the American Mythos in order to conceive of a New Americanism where Jews and their allies/minions would be the true rightful owners of America.
Jesus was a Jew, but also the Son of God murdered by Jews, or so said the Christians. Gentiles took so much from Jews but blamed the Jews for the greatest crime conceivable, the killing of the Son of God. Likewise, Jews took so much from Anglo-America but felt compelled to stab its heart in order to lay claim to the New America. According to the New Jew Narrative, White Americans, despite having founded and built Early America, betrayed it like Judas betrayed Jesus: Whites talked a good talk but were really 'racist' & 'white supremacist' and crucified black jesus(though there isn't much talk of American Indians lately) while their racial brethren in Europe came to crucify the holy Jews as new christs. So, ultimately, White America is the Judas that betrayed the American Mythos, and the True Founding Fathers are the Immigrant Jews and the Blacks(and their proselytizing missionaries or missionfairies are the homos).

So, the Pride of Anglos had to be changed to Shame/Guilt of Anglos. And these emotions had to be a kind of Moral Pornography or 'Mornography', so relentless, aggressive, and overwhelming in its mind-fuc* that whites wouldn't dare stand up and say, "Wait a minute, you're going too far..." It explains why Jews promote stuff like MISSISSIPPI BURNING and 12 YEARS A SLAVE where southern whites males aren't merely flawed or bad but downright perverse & degenerate in their evil. It's beyond heroes and villains; it's about angels and monsters. So, the Pride of Anglos, which used to be a key unifying factor among diverse non-Anglo Americans went out the window. These days, the debate is about whether it's worth saving any statue or monument to Anglo-American heritage.

Now, what about the Principles? Would it still be Principles for All based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Initially, Jews took full advantage as stalwart champions of this ideal to protect Jewish radicalism/subversion/pornography and also to ensure the separation of the state from any expression of Christianity. But, as Jews amassed more power for themselves and noticed that others were critically taking notice of Jewish power, Jews began to change their tune and go the neo-Bolshevik route of altering the meaning of Free Speech whereby it became 'free' only if Jews approved of it.
Likewise, when Jews talk of 'democracy', they really mean outcomes favored by the Tribe. So, if a legitimate democratic process leads to an outcome disfavored by Jews, it's 'autocracy' or 'far right'. But if Jews pull dirty tricks to subvert the democratic process but get the result they prefer, it is 'democracy'. For Jews, both the ideas of Free Speech and Democracy are about Rule of Lawyers, not Rule of Laws. Whatever Jews say is the 'truth'.
As a result, the Ideal of Principles-for-All turned into Power-for-Us, the Jews. New America is essentially about Shame for Anglos and Power for Jews. Blackness is the bludgeon Jews use against whiteness, and Queertianity is the replacement for Christianity.

Under Anglo-American rule, the problems of increasing diversity was dealt with limiting immigration mostly to whites, ending mass immigration in the 1920s, and instituting Principles for All & Pride for Anglos. And it more-or-less worked... except with the Jews, but then, this was to be expected from a people who stubbornly maintained a separate identity and culture amongst majority Christians and Muslims over the many centuries. Also, among the various newcomers, Jews alone had the combination of identity, ability, neurosis, and cunning to fully exploit American Meritocracy for their own aggrandizement and apotheosis.

Once Jews secured their place in the New Order, they concocted a grand plan of not only takeover but permanence. After all, in the game of king-of-the-hills, the king is usually pushed aside by challengers, old and new. If a people as prestigious, privileged, and powerful as the Anglo-Americans could be pushed off the hill, it could happen to Jews as well. Jews felt that, as long as the US remained a white majority nation, whites might finally come to realize Jews are a hostile/subversive bunch up to no good(not least because the better Jews, for sake of tribal, were too often hesitant to go after the bad Jews). Therefore, Jews needed to bring about even more Diversity to secure permanent power, and this time, the newcomers would be non-white.

Jews figured there would be less chance of non-whites uniting with whites against Jews than whites uniting with other whites against Jews. After all, blacks had been in the US for a long time, but white/black tensions were never resolved. Jews pushed for more immigration on account of 'Diversity' and 'Multi-Culturalism' being advantageous to Jews. And indeed, it did lead to more divisions among the goyim in the 'culture war' that took off in the late 1980s. Jews were relieved by the sight of babelization among the goyim.
But, this wasn't entirely good for Jews either. After all, if Diversity means more division among various groups insisting on their distinct identities & narratives uber alles, that meant there could be no national unity to get anything done on a domestic, let alone global, scale. For Jews to use American Power effectively, all Americans had to be united around SOME themes even if remaining divided on others.
After all, in a truly multi-cultural system, most gentile groups would ask, "Why should I praise Jews and support Zionism when I am not Jewish, and besides, what Jews are doing to the Palestinians is like what white imperialists did to my folks long ago?" A much divided America would mean the goyim wouldn't be able to unite against the Jew, BUT it also meant they couldn't unite on ANY issue as each group would be into 'our identity' and 'our interests'. Furthermore, if Multi-Culturalism really meant each group should stick to its own culture and values, most cultures(especially non-white ones) would be anti-globo-homo, something pushed by Jews. Such would be an obstacle to the Jewish Agenda.
Jews needed the goyim divided on identity & color but needed their unity on certain matters to render them useful to Jews. It's like a metallurgist uses heat to pry metals apart but then remolds them into unified solid metal. The increasingly diverse peoples had to be brought together on key issues and agendas favored by Jews. (Of course, Jews only needed to win over the elites and 'spokesmen' of every group, and such status-driven types were easy to bribe and browbeat.) And what would the terms of re-unity be for the diverse goyim in the New America with Jews as top dogs. It obviously couldn't be the old terms of Pride for Anglos and Principles for All. It had to be Shame for Anglos so that Jews and non-whites(and cuck-whites) would all be united on Blaming Whitey as the Eternal Bogeyman.
The other term was Power for Jews(than Principles for All), but it had to be veiled as the goyim might recoil from brazen Jewish Supremacism? And this is why Jews couldn't hog all the prestige for themselves and favored two other groups, Homos and Blacks to form a triumvirate. Homos of all colors(white, black, brown, yellow, etc.) would create the rainbow-impression that the New Order is about equality for people of all colors. And as the black narrative in America came to define the struggle against 'racism', blackness would have significance beyond its racial identity. MLK and Mandela are like global symbols for struggle for justice in the way that Jesus, though Jewish of origin, came to symbolize Love for All Humanity. With such elevation, of course homos and blacks were fully onboard with the Jewish Agenda... on the understanding that the two groups would pretend to be the best of friends — notice how BLM activities prominently display 'gay' colors — and either totally support Jews or at least keep mum about the crimes of Zionism & Wars for Israel. One thing for sure, whether one is Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, or Barack Obama, you get rewarded big time if you kiss the Jewish Behind.

The end result hasn't been Multi-Culturalism where each and every identity/interest is of equal worth and equal time but the Tri-Supremacism of Tentpole Identities(or Idolatries) of Jews, blacks, and homos. So, if you're Jewish, black, or homo, you are 'made', but if not, you must seek 'social credit' points by sucking up to one, two, or all three of the Tentpole Identities.
Indeed, for all the talk of 'white privilege', a white person who sucks up to Jewgromo(Jewish-Negro-Homo) Idolatry is favored many times over than a non-white who sympathizes with BDS, condemns the Wars for Israel, or denounces 'gay' behavior. The blondest and most-blue-eyed white person who sucks up to Jews, waves the 'gay' flag, and/or flashes a BLM sign is far more likely to succeed than the nappiest blackest black who, unlike Barack Obama and Kamala Harris, dares to condemn Israel and champions Palestinians and other brown people being crushed by Zionism and its wars.
In other words, one's own race/color ultimately matters less than which race/color one sucks up to. A white person's 'white privilege' actually expands IF he sucks up to Jews, takes the knee for the Negro, and bends over for the homo. In contrast, a non-white's supposedly magical 'diversity' means next to nothing if he or she goes against the terms set by Jews. There are many whites in the Deep State because they suck up to Jews. In contrast, Tulsi Gabbard's mixed-race identity means NOTHING because she dared to upset Jews on foreign policy. Indeed, so-called Liberal Jews much prefer white GOP cucks like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell over someone like Gabbard. What does that tell you? It's the politics and 'spirituality' of group-idolatry.

Paradoxically, America's anti-class attitudes turned society into more of a neo-class system, at least with the rise of globalism. Prior to the radical expansion of 'free trade', the US had essentially a National Capitalist economy where the middle classes and working classes had considerable leverage in the economy. With the vast majority of Americans identifying as 'middle class', it seemed as if US solved the problem of class conflict after WWII and during much of the Cold War. But with hyper-globalism and China/India entering the world economy, the American Middle Class and Working Class were threatened. Also, the ebbing away of any traditional sense of Americanism and with libertarianism ensconced as the new defining value of Establishment Conservatism, the individual mattered far more than the community, and one's worth was entirely the product of personal success. Thus, successful whites were more likely to feel closer to other successful individuals regardless of race or color, especially as whites were taught to believe white identity/solidarity is 'racist' and any notion of white folk/volk is 'nazi'. So, what did this neo-individualism lead to? The rise of the new uber class for whom status-conscious membership in the club means everything whereas the unsuccessful whites are dismissed as 'losers' or 'deplorables'. In a way, the elite goy attitude toward the masses came to resemble Jewish attitude toward goyim: Contempt and derision. (Jews needed to worry less about class because the majority of Jews were very successful, and besides, pride of identity/unity wasn't verboten among Jews and, if anything, a tribal obligation that was, furthermore, cheered on by goyim who would have denounced similar consciousness among their own kind.) It's no wonder Jews encouraged the spread of libertarian individualism among whites. 'Muh liberty' negated 'Our Community' among whites. Of course, Jews, blacks, and homos were, contra the whites, totally encouraged not only to boost their own identities but demand that other groups favor Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness over their own identities & culture. A Muslim who hollers BLM is favored over a Muslim who shouts, 'Proud to be Muslim', and a Mexican who waves the 'gay' flag is favored over a Mexican waving the Mexican flag.

Anyway, that's how the new unity works in New America. It's no longer about diverse white ethnicities and non-whites being united on Principles for All and Pride for Anglos. Rather, the pride(even holiness) is hogged by Jews, Homos, & Negroes as the Tentpole identities that the lesser multi-culti identities are pressured to rally around. As for Principles, the hell with Americans striving to live up to the promise of the Constitution. Why, that would mean equal gun rights and speech rights for all Americans. A well-armed populace might rise up against tyranny. And a free-minded people might speak truth to power, which is mostly Jewish nowadays.
So, it must be about Power than Principles. And yet, Jews understand that most people will not discard Principles in favor of Tribal Power for Jews despite their special sympathy or reverence for the Jewish people. So, even though it's really all about control, Jews have worded their power-grab in the language of principles pertaining to 'hate speech' and 'white supremacism'. (Of course, goy 'liberals' have their own reasons for supporting Speech Control. Prior to the internet and especially social networks and live-streaming, most discourse-of-consequence happened in the big media, elite academia, and institutions of the learned, or indoctrinated. So, it was mostly the educated talking amongst themselves. But the internet and live-streaming made it possible for the Average Joe to have his say on equal terms, and oddly enough, the less educated Joes sometimes had more interesting things to say because, being unattached to industry or institution, they could speak their minds in the way that elites could not, at least if they were to hold their status and positions; paradoxically, the more power you gain, the less power you have to speak freely. With all the Average Joes saying that Liberal Princelings wear no clothes, naturally the 'liberals' want to control speech for the masses. Other than that, the New Cult of Wokewicz demands that all be properly reverential to the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Blacks. If Jews want to control speech to protect tribal power, 'liberals' want to control speech to preserve status & prestige.) The gall, the chutzpah, of these people. It's like the notorious Jewish Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev who rags on 'whiteness' as inherently 'racist' & 'supremacist' and must therefore be wiped out as an identity, but all of this is just projection because, if identity has been supremacist in conception and practice, it is Jewishness that says the Jewish soul, blood, and body are superior due to special blessing by the one and only God. So, Jews not only denied that other peoples have their own gods and insisted the God of the Jews is the only God for all the world and all of humanity, BUT this God made Jews better than all the rest. Jewish Supremacism is a jealous god that will simply not tolerate any other identity that has the potential of saying NO to Jewish Megalomania. This is why Jewish Power shames whiteness into paralysis so that it will serve Jewish Supremacism.

So, in summary, there was the problem of diversity that was solved under Anglo-American rule with Principles-for-All as ethos and Pride-for-Anglos as mythos.
But Jews brought about the second round of Diversity that led to yet another crisis of divisiveness. This served Jews well in having a goy populace that could not unite, but it posed the problem of each group being for itself than for any sense of common purpose. How could Jews rally the diverse goyim into serving the Jewish Agenda(as the New Americanism) if every group says 'Our Identity Uber Alles'? And so, Diversity had to be re-united under the New American themes of Sacred Semites, Noble Negroes, and Holy Homos. Therefore, whatever differences your people may have with other peoples in the US, just remember that it is the 'patriotic' duty of ALL AMERICANS to bow down before the Jews, kneel before Negroes, and cheer for homos & trannies. And spit on whitey.

WE KNOW HOW TO MAKE AMERICA STRONG - American Renaissance