Soviet Propaganda.
What distinguishes a Conservative from a Moonman can be summed up in the hyperbolic scenario of a Ben Carson vs. Stalin race. The Conservative votes for Carson, the Moonman votes for Stalin.
Carson is a nice guy. He doesn't want to hurt anyone. He's a Christian (Seventh Day Adventist) who believes in young-earth creationism, capitalism, and loves (((Israel))). Furthermore, he portrays himself as a convert from ghetto culture (attempting to murder people) to Anglo-presenting culture (PhD and presidential candidate), and credits his faith with this transformation.
Stalin is brutal. He is willing to do anything to maintain power. He's an atheist who purges eugenicists. He is a communist whose economic theories are only useful for mass producing killing machines. He works with Jews and murders lots of White people.
A vote for Carson is a vote for more of the same. A token Black in position of power, an anecdotal figure creating the illusion that there is only one "human" bell-curve. He feeds the conservative fantasy that everyone is "just like them on the inside," and that the more blindly they hope, the more likely their dreams will come true. Furthermore, Carson is actually a true believer in these fantasies, and will try to enact them. Unfortunately, to quote a TDS drop, "Your dream is a lie."
Stalin feeds no pretenses. He gives no fuel to leftists, and he motivates rightists to act. He has no use for political correctness. If an ethnic group gives him trouble, he relocates it to a remote area, like Andrew Jackson.
Carson would soften the implicit racial defenses of conservatives. Seeing "one of them" on the other side of the color line would soften their attitude toward immigration. They would think of Carson's exception as proving the rule that any non-White person can become White-presenting, if given enough patience. But patience is the last thing we need, because we're running out of time.
Every year that passes is another acreage of land lost from the future American ethnostate. Remember that the Reconquista recovered Spain, but it never recovered formerly European North Africa. Saying, "Oh, don't worry. Given enough time, we can take back everything!" is like trying to refute Peak Oil simply by saying, "Don't worry. Given enough time, the oil will return through the same exact processes which created it in the first place!"
If Stalin was elected, people would seek radical change immediately. They would not be pussy-whipped by fear of fascist violence because they would already live under communist violence. How much worse could it get? Germans, Spaniards, and Italians all warmed to fascism after being confronted with the senseless violence of anarchist terrorists and communist reds. Stalin would feed into a Hegelian fascist reaction. (Kind of what is happening with Putin with Russia, though the Stalinist phase of the Soviet Union ended 40 years before he ever came to power, so the reaction is not as powerful as it would otherwise be.)
Carson might start a war for Israel against Iran or Russia. His fundamentalist belief that he is living in the "last days" might prompt him to view nuclear warfare as part of God's plan. But let's pretend that Carson would be totally isolationist in his foreign policy. In that case, he might placate Blacks and lower Black on White crime. It's entirely possible that Black on White crime is so high in part because Blacks feel alienated from and oppressed by White society, and Carson might help them feel included and liberated. Stalin, on the other hand, would certainly set up a gulag and NKVD killing system that would murder millions. Let's grant that Stalin would kill more Whites than Carson.
Translation:
That the beauty of the White Soviet woman shall not perish from the earth!
Yet while Carson would preside over ever shrinking White birthrates, Stalin would restore gender roles and raise White birthrates. He needs young soldiers for his empire, after all.
We could think of Stalinism like agriculturalism, which lowered the life expectancy of former hunter-gatherers between 9,000 and 2,000 BC.[1] Agriculturalism caused tooth decay leading to deadly infections, it was a less nutritious diet, and it created large, concentrated city-states which bred disease. The industrial revolution had a very similar effect.[2] So if agriculturalism and industrialism killed people by forcing them into less healthy lifestyles with higher rates of disease, why did these ideas flourish?
While death rates increased, birth rates increased massively. Life spans were shortened, but there were more people. Thus, agriculturalists and industrialists were more secure in their collective survival, while less secure in their individual survival.
Americans considering Stalinism would face a similar dilemma. Most of our best individuals would die immediately by homocide, but our race would no longer be in danger of slow, collective suicide. In this case, a mind who sees history in spans of civilizations, rather than beginning in 1933, can see how Carsonism presents equal if not greater dangers compared to Stalinism.
Communism is still a bad economic theory, autocracies are extremely fragile, a limited-franchise aristocratic republic has more potential for growth and stability, and there is actually another choice besides Carson and Stalin: Trump! But before I fully exit LARP-land, let me kick the baby-boomer blood pressure up, just one more notch.
Translation: Comrade Moonman chooses Stalin!
[1] You can read more about this theory in Pandora's Seed.
[2] See chart here.