Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Andrea Ostrov Letania: Neo-Fascist Consideration of MURIEL(by Alain Resnais & Jean Cayrol) and ATLANTIC CITY(by Louis Malle & John Guare) — and some notes on THE EXORCIST by William Friedkin and William Blatty. Part 3.

Continued from Part 2 of the Blogpost:

For Part 1, Click Here.

Anyway, ATLANTIC CITY makes for useful comparison with MURIEL because both deal with themes of deception and, more crucially, self-deception. And however the story may have originated from John Guare’s pen, it was sealed with Louis Malle’s indelible Franco-centric stamp. While watching the mature male character in MURIEL, I was reminded of Burt Lancaster’s character in Malle’s film whose entire life has revolved around a lie, indeed so much that even his personal resolution comes by way of confronting the myth on its own terms; he doesn’t so much reject it as ‘fulfill’ it.
Everyone is marked by history differently(especially during the formative years of youth), and nothing seems to have affected Malle more deeply than what happened during the German Occupation of France. (If not for that small but significant moment, the Occupation may have passed by like the wartime for John Boorman as depicted in HOPE AND GLORY: eventful but not unpleasant. Especially as the his family was wealthy and connected, Malle avoided the deprivations of war.) Francois Truffaut was of the same age as Malle, but his films don’t leave the impression, direct or indirect, that the German Occupation meant much to him. Even his film LAST METRO, which is set during the Occupation, is rather staid and complacent, with little hint that the period left any lasting mark on Truffaut, whose most crucial years were those after Liberation, when he became immersed in the dream of American movies then flooding into French theaters. In contrast, there’s a number of Malle films that allude to or deal directly with the German Occupation. There is the German tourist in ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS. Though the story is set in postwar Europe of friendship between France and Germany, the murder of the tourist hints at darker undercurrents. LACOMBE, LUCIEN is about a Jewish girl hiding from the Nazis during the Occupation, BLACK MOON begins in a world run amok with militarist terror, MY DINNER WITH ANDRE has a Jew yammering endlessly about how New York is under Occupation of inhuman modernity(despite the fact that New York is Jew York, which goes to show that Jews feel exiled even in Jew-town), ALAMO BAY portrays the plight of Vietnamese refugees persecuted by Texan ‘rednecks’, and, of course, his most celebrated film AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is a semi-autobiographical remembrance involving a Jewish student seeking sanctuary in a Catholic School. If Akira Kurosawa kept drawing lessons from Japan’s trauma in WWII, if Oliver Stone reinvigorated radical themes of the 60s around war and rebellion, if Steven Spielberg often harked back to childhood idyll & fantasy of Suburbia, and if Ingmar Bergman repeatedly struggled with themes relating to trouble with his father and his youthful enchantment with National Socialist Germany, Malle could never make peace with what had happened during in his childhood during the Occupation. And it was especially a single moment that stuck to him like an immovable thorn lodged in the heart. It became all the more troubling over the years because the full or fuller implication of the moment could only be realized in later years. It festered like a wound that never healed, like the scar on Pike Bishop’s leg in THE WILD BUNCH or the cut in the abdomen of Lancelot in EXCALIBUR. And yet, it didn’t feel like a wound or a wrong in the moment. It could be passed off as a chance moment like any other. It was not like Peter who blatantly denied Jesus and three times too.
In a sense, the young Malle hadn’t done anything wrong in the technical sense. If AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is an honest account of what really happened, the chances are that the Jew kid would have been found out one way or another, and there wasn’t anything Malle-as-kid could have done to save him. In the film, when the Nazis enter the classroom looking for the Jew kid, Julien(as alter ego of Malle) momentarily turns his head to the Jew, and the Jew stands up and is taken away. Technically, Julien didn’t finger the Jew kid or rat him out. All he did was slightly jerk his head toward him, and it was the Jew kid who then gave himself up. And yet, Malle remembered this episode as something akin to Judas giving up Jesus to the Romans — and of course, this fits into the narrative of Holocaustianity where gentiles are the Judases and Jews are the Jesuses. Even if Julien didn’t rat on the Jew kid — Jean Kippelstein — in a technical sense, perhaps he did betray the Jew kid in the matter of the heart. Based on Julien’s turning glance at Jean the Jew kid, one can read any number of motives: panic, sympathy, fear, and etc. As the two boys had become friends, those feelings were surely there. But as the Jew kid Jean academically bested Julien, who’d previously been doted upon as the best student in class, there was also an element of envy and resentment, not unlike in John Knowles’ novel A SEPARATE PEACE. Emotions of friendship equalize the relations between superior and inferior or ease the tensions between superior vs superior, and so, any sign of differences betrays the spirit of camaraderie between friends. Julien admired and sympathized with the Jew kid and was glad to be friends with him — not least because he could have more interesting conversations with him — , but he couldn’t help sensing that the Jew kid was better than him, at least in intellect and perhaps in soul, and that mattered in France that took great pride in ideas and scholarship.
Au Revoir Les Enfants
Perhaps, it mattered more to Malle since he was born to a rich family. Truffaut was born into a modest family with nothing of pride or prestige to uphold. He later found out that his mother had planned to abort him, had problems of delinquency in his youth, and lost himself in the escapism of cinema. Despite his intellectual aspirations under the tutelage of Andre Bazin, Truffaut was really defined by excitement and sentiment, and in a way, he had something in common with Spielberg, which perhaps explains their chemistry in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. (Truffaut shared in the excitement of greeting Space Aliens. Jean-Luc Godard, in contrast, became like a creature from another planet.) Malle, in contrast, was born into wealth & privilege and attended excellent schools, and he was praised for his smarts. So, it must have really stung when a fugitive Jew kid holed up in his school turned out to be smarter and more cultured. He was creme de la creme whose ‘genius’ was recognized by fellow students, but a single Jew comes along and out-performs him. (It’d be like a white kid who’s the best athlete in school being knocked off his perch by the arrival of a Negro kid. He could become friends with the Negro kid as a fellow athlete, but he will likely resent having to play second fiddle to the Negro who wins top trophies and humps the best-looking white girls. He might develop genuine friendship with the Negro, who could be a nice guy, but a part of him will always wish the Negro would go away.) Of course, Jews are extremely competitive too, and they will go to any length to knock out the competition — even starve 100,000s of women and children in Iraq for the sake of Israel — , and Jews don’t care about the damage they cause because they lack conscience toward goyim. In contrast, Christianity planted the seeds of self-doubt and self-recrimination in the hearts of white Europeans, and in the postwar era, this would lead to the cult of western guilt for the suffering of Jews.(Incidentally, Christianity doesn’t necessarily instill guilt, atonement, and self-abnegation in all peoples. If anything, it can make a people feel righteous and justified in their violence. More crucial than any ideology is who-gets-to-steer-the-ideology because any credo can be redirected to be for or against anything. Take communism. It could be steered to serve Russia against China or to serve China against Russia. It could be steered by Stalin against Trotsky or by Trotsky against Stalin. The result can be credo to birth or credo to grave. It is human wit & agency that controls the crosshair of any ideological firearm. Most Negroes in America are Christian, but did Christianity make Negroes humble, self-critical, introspective, and contemplative of their sinful natures? Once upon a time, yes, when whites controlled the Narrative and instilled blacks with ‘savage shame’ that motivated them to better themselves and be a credit to their race. But since the Narrative Shift that made MLK and Civil Rights the paragons of virtue while burdening European-Americans with ‘white guilt’, Christianity has made Negroes feel uppity, self-righteous, and nasty. Today, Negro Christians just want to howl and shake their booties, act like they’re utterly blameless and holier-than-thou, sermonize as a race of saints who can never do no wrong. Cultural factors notwithstanding, Western self-doubt and guilt may have something to do with the genetics roots of European personality. After all, there are few blacks who are like Ken Burns or Bill Moyers. Americans of Northern European stock tend to be sober, serious, well-meaning, earnest, straight, and conscientious. In contrast, blacks are psychopathic, self-centered, self-promoting, and slick. For blacks, Christianity means other races should feel sorry for blacks, apologize to blacks, get down on their knees and pray to blacks, or worship blacks. It doesn’t mean that blacks themselves should examine their own failings and atone for anything. Part of the reason is surely that blacks did suffer racial oppression and discrimination in America, but that alone fails to address the deeper problem. After all, Poles never did anything to blacks, but even Polish-Americans can be made to feel ‘white guilt’ whereas even blacks who attack & harm innocent people never seem to give a damn, even as they profess to be good Christians. Of course, through most of European history, most whites felt justified than burdened by Christianity — at least when dealing with Jews, heathens, or non-whites — , but there has been in the European tradition of Christianity an element of self-loathing and self-purging. But Christian Guilt didn’t prostrate itself before Jews, so why did Christians go from harshly judging Jews to humbly groveling before Jews? The answer lies less in the nature of Christianity per se than in who gained control of the terms of Christian Guilt. When Christian Europe was ruled by Christian elites, most Christians were instructed to kneel before God and Jesus and atone before them. There was nothing about feeling sorry for Jews regardless of what was done to them since Christians were informed that Jews were the killers of Christ and sinful dealers of usury. Thus, the element of guilt in Christianity was directed toward God and Jesus. But after WWII, the tone of European Christianity followed in the footsteps of secular ideologies that favored Jews as objects of guilt. With Jews and leftists in control of the media, academia, and culture — and given the unspeakable nature of the Shoah — , this shift in Christian guilt would have a profound impact on Christianity itself. [In some ways, Christians sought to outdo even secular Philosemitism in atonement to prove their moral worth. The moral inferior feels compelled to prove its worth to moral superior. Inferior always seeks approval of the superior. As the superior sets the template of what is true-and-proper, the inferior plays by those rules even as they undermine the inferior’s agency & autonomy even more. The inferior, so eager for approval from the superior, is even willing to lose power for prestige. As power of religion began to fade rapidly after WWII and as Jews & secular left gained tremendous pride in the defeat of Nazism and Fascism, the Church felt the only way to keep or reclaim its good name was by winning the approval of secular powers that occupied the superior position of moral authority. This made the once pro-white Churches increasingly servile to Jews and sensitive to non-white issues. As the secular notion of ‘racism’ became the worst of all possible sins, the Church bent over backwards to dispel any lingering notions of ‘racism’ in the Church. And of late, the increasingly irrelevant churches play by the rules of homomaniacal moral ‘superiors’. How did homos become the moral mavens of the West? Jews control the Narrative & Values and vaunted homos to high holiness, and once again, the churches with moral inferiority complex seek to prove their worth by playing by the rules set by the moral ‘superiors’ of Jews and Homos, along with Negroes. Today, the American church is mostly about worshiping Holy Holocaust, Magic Negroes, and Glory Gays.] Though European Christians and American white Christians had, long before WWII, felt some degree of guilt for the wrongs done to other nations, peoples, and races, their noble attempts to redress the problems made them feel even prouder as Christians. Also, even though white Christians could be appalled by things like the slave trade and the sale of opium to the Chinese, they nevertheless believed that the white world was infinitely superior culturally, spiritually, intellectually, and morally than the non-white world. In other words, slavery and slave trade must be ended, but that didn’t mean black Africans were inherently good people. And the need to end the Opium Trade didn’t meant Chinese were saints. If anything, they were heathens needing to be saved and baptized through the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. But, with the rise of modern anthropology that romanticized indigenous native peoples of the world as Edenic & peaceful and with notion that non-white cultures were just as special and wonderful in their own way as the Western World, it became unfashionable for white people to feel that they were superior to non-whites in any way, not even culturally. Thus, if in the past, white guilt for wrongs done to non-whites had been counterbalanced by white pride of bringing progress and civilization to savage, barbarian, or feudalistic peoples around the world, in the new progressive era after WWII there was only the guilt and no pride. [Whites could feel pride only by denouncing anything white in the shrillest manner.] In an earlier era, whites could feel sorry about slavery but also take pride in having ended slavery. But in the new era, they could only feel sorry for slavery and feel no pride whatsoever. And since Jews came to dominate the media and academia in America — and since American universities and media empires influenced their counterparts all over the world — , they got to reconfigure the guilt dynamics of Christianity. Thus, if whites in the past experienced Christian guilt mainly by atoning for the killing of Jesus — Jews may have done it, but gentiles, especially the Romans, took part in it — and confessing daily transgressions[like the studio boss in HAIL CAESAR who confesses his failure to quit smoking while overlooking his more egregious ‘sins’ as businessman and fixer], the new Christian guilt was about total prostration before Jews and blacks and finally homos too. Thus, if in the past, a Christian homo would apologize to God for harboring filthy homo impulses, today we have homos as heavenly angels while those who’d opposed ‘gay marriage’ in the past are groveling before god for having once harbored evil ‘homophobia’ in their hearts. So, there is Christianity as core creed and christianities as fashionable games of power. The element of guilt is a crucial component in Christianity, but different christianities will lead their adherents to feel guilty for different things, and of course, most people are sheeple who must be told what to feel and think. Thus, their sense of guilt is directed by the forces that control the institutions. Mainline Protestant churches in America have been infiltrated by the PC agents, and their current message is that God and Jesus love Jews, Negroes, illegal aliens, and homos more than white Americans; therefore, if you want to be a good white American with the right kind of guilt, you must do everything to undermine the power and interests of your own people for the aggrandizement of the aforementioned ‘victim groups’ favored by God and Jesus. Thus, a Negro rapist and thug need feel no guilt. A homo who sticks his penis into the fecal holes of other men need feel no guilt. Jews feel no guilt in rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, in having ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, in having played a prominent role in communism, in having instigated all these Wars for Israel, in controlling gambling to rob people blind, and etc. And illegal aliens need feel no guilt for having violated the laws of other nations for material self-interest. [If indeed illegal aliens are such spiritually pure souls, why did they move to a richer nation for material improvement? Surely, they can pray to God just as easily back home. And they could be using their skills and talent to help the poorer folks back home than work for richer gringos in America.] All such peoples are deemed as innocent as lambs, and evil lurks only in the hearts of white gentiles, therefore the burden of guilt falls entirely on the straight white community. Such is the thinking of Garpian Mainline churches, the evolution of which to the current status is regarded by some as logical and inevitable, but continuing existence and health of Orthodox churches belie such claim. [Garpian mainline churches are utterly disgraceful, even more so than Gumpian Evangelical churches. If one has truly lost faith, one should just let it go. But Garpian Mainline observers want the comfort of form without content. Their church is like a seashell without the life inside. So, the hollow shell is stuffed with fakery like homomania.] If powers-that-be in another part of the world define the terms of Christian Guilt in their own way, their practice of Christianity will be fundamentally different. In Russia, the Pussy Riot’s desecration of the Holy Church was deemed shameful and guilty. In the inverted world of Jewish-controlled America, the likes of the Pussy Riot feel pride and glory than shame and guilt that is reserved for Christians who won’t bend over to homomania. In Russia, shame and guilt fall on the ‘gay pride’ community despite its protestations as moral arbiters according to the gospel of Jew-run globalism wherein homos are second only to Jews in holiness. In Russia, to be Christian means to be proud of one’s tradition and to love of one’s nation and culture; it means shame and guilt accrue upon those for whom ‘love’ is a matter of homo fecal penetration. But in America, Christianity has been redefined to mean absolute non-judgmental Tolerance for all kinds of Jewish obnoxiousness and subversion, black thuggery and criminality, feminist bitchiness and narcissism, homosexual degeneracy and debauchery, and illegal alien befoulment of the laws and codes of the nation. This Jewed-christianity preaches tolerance for degeneracy and intolerance for opposition to degeneracy. Why did American Christianity turn this way? Because American Christians come under the power of Jews and homos via the media, academia, business pressures, and government controls, they also turn into decadent nincompoops and go about adapting their faith to nincompoopery. Thus, American Christianity is now little more than a tool of political correctness and pop culture, and increasingly, the ‘faithful’ are led to believe that the main mission of Christianity is to conform to the Zeitgeist, which is currently controlled by Jews and homos whose misuse of Christianity is utterly foul and cynical. For one thing, Jews are not Christian, so why should they exert influence on Christianity? Jews would be offended if Christians told them what the True Meaning of Judaism or Jewishness is all about, so why should any Christian defer to Jews[and Homos] as to the true meaning of Christianity? Also, even though God and Jesus, according to the New Testament, are forgiving of sinners, it is incumbent on their willingness to repent for something like homosexual acts. Though Jesus softened the message with hope of forgiveness and redemption, He didn’t reverse or remove the spiritual heart of the Torah. Thus, while Jesus was not for stoning sinners[especially over minutiae of laws beyond the comprehension of many people], He still called for repentance as the path to redemption. Thus, while Christianity is open to homos as is to whores, both homos and whores would must make an effort to cleanse themselves of sin in the eyes of the Lord. Indeed, how can any lofty spiritual system possibly approve of a man sticking his penis into bungs of other men? Now that Jews and homos degraded Christianity to the level of ‘gay pride’ parades, much of American Christianity lost its luster for lust. And of course, most homos who claim to be Christians are just infiltrators and conspirators who move up the ranks, mug for sympathy, and steer the church toward celebrating homosexuality as the new holy. As for Jews, despite their devious attempt to burden Christianity with Holocaust guilt, there is no need whatsoever for white Christians to feel guilt for Nazi crimes. National Socialism was a neo-pagan movement, and it grew to prominence in reaction to communism, a Godless ideology cooked up by Jews who spread the virus throughout Russia, undermined the Russian war efforts in WWI, gained power through a putsch, and then instituted ruthless totalitarianism to destroy Russian Christianity, killing millions of Slavic Christians in the process. If some Christian groups made alliances with Fascists and National Socialists, it was in reaction to Jewish communist mass violence against Slavic Christians. Also, Jewish communists and anarchists who volunteered for the Spanish Civil War were only too happy to massacre tens of thousands of Catholic priests and nuns, and there were plenty of Jewish atheist communists in the US who conspired to funnel top secrets to the USSR. So, if Jews hadn’t destroyed Christianity in Russia and hadn’t attempted the same in Spain, the bond between the Catholic Church and neo-pagan fascist movements wouldn’t have formed. It was Jewish radicals who, through vile and vicious acts as communists and anarchists, pushed certain elements of European Christianity into the arms of fascist movements. For this reason, the history of the 20th century cannot be properly understood or appreciated without the role of Jewish communists in destroying and threatening the Christian order. Even though neo-paganism of Italian Fascism and National Socialism didn’t jibe with Christianity, European Christians gravitated toward radical right movements because communists had amply demonstrated what they had in store for Christianity. Anyway, while the element of guilt is essential theme in Christianity, the object of one’s guilt is determined by whomever that controls the power and narrative. If indeed universal guilt is what Christianity is about, how come feelings of guilt are absent among blacks despite their myriad acts of mayhem and violence? How come there is little guilt among illegal Mexican-in-America for having messed up their own country, breaking into another country, dealing in drugs, and leeching off the American system? How come there is no guilt among homo christians for the spread of AIDS epidemic? And if Jews claim to respect and know the true meaning of Christianity, how come they don’t repent for their crimes of communism and Nakba of Palestinians? Jews don’t partake of redemption-via-universal-guilt but only manipulate guilt among others to bring them to heel. Therefore, if you’re a Christian, it is imperative that you control the terms of your own Christianity than be dictated by people such as Jews, homos, blacks, illegal aliens, and white traitor Liberals who never operate in good faith.)
Ideology is secondary to the Power that gets to steer the ideology. It's like a gun has meaning only in relation to the gunman who sets the target. Thus, Christianity can be used to justify or vilify any side depending on who has power over the Church. Communism can be used to favor any personality or any nation against any other. Yugoslavian communism was anti-Soviet, and Soviet communism was anti-Titoist. 'Democracy' can be used to justify any side that wields the power. US invoked 'democracy' to invade and destroy Iraq. However, other democracies opposed US actions, but US had the power to override their opposition. Every ideology has its distinct set of values and priorities, but in the end, the Power gets to decide how those values and priorities are used, distorted, suppressed, or betrayed. Maoist ideology didn't prevent Mao from thawing relations with the US, a nation that had once been vilified as the biggest enemy of China. And of course, Jews play fast and loose with any ideology to their self-aggrandizement. So, Jews say American Democracy is anti-tribalist; therefore, whites mustn't think of white interests, but then... whites must go out of their way to favor Jewish tribal interests. 
Unlike Truffaut who, as a young child, sought refuge in novels and movies, Malle grew up in a world of respectability without much in the way of want, even during the Occupation years. (The fact that Truffaut was abandoned by his Jewish dentist father was surely an advantage during the German Occupation when Jewish survival became precarious. Truffaut discovered his half-Jewish identity only later.) So, the arrival of the Jewish kid at the elite school and the fact of his higher intelligence must have, on some level, rubbed the young Malle the wrong way despite the fact of their friendship reflected in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS. Friendships naturally develop among children, especially those of comparable talents and interests, and both Julien and Jean the Jew kid are intelligent, and, as such, stand out from the rest of the class. But like in SEPARATE PEACE, envy and resentment are also always present among friends(especially those with excess ego and pride), and an hidden side of Julien(even to himself) might have surfaced in that moment of turning his head toward Jean when the Nazis were sniffing around for Jews. It appears Malle spent his entire life asking himself why he did what he did. Was it to look at his dear friend one last time before he might be taken away? Was it a flaring of a repressed resentment toward Jean, a sly impulse to rat him out? (And why did Jean yield so quickly upon Julien’s glance? Did he turn himself to spare further trouble to teachers and classmates? Or, was it possible that the Nazis would have left the classroom if Jean had remained seated? Or, did he feel especially betrayed by Julien? Even though Julien didn’t say or do anything obvious, Jean may have inferred Julien’s heart-of-hearts. Despite their friendship & affection, a part of Julien still regarded Jean as the Jew, the outsider, the usurper, and a threat. [It’s like a white guy could come to be friends with a ‘groid’ but still be relieved to see him devoured by a crocodile or stomped by a hippo because the Negro is the Ur-Danger or Eternal-Threat to the White Man.] If indeed Jean felt thus, his surrender to the Nazis was ultimately personal. It’s one thing to be hated and hunted by Nazis or collaborationist France. But to realize that one cannot trust even the heart of a close friend, that could have been the nail in the coffin. It broke Jean’s spirit. This is all, of course, speculation, but Jean’s final action in the film is a response to Julien’s stare.) The feelings of envy and resentment among children are nothing special and hardly evil, but in this case, Jean was taken away to his death, and Julien knew of Jean’s predicament even if not the full implications. How much did Julien know of the murderous Nazi plan for Jews? He surely knew of the antisemitic policies instituted under German Occupation, but did he know about the death camps? Had the fate of Jews been comparable to the fate of Japanese-Americans ‘interned’ during WWII, perhaps Malle’s misgivings about his ‘betrayal’ wouldn’t have been so painful, but then, maybe not. Consider that what happened to the Jewish leftist community in the late 40s and early 50s(HUAC-McCarthy Era) was much milder than what had been done to the Japanese-American community during WWII. Also, even though many Jews were involved in espionage for the Soviet Union, the Jewish community as a whole was not targeted, and only a small number of Jews did time in prison. Yet, Jews hyped this into one of the great crimes of the century. Indeed, according to NPR and PBS, the so-called ‘McCarthy Era’ might as well have been the darkest period of the 20th century after the Holocaust. And Elia Kazan, for having spilled the beans on his former communist colleagues, was ceaselessly hounded by the Liberal community — though the likes of Jane Fonda and Roman Polanski were lionized and defended by the Hollywood insiders. (But now that Jews hate Russia and fear good relations between white Russians and patriotic white Americans, they are going all out to denounce Russia as the worst nation, Putin as ‘new hitler’, and Donald Trump as Putin’s puppet. At least HUAC and McCarthy had valid reasons to go after communists and fellow-travelers who’d penetrated American government and institutions. In contrast, current Jewish Hysteria about Russia is pure fantasy cooked up by Jew-run media. Rabid and virulent Jewish Supremacists will go to any length to smear and slander anyone or any nation to get their own way. Good relations between Russian gentiles and American gentiles could mean both peoples waking up to the alien character of Jewish Power. So, Jews hoodwink dumb Americans into believing that improved relation with Russia is ‘treason’ whereas slavishness to Israel & Jewish globalists is what America is really about. According to this logic, American gentiles’ attempt to get the Jew off their back — like Russia did to some extent under Putin — is betrayal whereas their ‘submissivism’ to Jews is as American as Apple Pie[that was fuc*ed by the Jew kid in AMERICAN PIE]. In the Current Year, the quintessence of Americanism is servility to Jews. There’s a kind of covenant between Jews as god and white gentiles as the Chosen Fools. At least with the Jewish Covenant, God promised the People of Israel great power and wealth if they were to remain true to God. In contrast, the covenant between Jews and whites is that whites, as Chosen Fools, will be defamed and destroyed upon doing the bidding of the Jews to the letter. Jews feel nothing but contempt for such dumb people. To be sure, the white elites aren’t so dumb since they are handsomely rewarded for their treacherous service to Jews. The real dummies are white middle class and working class who wave the American Flag and pledge to kill Muslims to serve their Zionist masters.) It’s likely that Jews focused so much attention on the ‘martyrdom’ of the Hollywood Ten to divert people's attention from the fact of extensive Jewish involvement in Soviet espionage and subversion of culture. By directing our attention at ‘sainthood’ of the Hollywood Ten — also, E.L. Doctorow wrote a novel on children of the Rosenbergs, and Tony Kushner anointed Ethel Rosenberg as a saintly figure — , we lose sight of the truly important fact that Julius Rosenberg, Morton Sobell, and other Jews did spy for the Soviets and unconscionably gave away America’s most carefully guarded secret — the blueprint for the atomic bomb — to the bloody regime of Stalin that had been responsible for the deaths of millions of Christian Slavs, totalitarian occupation of Eastern Europe, and arming of Chinese communists poised to conquer all of China. It’s rather odd. During the height of the Cold War when communism was spreading tyranny around the world, a significant number of American Jews used their access in government, business, and culture to aid a powerful enemy that had its claws deep into Eastern Europe from which so many Americans had emigrated in the late 19th century and early 20th century, but almost no one remembers or cares, whereas just about every cinephile dummy repeats the mantra about the poor saintly members of the Hollywood Ten who were ‘victimized’ by HUAC and McCarthy. While it’s true that HUAC and McCarthy did overreach and resorted to a cheap and even dangerous form of demagoguery — though far milder than the paranoia during WWII that led to ludicrous panics about German submarines surrounding American shorelines & Japanese bombers attacking Iowa and the collective imprisonment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans, most of whom were a lot more loyal to America than leftist Jews ever were — , the fact is the US government had indeed become infiltrated by communists, fellow-travelers, and double-dealing radical Zionists(who played US and USSR both to bring about the creation of Israel on what was then Palestine; indeed, it’s instructive that Jews who denied the right of Palestine to exist bitch ceaselessly about Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist; imagine Germans occupying Poland, reducing Poles to second-class citizens, declaring Poland as New Germany, and then bitching that Poles won’t recognize the right of New Germany to exist). And even though these Jews didn’t care one iota about Poles, Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, and others who’d fallen under the Iron Curtain, they pressured the US government to do everything possible to support the creation of Israel so that Jews could ethnically cleanse Palestinians and grab most of the territory for themselves. Jews bitched that Arabs attacked first when Palestine was divided in half, but surely Jews knew that Arabs had no choice but to fight back since the so-called Partition meant the end of Palestine. (How would Israeli Jews react if some foreign power let in 5 million Chinese into Israel and then declared Partition whereupon half the land would go to Chinese? Jews would surely rise up and fight.) Jews provoked the Arabs, Arabs rose up to unify Palestine, and Jews struck back(with the support of US and USSR) and drove Arabs out of nearly all of Palestine.
The manufactured brouhaha about the Hollywood Ten, a bunch of communists committed to anti-American subversion. Though defenders always framed the controversy as a civil liberties issue, they were completely mum about the violation of civil liberties of German-Americans and Japanese-in-America during WWII. And these leftists and liberals, many of whom were Jewish, used all their power to blacklist people and destroy careers based on politics, ideology, and tribal interests throughout Hollywood history. Just think. How long would anyone have lasted in Hollywood if he or she wanted to make a movie about Nakba? And just look at how Jews in media, academia, and deep state collude to cook up the most rabid hysteria about Russia and Trump to perpetuate Jewish supremacism.
The vile left-wing Jew Morton Sobell who lied and professed innocence all his life... only to finally admit near the end of his life that, yup, he'd conspired with the Rosenbergs to send US secrets to mass killer Stalin. Trust Jews at your own risk.
That is how Jews play the game. Deviously. Anyway, my hunch is that whenever Jews bitch and bleat about the holy schmoly Hollywood Ten, it is to divert our attention from the fact of Jewish espionage, Jewish subversion, and Jewish dirty deeds in the various organizations and institutions of America. So, even though the Jewish community produced an excess of radicals who compromised America’s well-being and security — as well as those of Eastern Europeans — , Jewish historiography and Narrative Monopoly would have us believe that Jews, even as commie lowlifes, were saintly victims of evil ‘paranoid’ McCarthy and HUAC crackpots. The Jewish media also sought to discredit members of HUAC for their political corruption, but if we want to play that game, there’s surely no lack of Liberal and Jewish figures tainted by political and financial scandals, indeed far more egregious than anything committed by those in HUAC.
There is a discernible pattern to the Narrative of Jewish victimology. No matter what happened, Jews spin it so that their ilk are the hapless and innocent victims, the poor little lambs set upon by wolves. Jews had been deeply involved in Soviet communism and its mass killings, yet most of Jewish historiography overlooks all that and focuses mainly on Jewish victimization at the hands of Stalin who turned against Jews when Israel ‘betrayed’ him. So, in both the USSR and the US, Jews were never perpetrators or villains; they were ONLY victims. So, never mind what Jewish spies and radicals did in the US; just remember that some Jewish Hollywood Ten guys were saints because they took the fifth and did a few years in prison. So, never mind that Jews played a key role in the communist putsch in Russia and ran the Gulag system. Just remember that Stalin killed some Jewish leaders and later turned against Zionist-Jews. Never mind that Jewish Oligarchs during the 1990s looted and bled Russia dry and ran off with the loot to UK and fancy cities in Europe and Israel. Just remember that Putin is an evil guy and ‘anti-Semite’ because he went after some Jewish oligarchs and because he won’t cave into the demands of the international homo cabal which is really a proxy for the international Zionist Jewish supremacist agenda.
Malle grew up with pride and privilege in a wealthy family with a sense of national glory, but at the mere age of eight, France lost a most humiliating defeat to the Germans. France’s miserable performance in the second war with the Germans in the 20th century cast doubt on its ‘victory’ in the first war, in which France just barely eked out a win with massive participation of the British and, in the final years, the Americans, and of course, half of German military had to fight the Russians. Indeed, it’s interesting that the French-German battles in WWI were mostly fought on French soil, and despite Germany’s defeat, her territory was barely touched by the victorious allies. Anyway, when France squared off against Germany virtually alone in 1940, the result was as devastating as Joe Louis’ 1st round knockout of Max Schmeling in their second bout. It was all the more humiliating because, despite France’s declaration of war, it had taken no offensive action and merely dug in as if its only hope was to fight defensively. French had made a grandiose gesture in declaring war to liberate Poland but, when push came to shove, just hunkered down to weather the German offensive. Later, such caution or ‘cowardice’ proved useful in portraying France as the victim of Germany as the aggressor-nation. France could play victim because it had taken no offensive actions against Germany despite having declared war. Had France declared war AND attacked Germany first, German actions against France would have seemed more justified. But because France declared war but did nothing but dig in, the popular narrative has been "Germany invaded Poland and then, for no reason, invaded France", when, more likely, Hitler wouldn’t have moved westward if France and UK hadn’t declared war on Germany. Although Hitler had vengeful feelings toward the French over the ‘injustice’ of the Versailles Treaty and prepared Germany for a possible war with France, a Franco-German war was not a priority in his grand strategy, which was to win over UK as a global ally and to find some way to prevail over the USSR. Thus, the outcome of the war in 1940 made clear the comical the discrepancy between French pride and French prowess. France was like Jim Jeffries against Jack-Johnson-as-Germany. Despite all the hype as the Great Hope of Freedom, it was KO-ed by the ‘crazy nigger’ of Europe: Hitler’s war machine. It was like Ride of the Valkyries, with Germanic warrioresses tearing Joan of Arc to shreds. Perhaps, an honest assessment of defeat would have led to meaningful self-reckoning. But the Vichy Regime maintained the facade of independence while the exiled Resistance postured emptily(like a prince-turned-hobo whose only reminder of former glory is the suit over his shoulders), utterly dependent on the power of UK, US, and USSR. The Vichy regime cut a deal with the Germans whereby both sides feigned amity and mutual respect; Germans would pretend to respect the French as long as French dutifully served as lapdogs(just like fallen Anglo-Americans cut a deal with the new Jewish elite whereby the former could go on pretending to be co-elites as long as they bend over to every one of Jewish demand, such as ‘open borders’ & amnesty for illegals, Wall Street bailout, attack on Mother Russia, bombing the Muslim world, praise of interracism, promotion of homo propaganda, and etc). So, even though France was crushed and reduced to playing whore and running dog, the official facade allowed Germany and France to maintain the pretense that France hadn’t so much been defeated & invaded as liberated from Jewish socialists. (To be sure, the collaborationist narrative wasn’t entirely bunk. Prior to the war, many Frenchmen on the Right and Center felt their nation had been stolen from them by ultra-cosmopolitan internationalists and Jews. They were filled with so much anger that they genuinely preferred the Germans as less harmful to France. Despite the shame of French defeat and German Occupation, the alternative — evisceration, emasculation, and immiseration of France at the hands of proto-globalist Jewish bankers and soulless decadents — seemed far worse. In this light, the Collaboration was far more complex than the official postwar narrative would have us believe. Likewise, some Manchurians sided with Japanese Colonists because they feared Chinese nationalist hostility as the greater threat to Manchurian integrity. And Sukarno also collaborated with the Japanese because his priority was liberating Indonesia from the Dutch. And American Revolutionaries collaborated with French Imperialism to defeat British Imperialism. By some twisted miracle, American Revolution managed to kill two birds with one stone. British were defeated in America, and then, the financial duress from the war finished off the French monarchy as well. An independent American Republic was possible only through the clash of empires.) Furthermore, the defeat of France was sweetened by the Nazi narrative that the French military had been weakened and demoralized by Africanization and Jewish cosmo-socialist influence. Thus, Marshal Petain, the grand hero of the motherland in WWI, found the arrangement palatable as the head of the Vichy government. Besides, the German terms weren’t as harsh as what France and UK had forced upon Germany in the aftermath of WWI. While France and UK utterly demolished the German economy, Hitler had no such agenda for France as his real contempt was reserved for Slavic populations. Though Hitler thought the French weren’t ‘racially’ as good as the Germanic ‘Aryan’ stock, he had profound respect for them as a people and civilization. Even the Jewish Policy was largely left to the French themselves, and it was the French who rounded up most of the Jews, sometimes using a ‘racial’ criterion of Jewishness that exceeded Nazi guidelines. French antipathy toward Jews wasn’t a phenomenon only on the Right. While some Frenchmen eagerly welcomed the Germans as counterweight and destroyer of Jewish power in France — similarly, some white Americans probably wouldn’t mind if Russia invaded America and liberated white America from hideous Jewish elites and their homo allies who’ve gained tyrannical grip over the nation — , many Frenchmen across the political spectrum were deeply ashamed of French defeat and subconsciously sought scapegoats to fix the blame on. Just as the German military on the eve of the defeat in WWI cooked up the myth of having been ‘stabbed in the back’, lots of Frenchmen were eager to blame someone for France’s ignoble defeat, and Jews made a handy excuse. Therefore, even though the most enthusiastic participants who rounded up Jews for the Germans were Frenchmen on the Right, many non-rightist Frenchmen felt little sympathy for the Jews because maybe, just maybe, the shocking French defeat was the result of undue influence of Jews upon French culture and politics. A key moral question is, how much did the French who rounded up Jews know about the Nazi deathcamps? (It’s like the British who turned over Ukrainian prisoners back to the Soviets knew the men would face certain death but did so anyway to maintain good relations with the USSR.) How many Frenchmen knew there was a good chance that the Jews would face death? If they didn’t know, their rounding up of Jews wouldn’t have been any worse than American people’s support, tacit or active, of the governments ‘internment’ of the Japanese-American population during WWII. Suppose Germans didn’t kill the Jews but the American government killed the Japanese-Americans. Then, in retrospect, the Americans might seem worse than the French. (Indeed, some historians argue that the Truman’s government willfully derailed peace talks with Japan to test the nuclear bombs on that country.) While some Frenchmen surely knew about the death camps, many could not have known, and their participation in the roundup was hardly different from American support of rounding up Japanese-Americans. (To be sure, there were plenty of Frenchmen who heard rumors of the horrors but refused to believe them for whatever reasons ranging from sincere skepticism to willful denial.) Also, French behavior was hardly extraordinary given the heated passions during the war and under Occupation. How many Jews in Israel opposed the building of massive walls to keep Palestinians in ghettos? How many protested against Israel’s use of extreme force on Gaza, killing thousands of women and children in retaliation for one or two dead Israelis from Palestinian mini-rockets? When a prominent Nazi was assassinated, Germans had a policy of rounding people up randomly for execution, and Zionists do much the same in Israel. If Palestinian rockets kill a few Jews, Jews retaliate by killing thousands of Palestinians. When two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah forces in 2006, Israel bombed the entire nation to smithereens, and Americans fully backed Israeli aggression. Neocon stooge Bush II always made brazen excuses for Israel. And think back to the days of communism when many Jews in Russia enthusiastically participated in the imprisonment and/or killing of millions of Ukrainians. Perhaps, we could argue that many Jewish communists didn’t know the full extent of the horrors awaiting the Slavs in the Gulag forced-labor camps, some of which were virtually death camps due to horrible conditions. Maybe some Jews knew and acted out of revenge against the ‘antisemitic’ Christian Slavs. Maybe some Jews really didn’t know the full extent of the horrors or believed that means justified the glorious ends of communism.
At any rate, same kind of moral logic applies to the French. Under great duress, people turn on their neighbors and lash out in frustration/desperation, especially if their neighbors are seen as ‘alien’. Consider the horrible sectarian violence in Iraq or India following severe political crisis. It’s like desperate rats struggling for survival will turn on each other. If people of same blood can turn brother-against-brother in times of crisis, it’s usually far worse among peoples of different blood. After WWII, plenty of people of Eastern Europe(driven to desperation and dementia by war and want) were more than willing to set upon German families — even those with roots in the land going back centuries — for pogroms, expulsion, or even extermination. And there are plenty of Jews in Israel who, if given a chance, would love to uproot all Muslims and Arabs in Israel and drive them to Jordan. French social psychology was no different in WWII. What made it especially tragic is that many of the Jews were destined for slaughter. That said, many Ukrainians rounded up and shipped to the Gulag also died in miserable conditions, but I don’t see Jews expressing contrition for their involvement in communism.
Shoah Desecrationists who deny the tragic are cranks or lunatics, but we should not blame all Europeans who took part in the roundup of Jews for Holocaust Guilt because many really didn’t know the full extent of Nazi horrors. Also, we must try to understand general ‘antisemitism’ within the context of Jewish attitudes, agendas, and abuses. Recent survey of what Jews have done to US and EU — and the Middle East racked by Wars for Israel concocted by Zionist Neocons — should heighten our awareness of the foulness of Jewish power and influence. Though the current rottenness of Jews doesn’t mean Jews were likewise in the past(just like German and Japanese foulness during WWII doesn’t mean they were similarly foul before or after the event), there is a discernible historical pattern of disproportionate Jewish influence(for good or ill), and since the end of WWII this influence has not only destroyed the Palestinian people but emasculated Western Europe men, homo-fied the United States — where masses of straight people now worship 1.5% of the population whose idea of ‘sex’ is fecal penetration — , and undermined the national sovereignty, cultural pride, and moral values of all gentile nations. Jewish power became especially noxious following the end of the Cold War because it came to control the US, the lone superpower. Jews couldn’t resist the temptation of using American power to further the aims of Jewish megalomania all over the world. If Jewish influence had positive and genuinely progressive value in the past because Jews, as upstarts, critics, and dissenters, provoked the status quo and challenged the powers-that-be with fresh insights and impassioned demands for new freedoms, Jewish globalist elites with their immense power now try to IMPOSE their will and agenda from above on all of humanity. It’s not about will & grace but will-to-power to disgrace anyone who’s deemed at odds with the Jewish agenda.

Anyway, the experience of the Occupation left an indelible mark on Louis Malle, and it was something he ruminated on for the rest of his life. A part of Malle always remained something of a dandy, a bon vivant, and he was accused of making rather shallow fashion-magazine style of movies(and without the ideological passion of Bernado Bertolucci whose cartoonish Marxism supposedly redeemed his celebration of perfumed aesthetics). His real breakthrough THE LOVERS, despite the eyebrows it raised, seemed fanciful compared to the energetic new films made by core French New Wave directors. (Malle could have gone the way of Claude Lelouch.) Some of Malle’s films have indeed been slight and vapid. But with background in French intellectual tradition, Malle at his best could be formidable, especially with MURMUR OF THE HEART, one of the best coming-of-age films, and ATLANTIC CITY, maybe his best feature film. And his epic PHANTOM INDIA is one of the best documentaries ever made, possibly the best Western film about India, one that probes and ponders so many facts and facets of that confounding civilization where treasure and trash sit side by side. The narration throughout the film is ideologically left-leaning, typical of the era, but Malle’s observations(ranging from speculative to sociological) of India’s people, culture, richness, and troubles are filled with poetics, nuance, and insight. Whether sound or unsound on the factual level, Malle’s thought processes are amazingly adroit and nimble through the tangled mess that is India(even if the final product of his ruminations may be unconvincing). It’s like deftly skipping stones across a cesspool, and one wonders if he would have made a better critic or writer than a film-maker. (To be sure, elevation of elegance in French Thought has often led to accusations of favoring surface over depth, impression over substance. In other words, French wax poetic about reflections on the waves than wade into the water.) As a director, Malle shared a tendency with Bernado Bertolucci, another European born to privilege and posturing with politics — albeit with more one-sided commitment. At their worst, both film-makers had a knack for cheapening sensations into sensationalism, sometimes degrading their material into fashionable eye-candy or arty soft-core porn.
PHANTOM INDIA, one of Louis Malle's greatest works.
Because Malle had to shoot PHANTOM INDIA off-the-cuff in strange locations and meet with unfamiliar personalities, often with unpredictable results, he had no choice but to adapt and improvise, to think outside the box of preconceptions and projections. Even as he observed and processed everything through his Franco-Western ideas, there was a growing awareness, both discomfiting and illuminating, of a cultural and historical reality far beyond any Western assumption, critique, or vision. Just as Alexander the Great couldn’t make heads or tails out of ‘India’, Malle’s film is a testament to how every Western idea about India, from the most damningly critical to the most exotically idealized, can’t hope to get to the heart of a civilization that Indians themselves are lost within as a broken maze. (Unlike Michelangelo Antonioni who projected his troubled vision of modernity onto the Amerika in ZABRISKIE POINT, Malle used cinematic devices as modest archaeological tools to unearth clumps of insight, the possible clues to the essence and secrets to Indian history and society. Being a French artist-intellectual, he couldn’t resist theorizing with scanty evidence, but the impossibility of complete control over the project resulted in a healthy kind of dialectic that became increasingly rare among ‘auteur’ directors who, as the ‘authors’ of their films, had a tendency to ‘totalize’ their works by excluding anything that didn’t conform to the vision. Granted, works of fiction are inherently more personal and self-enclosed as they flow from the imagination of artists, whereas film documentaries and non-fiction books must come to terms with facts and reality. Even so, fiction can be an alternative way of approaching truth via empathy and speculation, and non-fiction works can be used to further personal grudges or political agendas without regard for truth and integrity. Even though the French New Wave got started by breaking out of the studio and hitting the streets, it wasn’t long before many ‘auteurs’ withdrew to their cribs of self-indulgence or solipsism. New Wave went from studio to the street to the closet, and despite the ritualized confirmation of loyalty from the usual acolytes, it grew utterly irrelevant as years passed.) Because of Malle’s pampered partiality toward indulging his whimsies, there was always the danger of getting carried away(like a child in a toy store), especially with misses like DAMAGE, ZAZIE DANS LE METRO, and BLACK MOON.

Perhaps, this accounts for why Malle had such a troubled tangle of emotions about the Jew kid in his youth. Malle-as-child led a carefully scripted and planned life. He was the son of a wealthy family, he was the smartest kid in the school, he was a citizen of the great and proud French nation. But then a Jew kid came along, and the script began to unravel. The Jew kid was smarter than Malle. And through the Jew kid’s predicament, it dawned on Malle-as-child that France, despite its pretensions, is a defeated & occupied nation taking orders from Germany. A proud whore is still a whore. And despite all the rhetoric about French pride and glory, too many Frenchmen just caved to German demands. Like most people under foreign occupation, most French people collaborated or kept their heads down. The shame wasn’t so much that the French were worse than other peoples but no better. After all, the French had been telling the world and themselves that they are special and different, overflowing in ideals and integrity in short supply among the non-French. Indeed, even French Jews were spoiled by French self-inflation. In one scene in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS, a Franco-Jewish customer sits in a fancy restaurant and, when asked to leave by the owner, insists he has special privileges to dine there, leading to mounting tension. Ironically, it’s a German soldier sitting nearby who, out of irritation than sympathy, tells the owner to let the Jew stay. (The moment is doubly humiliating to the French owner who is doing the bidding of Germans but is then admonished for doing so by none other than German soldiers.
At least by humiliating the Jew with special vehemence, the French toady could make believe that he has agency and power against the Jew. He could pretend that his anti-Jewish actions are sincerely personal than orders from above. But then, the Germans command him to leave the Jew alone, and he realizes he has no choice but to sheepishly comply. Even a random German soldier has more power than him in Occupied France. It’s like a dog barking loudly like a top dog at another animal. But when the master commands it to hush and be nice to the animal, the dog has no choice but to comply. Its agency as an angry dog was just a delusion. Its ‘friends’ and ‘foes’ are decided by the master.) Jews are being persecuted in France, yet the rich French Jew is fixated on his own privileges that place him above other Jews, the ordinary ones. Most likely, if German policy had only targeted foreign Jews in France, many French Jews would have collaborated because many Western European Jews felt disdain for relatively newly arrived ‘dirty’ Eastern European Jews, just like affluent or over-educated Liberal whites in places like NY feel disdain and disgust toward ‘backward’ and ‘less evolved’ whites of the South and rural regions of the Midwest, who are sometimes referred to as 'white trash'. Such attitudes also exist among former West-Germany Germans toward former East-Germany Germans. And Hong Kong-ese and Taiwanese look down on ‘backward’ Mainland Chinese, and plenty of upper caste Asian Indians who speak English look down on the poorer elements in India. (To be sure, it’s more understandable among Hindu dotkins because India is a diverse nation with ancient roots of caste-apartheid. Rich Indians disdaining poor Indians is a case of one racial group looking down on another. The case of Mexican racial politics is more perverse. Like India, Mexico was created by a lighter-skinned race conquering and ruling over a darker-skinned people. But if Indians reinforced an explicitly racial system of hierarchy, the Latin elites of the Americas were of Christo-egalitarian tradition and later influenced by Liberalism and Marxism. So, even though ‘Latin America’ had developed as a racially hierarchical social order like traditional India, the official dogma was that peoples in nations like Mexico and Venezuela are equal as ‘brown people’. In truth, the white elites of ‘Latin American’ nations despise the indigenous folks but dare not air their views. For one thing, they are outnumbered by the mestizos and Meso-Americans who hold the moral ace since White Guilt is part of global PC. Secondly, even though Latin whites are essentially white and European, they are somewhat darker than Northern Europeans, a fact that has inflamed their sense of resentment and inferiority complex in Europe and the Americas. [Many Greeks and Southern Italians are genetically closer to Turks and Arabs than to Northern Europeans.] So, even as Latin Whites despise Indios and Mesos, they pretend to be one with the ‘browns’ and redirect their contempt[for non-whites] toward ‘gringo’ whites, the whiter whites. This way, Latin Whites figure on killing two birds with one stone. By making ‘gringos’ out to be the enemy, Latin Whites encourage their impoverished brown masses to migrate to America in the spirit of ‘reconquista’ to alleviate socio-economic problems at home. Also, by delighting in the demise of Blanco Gringo America, the less-white Latin whites find satisfaction in the destruction of the object of their envy. It’s like Jewish women want to see white women have babies with black men because they resent ‘Aryan’ beauty. Jewish women see white beauty as a False Idol to desecrate and destroy, and what better way than by turning white wombs into baby factories for kids with frizzy hair, fat lips, and broad noses? Though Hindu elites and Latin elites have different histories, the Latin Perversity has now spread to many Hindus, especially in the West. Even though lighter-skinned Hindu elites have long despised darker-skinned Dravidian Indians — and still do in daily life — , they find themselves to be dark-skinned vis-a-vis the whites. They’ve been treating dark-skinned Dravidians as ‘niggers’, but the white Anglos saw all Hindus, even the Brahmin elites, as ‘niggers’. So, the Hindu ‘honkies’ suddenly found themselves to be ‘niggers’ in the eyes of whites. They still despised the Dravidian ‘niggers’ but resented being despised as ‘niggers’ by the British. Today, they want to keep down the darker-skinned Dravidians as ‘niggers’ but don’t want to be treated as ‘niggers’ by whites. On the one hand, they want to move to white nations and rub shoulders with white people. They don’t want to mingle with dark-skinned Indians who still poop outdoors and live in trash dumps like in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. But because of the history of Anglos having called all Hindus ‘wogs’, the Hindu elites make noise about their alliance with Diversity against whites. But they’d rather be with white than with ‘wogs’.)
There’s no guarantee that a people will be sympathetic toward their own kind. Many German-Americans were disgusted with Nazi Germany and more than willing to fight their ethnic brethren across the Atlantic. (Disdain for one’s own kind could arise from conscience, a rejection of the blinding tribalism of ‘my country right or wrong’. It could also arise from assimilation with another dominant population, e.g. Italian-Americans primarily identifying themselves as ‘Americans’ than as ‘Italians’. It could also result from a sense of inferiority, whereby seeking approval of and acceptance by the superior Other is regarded as a sign of status improvement.) Thus, the snobbery of the Western European Jews toward Eastern European Jews was hardly exceptional as an example of intra-tribal hostility, except for the fact that WWII became a matter of life and death for ALL Jews, and so, the snubbing of ‘less evolved’ Eastern European Jews by Western European Jews proved to be a futile act of betrayal. No matter how much Western European Jews sought to assert their distinction from the ‘dirty Jews’ from the East, they were all Jews in the eyes of Nazis for whom every Jew was the Eternal Jew beneath the facade of various levels of assimilation.
To an extent, the attitude of some Western European Jews toward Eastern European Jews — who were seen as hairy, smelly, vulgar, uncouth, obnoxious, and backward — reflected their desire of assimilation. (After all, if Jews must assimilate, why not into a superior culture like France than some ‘drab’ culture in Eastern Europe? After all, weren’t Western European Jews superior to Eastern European Jews precisely because Western European culture & society were more advanced their Eastern European counterparts? While Jews have always fretted about loss of identity, if lose it they must, why not trade Jewishness for a glorious culture/identity like that of the French, British, or German? Why give up Jewishness to become one with a bear-wrestling Russian or a ‘Dumb Polack’ who has to summon the entire village to change a light-bulb? Indeed, it’s instructive that Jewish assimilation in Russia happened only under communism, an equalizing ideology of enforced mediocrity as a moral mandate. In contrast, assimilation for Jews in Western Europe meant reaching the upper echelons of society and partaking of the best that the most advanced civilization had to offer. All over the world, people are generally less resistant to assimilating with what is deemed superior. Many are indeed more eager to assimilate with the ‘superior’ people & culture than protect and preserve their own. So, Chinese in Southeast Asia don’t want to give up their Chinese-ness to become a lowly ‘Indonesian’, ‘Malaysian’, or ‘Cambodian’, but Chinese in the West will gladly give up their Chinese-ness to become ‘British’, ‘American’, ‘Canadian’, or ‘Jewish’. Chinese women don’t want to have ‘inferior’ children for Laotian or Nepalese men, but they will gladly have kids for Jewish men and raise them as Jews because Jewishness comes with great prestige. Blacks are something of an outlier. As Africans, they’ve achieved little in terms of science, technology, and economics. They are among the biggest losers in the world. But as ‘groids’ in the West, they’ve become dominant in sports, pop music, gangsta style, and sex culture. The idolatry of black ‘cool’ had even the daughter of John Boehner marrying a dread-locked ‘groid’. And white women worship Oprah as electronic-earth-mother, and even the British royal family wants to marry with Negroes and Negresses. Brits feel chilly & cold with their uptight buttoned-up Anglo-ness and find warmth in the vibrancy of Afro-fizzy-ness, like Wasp George Lucas did with his sappy head lodged between the chocolate-flavored boobs of his Negress-wife .) Napoleon said, "Everything for Jews as Frenchmen, nothing for Jews as Jews." In other words, if Jews want equality under the law, their main loyalty had to be for the Republic(though it began to look more like an empire). Thus, French Jews whose main loyalty was to France than to foreign Jewry didn’t regard themselves as ‘bad Jews’ but as ‘good Frenchmen’. If a good Frenchman must choose France over all else, he must do what is good for France even at the expense of foreign Jews. (Granted, this led to layers of snobbery among certain assimilated French Jews. Jewishness itself is inherently arrogant and chauvinistic, founded on conviction of special Covenant between God and Jews. So, when Jew adopted Frenchness, they could become doubly arrogant as fancy French culture provided yet another layer of arrogance. Because of the French Revolution that waged war on all spiritual underpinnings, the French demand on Jews seemed ‘fairer’ than ones made on Jews in neighboring states. The Revolution, in attacking all religions, didn’t discriminate between Christians and Jews, the model for what would happen later in the Soviet/Russian Revolution. Outside France, in contrast, Christians were clearly favored over Jews. In France, Jews didn’t have to become ‘goyim’ by conversion to Christianity to assimilate. Rather, they just had to become ‘Frenchmen’ without any particular religious affiliation. The great irony of French Civilization derives from its universalization of arrogance. Its openness was both chauvinistic and brotherly. It was offered as a gift to all mankind on the premise that French culture is better than all others. It was imperialism and liberation at the same time. Those who came under French influence took on Princely attitudes in the name of the People. In contrast, the traditional Chinese were no less arrogant and chauvinistic, but they just wanted to keep their superior culture to themselves. Barbarians were not good enough to partake of it, and even if they did, the Chinese were indifferent. In contrast, the France developed a notion that French grandeur can fulfill its destiny only with the spread of French Culture all over the world.) And if the French Law said foreign Jews must go, then it was incumbent upon good French Jew to work with French gentiles to comply with the law. (Such principle of higher loyalty became meaningless during WWII when it became futile for Jews to demonstrate their goodness. No matter how much French Jews cooperated with the Vichy regime as proof of their patriotism, they were seen as Jews who didn’t belong in Europe.) Of course, in France as in Germany, the harshness of the laws wasn’t manifest all at once. The Nazis cleverly understood that if they tried to ram it all down at once, it could lead to outrage and resistance. Therefore, they moved in stages, thus making people feel that the worst was over and that things would slowly return to normal if they obeyed the system. Lenin and Mao pulled the same trick in their respective nations, pushing for communization in gradual stages, thus making most people feel that the worst excesses of radicalism were behind them. Likewise, the German-ruled France initially targeted foreign Jews, and French Jews thought things would improve once the foreign elements were removed. But then, it gradually dawned on French Jews that they were next. They realized that there is no end to pathological radicalism. Once the ball gets rolling, it accelerates and demolishes everything in its path until it runs out of energy or is met with countervailing force.
Similarly, white Americans think if they just go along with the Jewish globalist agenda, cooler heads will prevail and things will settle down & return to normal. Such misleading impression is sustained with the gradualist see-saw policy of white displacement that is calibrated to gain full momentum only when white resistance is hopeless EVEN IF whites were to finally wake up and unite in action. It’s like a passenger can be fooled that the car is going northward than westward by swerving the car back-and-forth from northwest and northeast. But if the car alternately goes two miles westward and one mile eastward, the final result of all that mileage will be someplace far out west. If Jews had implemented a full-blown radical policy in the past, whites would have risen up and confronted the Jews. So, devious Jews use the ebb-and-flow method. They pushed hard but then relaxed, as if to create the impression that the worst was over. But they were just prepping for the next push that is even harder. In this way, the US went from a sane normal nation to one where idiots worship Homomania as the new christianity. As a result, the US went from a solid white majority nation to one where whites live under Jewish tyranny in Diversity-Dystopia. America went from having a president like Ronald Reagan to a scummy son of a mudshark who did the bidding of the Jewish and homo elites. Just as Jewish hopes for Nazi mercy were foolhardy, white American prayers of mutual respect & understanding with Jews are pure fantasy. It is the radical and contemptuous nature of the Jew, cultural and genetic, to push the knife deeper, twist it, and add salt to injury. Just ask the Palestinians if Jewish aggression can ever be appeased or satiated? It’s like believing Harvey Weinstein will stop abusing women of his own accord. The fate of Palestinians is the template for the future of the white race in the Jewish Globalist-Supremacist order.

Anyway, Malle-the-child, who was born into privilege and complacency(even if a competitive complacency in which he had to make the grades and pass the exams), found himself in a kind of a bind: A world, at once, too-good-to-be-true and too-horrible-to-contemplate. Like the young Siddhartha, Malle-the-child was sheltered from troubles of the world. Though pushed to succeed in school, as long as he made the grades(not difficult since he was born with natural smarts) and found his place in the system, a nice future was in store for him alongside others like him. When Siddhartha stepped out of the comfort zone and bore witness to disease, decay, and death, he underwent a spiritual crisis. Something similar dogged Malle for the rest of his life. On the one hand, Malle never lost the bourgeois sensibility of elegance and taste for pretty things — and as a French man, for sensual things — , but another side of him couldn’t help but feel that this personal paradise hid a dark secret. (And perhaps, he didn’t deserve his successes because historical circumstances favored him over Jews with superior smarts and talent. It’s like Liberal white men like Tom Brokaw loved fame and wealth but were nagged by the sense that their success had been premised on the ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ of a society that favored their kind over others. It’s the QUIZ SHOW[Robert Redford movie] mentality that Wasps enjoyed favoritism and privilege they really didn’t deserve. In a way, they were correct because past American society did favor 'white males' like Tom Brokaw over others. But then, white people like Brokaw founded, settled, and built this country, so why shouldn’t they have favored their own kind over Jews and ‘groids’? Jews certainly favor their own kind in Israel, and blacks in South Africa rig the system to favor less qualified blacks over whites and Asians.) A similar sense pervades throughout BLACK MOON, an interesting if confused combination of decadent opulence and grim violence. As for PHANTOM INDIA, perhaps in a subconscious way, Malle felt compelled to visit and make a documentary about India because its history, culture, and society embodied such divergences between dream and reality. Especially in the 1960s, there was much romanticism about India as a timeless oasis of spirituality(as opposed to the fast-paced materialism of the West), peace & harmony(especially between man and nature), selflessness & abandonment of ego, and etc. If some movements in the 60s looked to Mao’s China for revolution, others looked to India for revelation. But the real India didn’t resemble the pipe-dreams of Hippies, proto-New-Agers, and utopians. The real India was dirty, grimy, sickly, corrupt, demented, cynical, brutal, petty, greedy, nasty, wicked, hideous, vile, stinky, laughable, ridiculous, ludicrous, cruel, uncaring, repressive, oppressive, pitiless, and gave you the runs if you drank the water. A dotkin’s world could be as filthy as a fruitkin’s bung.
In the West, ‘dirty money’ means greed and corruption are bad. In India, it means the money is literally soiled and stinky and filthy, like it was pulled out of a sewer or used as toilet tissue by the kid in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Though Ganges is supposed to be the Sacred River of India, it is really a giant toilet bowl. And yet, there’s no denying that India has been one of the absolutely great civilizations, and one of the great sources of imagination and spirituality, perhaps the most profound in the world. Also, India has exerted tremendous influence in arts, dance, and music on its neighbors. Though China and Japan has commanded more attention in the West in the 20th century, India has historically influenced China and Japan more than vice versa. Buddhism’s impact on Northeast Asia cannot be overestimated, whereas India remained impervious to East Asian philosophies and ideologies. Possibly Lao Tzu, as an individual or collection of individuals, might have cribbed ideas from Indian Thought as well. So, India is a great civilization that produced some of the most interesting arts, cultures, philosophies, and religions. But like so many dirty, corrupt, and poor Third World nations, it’s also been a stinkpot throughout the 20th century, made worse by the fact that the Indian Saris aren’t ideal in heat or pleasant to the eyes. Hot regions are sweaty, and so it’s best to wear something simple in design and pattern. Saris have to be held as well as worn, and their bright colors only accentuate the sweat. Arab women have the better hot weather outfit, as long as the color isn’t black as black absorbs excess heat. Indians sure can be stupid sometimes, coming up with dumb ideas like smudging dots on their foreheads and piercing their noses, an especially hideous sight to behold. Earrings look good, nose-rings look retarded, but the fact that this aesthetic crime has spread among white folks — some of whom even pierce their tongues(but then, this is a society that now thinks homo fecal penetration is real sex) — makes you wonder about mass culture in the 21st century. When I was young, nose-piercing was something that the Other, the weird Hindus featured in National Geographic magazines, did. The idea of any white woman piercing her nose would have been ridiculed as ugly, and rightfully so. Even Negroes would have scoffed at the idea of piercing their noses. But when standards and meanings collapse under the weight of degenerate Pop Culture and demented Political Correctness, anything is possible. Just as junk is promoted as ‘art’, ugliness is marketed as beauty.

Anyway, Malle became noted as a documentary film-maker as well as a feature film director; indeed, documentaries comprised one-third of his output. A film-maker doing substantial work in both fiction and non-fiction isn’t rare though not common. Though our general impression is of directors as being full-time documentary makers(Barbara Koppel, Maysles Brothers, Errol Morris, Michael Moore, etc) or full-time feature film-makers, many have straddled both forms, though most American directors tend to be more renowned for one over the other. Martin Scorsese, for instance, made documentary films — NO DIRECTION HOME, SHINE A LIGHT, PERSONAL JOURNEY WITH MARTIN SCORSESE THROUGH AMERICAN FILMS, LIVING IN THE MATERIAL WORLD, MY VOYAGE TO ITALY, THE LAST WALTZ, ITALIAN-AMERICAN, and etc. — , but his reputation rests on his fiction films. For most aspiring film-makers in America, documentaries were seen as a means of apprenticeship and experience before embarking on the true ambition of feature film-making with huge production values. This was clearly the case with William Friedkin’s evolution from documentaries to Hollywood. It was like going from folk music with acoustic guitar & harmonica in small venues to playing with a band with electric guitars, bass, and drums in giant stadiums. Documentaries have been a cheap and convenient way of getting training and being noticed(at film-festivals or work on public TV) because film stocks, even 16 mm, were pretty expensive. Documentaries needed not be long, and crudity of technique was more forgivable than in feature-films. (Stanley Kubrick got practice making documentaries like THE DAY OF THE FIGHT.) Besides, one could make documentaries without props just by directing the camera at reality, whereas feature films, even most French New Age ones, relied on artifice and production values. And, with cinema-verite, camera movement could be jerky, the image dark and grainy, editing elementary and crude, and real-life characters grungy, drab, or un-photogenic. If anything, such qualities were deemed as seal of authenticity & unvarnished truth and , in time, even influenced feature film-making as it moved out of studios into streets and actual locations. (Now, even big Hollywood movies employ, albeit in a post-modern mode, styles that originated in independent film and foreign cinema. Consider how the Tom Cruise vehicle AMERICAN MADE freely alternates between standard Hollywood conventions and documentary-verite style once rare outside the domains of documentary film-making and radical cinema, which gave us works like SALVATORE GIULIANO or THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS. The willful crudity as badge of authenticity and autonomy has been copped by Hollywood. There was some of this already with Elia Kazan who took obvious inspiration from Italian Neo-realism and made some powerful movies. But it may have been the success of EASY RIDER that really convinced Hollywood that ‘radical’ and ‘independent’ vernaculars could be ‘appropriated’ and adapted into New Conventions. And this process was accelerated with the rise of the music video that made pomo sensibility dominant in American culture. Despite or precisely because of their sheer nonsensicality, music videos could shamelessly ‘experiment’ by ‘mumbo-jumbing’ everything under the sun and from where the sun don’t shine. MTV warholized every child’s bedroom. Oliver Stone’s terrible NATURAL BORN KILLERS bemoaned of how the pomo contortions of media warps and distorts reality itself because the TV has become THE reality in the lives of most Americans. It’s all the worse in the Age of MTV because even the representational markers between documentary/news and fiction/fantasy has dissolved. Stone didn’t so much adapt as remonstrate with Quentin Tarantino’s script. While the news media always had a problem with the truth, there nevertheless used to be recognizable markers as to what constituted news/documentary as opposed to movies/entertainment. It’s like the book covers for serious literary output differs from covers of pulp novels. But pomo sensibility not only blew up the wall between art and pop but the wall between news and entertainment. So, the ‘font’ and style heretofore associated with serious news or documentaries could be copped for tabloid junk or music video just to add ‘ironic’ flavor. It was in the Age of MTV that the barrier between news and entertainment nearly vanished with shows like Current Affair and Hard Copy. Today, most news programs are closer to salacious tabloid or deep state propaganda than sober news. But then, Stone himself shares in the blame for making something so wacky-sensational and demented-over-the-top as JFK, a case of "This is your conspiracy theory, this is your conspiracy theory on drugs." Anyway, if Pop Music could borrow cruder elements from the streets and farms and reshape them into formula & industry standard, cinema did likewise. Consider UNITED 93, which is both Hollywood and ‘indie-radical’ in style.) For film-makers just starting out with limited means, one of the best chances of being noticed was with a documentary film screened at festivals or aired on TV. Generally, if film-makers are more interested in subjects than styles, they’ll stick to documentary. Some people are more inquisitive than creative. They regard film as a means than an end in itself. For them, film is a lens focusing on reality or spade digging for truth. (On the other hand, there are ways to be experimental and creative with the documentary form. Chris Marker, Alain Resnais, and Hiroshi Teshigahara were especially adept at this. And Orson Welles, via elements of docu-drama narrative in CITIZEN KANE and the pseudo-documentary in F FOR FAKE, illustrated the porous line between reality and fantasy; after all, mediums and minds process everything, true or false, through the same organs and instruments. Thus, our perceptions are never that of pure truth or pure fantasy but of series of impressions harboring bits and pieces of everything. MR. ARKADIN, like CITIZEN KANE, also blends documentary investigative elements with fictional drama. Welles instinctively understood the paradox of how docu-elements could actually heighten the unreality because the keen ‘investigative’ eye is made to bear witness to the disorientation of truth. If you want to make people believe in UFO or Big Foot, offer the ‘documentary’ evidence, however doctored it may be. Or why not subvert the very faith of seeing-is-believing, until the objective gaze no longer believes in anything anymore, as becomes the case of Joseph K. in THE TRIAL. Consider how, with a few bits of ‘documentary’ evidence, Iago fools Othello into seeing what isn’t there. It’s the conceit of seeing-is-believing that ultimately fools people into seeing what isn’t. The make-believe of involving an ‘objective’ eye in the world of fiction only heightens the strangeness, especially as the supposedly ‘objective’ player is, after all, also an invented figure. An objective figure in fiction is a contradiction: An honest factual eye fixed on what is make-believe and fantasy. This creates a hall-of-mirrors effect as the ‘objective’ figure, though introduced as autonomous and independent from the rest, comes to realize that his fate and ‘reality’ are no less interlinked with the subjective wills and agendas of the others. He is less a sun observing the planets revolving around him than a ball batted around among them, like the Tom Cruise character in AMERICAN MADE. This contradiction is somewhat muted in CITIZEN KANE where the reporter mainly serves as our eyes and has no dramatic function. It’s more striking in LADY FROM SHANGHAI and MR. ARKADIN where the hero, who begins as an ‘independent’ observer/operator of other people and their problems, comes to realize that he too is as much an object of others’ gazes as they are to his.) But for those immersed in the magic of cinema, feature film-making is their true calling. So, if your main interest is astronomy, you’d make a documentary that puts science and facts at the center. In contrast, consider Terrence Malick’s approach to the cosmos in TREE OF LIFE. It was about using the art of film to suggest at the spiritual connection between psyche and space. Though a terrible film, one can nevertheless understand Malick’s striving for meaning.
Of course, most documentary film-makers are not experts in any academic field and operate as mere professionals(even hacks) whose products are more entertainment than science; it’s science-for-dummies who will never understand, let alone practice, real science. But then, if such films inspire smart kids to pursue science, they are a net plus to society. Even though documentary film-makers for corporate-statist media are experts at their craft, their main function is to perfect and follow the formula. Because their primary purpose is to serve the public with facts, analysis, and interpretation, they agree upon a standard format, which accounts as to why most PBS documentaries in any given era look and sound so alike despite being made by different individuals and crews. Most stick to the idealized consensus of conveying ideas and information in the most digestible manner to the largest possible audience. The trick is to keep it reasonably smart but not too intelligent and certainly not intellectual. While such formula is respectable and often effective, they pose problems. For one, the documentarian has to follow the script and adhere to conventions. Even CucKen Burns, with his prestige and renown, must deliver what is expected of him. Indeed, THE CIVIL WAR, which made his name, was most notable for being the kind of generic documentary favored by PBS. It was almost made-to-order. Even more troubling is the conceit of objectivity on the basis of the impersonal presentation of the material. We barely sense the mind or the controlling agenda behind the presentation. Therefore, even though PBS is mostly controlled by Zionists and Jewish globalists, we may be lulled into believing we are seeing disinterested reporting and analysis of issues and stories. Also, diverse talking heads give the false impression of balance because, in actuality, the ‘contrasting voices’ are restricted to a spectrum preordained by the powers-that-be. So, even as corporate/consensus documentaries can be informative and engaging, we don’t get a sense of who is really pulling the strings and for whose agenda. In contrast, the personal documentarians do exhibit a specific angle of curiosity or passion, even bordering on obsession. At the low end, there’s the putrid Michael Moore, and at the higher end, there’s Errol Morris and Terry Zwigoff. And there have been figures like Peter Watkins who mix facts and fiction to propagate their own vision or fanaticism, albeit with the saving grace of personalism. At the very least, someone like Watkins can honestly claim his biases as his own than a decree from Big Brother... though one can’t feeling that the logical end of Watkinism is just another Big Brotherism so sure of its truth and rightness. Though corporatist documentaries are consistent and professional in quality, the personalist documentaries at their best succeed on a higher plane because they are guided by a discernible heart and mind imbued with poetics and/or poignancy lacking in works made by fiat of consensus and consent. Also, a honest subjectivity is more truthful than disingenuous objectivity. At least when subjectivity tries to be fair and balanced, we sense the subjective effort at objectivity. In the end, it is that effort that’s the most we can hope for when it comes to truth. It’s best to admit to our subjectivity and then work toward an attempt at objectivity. In contrast, the corporate/statist documentaries would have us believe they operate on the basis of objectivity.

Generally, non-fiction writers tend to be critical-and-analytical, whereas fiction writers tend to be imaginative-and-escapist. Though most documentary film-makers commissioned by public television have an impersonal ‘objective’ style — though documentaries have become more manipulative and propagandistic, especially in their use of music and editing over the years — , some documentarians develop unique styles of their own(and specialize in certain kind of subjects) and come to be admired as ‘auteurs’ in their own right. Though a risible film-maker and ugly personality, Michael Moore’s films can never be mistaken for anyone else’s. But then, Moore-ism is more a personal brand than a personal vision.
Though all kinds of documentaries have been available in the US, most Americans associate documentaries with journalism or general information for people who have neither the time nor will to read books. Consider the National Geographic documentary based on Jared Diamond’s GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL. The standard documentarian generally withholds his perspective(or appears to), partly a legacy of the school of journalism that emphasized impartiality and ‘fairness’, a key concept of Anglo ethics. Also, there’s been a long debate as to what constitutes documentary as opposed to propaganda or advertising(especially since so many documentaries are produced by institutions funded by big donors; generally speaking, donor money will not compromise the material IF the subject matter is unrelated to the business or political interests of the donors; for example, if donation from a Wall Street oligarch funds a work about ancient history or astronomy, the documentarian has a freer hand; even in the Soviet Union, the documentarian was most free when working on subjects with little or no ideological relevance). There’s also been heated controversies about print journalism vs Television and about where reporting ends and where editorializing begins. But then, a truly crafty reporter can subtly add/subtract details and play with diction to slip bias into what appears like objective reporting. There is also the element of Term Warfare, the germ-warfare of words. With PC terminology informing journalese, even reporting becomes rigged when terms like ‘antisemitism’, ‘racist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘undocumented immigrants’, ‘unauthorized immigrants’, and ‘white supremacists’ are used. For example, suppose some white Americans call for White National Liberation from Jewish Supremacist domination of America. They won’t get a fair shake from the Jew-run media that label them as ‘whites supremacists’ but never ponder the possibility of Jewish Supremacism. Journalism is as much about labeling facts as reporting them. The Rule of Labels defines and pre-judges the facts. So, if ‘white supremacism’ is a term acknowledged by journalese but ‘white national liberation’ isn’t, then even white national liberationists who simply want OUT of the Jewish supremacist empire are branded as ‘white supremacists’ or ‘racists’. But since ‘Jewish supremacism’ doesn’t exist in journalese, even obvious manifestations of Jewish Supremacism don’t go reported as such. Consider how the Old Frontier press used to call American Indians ‘savages’. That term labeled Indians as primitive thugs, so they were always the bad guys no matter what they did, even when defending their turf from European invaders. This is why Jews are so adamant about keeping terms like Nakba out of the public discourse. Because of the absence of such terms, most Americans are unaware that the creation of Israel entailed massive ethnic expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. The game of the name is the name of the game. Journalese narrative is fixated on the issue of "Will Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist" while muting the fact that Nakba denied the right of Palestine to exist.

Contra the corporate/statist documentaries with authoritative air of respectability, there’s been a rapid expansion of another kind, for good or ill. Greater personal/subjective input has made the form more direct, candid, and open, but also more brazen and blatant. While Dinesh D’Souza and Michael Moore are freer in spirit than people who make FRONTLINE documentaries, their Pop Journalism is as debased as Pop Art. While Michael Moore certainly draws inspiration from the sobering works of Barbara Koppel and Emile de Antonio, his sales pitch is closer to that of shock jocks of Talk Radio. Just like the sincerity of folk music lost out to various forms of rock(that copped elements of folk for their own purposes), Moore and his imitators have been shameless in blending classic guerilla documentary-making with crass commercialism & egotistical self-promotion. Oliver Stone also found himself pushing the very sensationalism that he was condemning as a feature of exploitative capitalism. Unlike gross pigaroon Moore, Stone at least felt some angst and doubt, which is why NATURAL BORN KILLERS, awful as it is, is compelling as a confession of a boomer who came to realize, especially in the Clinton 90s, that his generation in power was turning out to be even worse than the previous generation. After all, increasing trashiness and retardation of both mass and intellectual culture was the work of the boomers. Moore comes off as a socialist Limbaugh with a camera instead of a microphone. His shtick is part MTV and SNL, which accounts for his popularity. He gorges people on laughter.
NATURAL BORN KILLERS, Boomer Oliver Stone's adaptation/critique of Gen X-er Quentin Tarantino's Pomo Dystopia
A far more interesting personal documentarian is Ross McElwee who made his name with SHERMAN’S MARCH, followed up with TIME INDEFINITE and BRIGHT LEAVES. Unlike Moore the boor, McElwee is reflective enough to ponder his incessant need to turn the camera on himself, a strange obsession he can’t do without, so he makes the best of it and records life in hope of chancing upon bits of insight and, on occasion, something like a revelation. In his breakthrough film, he meanders through Georgia, ostensibly to film a documentary about General Sherman’s campaign in the South but is mostly distracted by mundane details of life, the distant aftermath(of the Civil War) that is so disconnected from but inescapably linked to the tragic past. The present exists only because of the past, but the past is a foreign country, a theme also explored in MURIEL. To what extent McElwee’s low-energy ‘exploits’ are meant to be deadpan humor or neurotic recusal from active life, it’s not always easy to tell. Sometimes, we laugh with him, sometimes we laugh at him, sometimes he seems to be laughing at us, sometimes he seems to be laughing at himself. One thing for sure, we end up laughing, sometimes smugly, at the array of characters who are presented as far more eccentric(or ridiculous) than their self-image of normality. This New South is somewhat endearing, especially in the way it has come such a long way from the bad old days of slavery and Jim Crow. And yet, it is also pathetic and hollow, with the old displays of chivalry and honor kept as empty reminders of the sheer irrelevance of the past. Hardly no one would notice or grieve if they were discontinued, much like the debutante balls of the Northeastern Wasps, only more so because of the ignobleness of the Southern brand after the Civil Rights Movement. Also, the new Southern elites, having been educated in the same schools as their Northern peers, seem up to date in flaky fads and trends. Yet in certain respects, some things haven’t changed much at all. As McElwee mostly moves around in affluent circles divorced from the world of blacks and ‘white trash’, the reality of privilege and exclusivity continues in the present. One can’t help feeling McElwee can live in world of hobbies and 'trivial' pursuits because he’s been a man of means, if not great fortune, all his life. Though lacking the manic energies of Woody Allen and Albert Brooks, he shares their passive/aggressive relation with the world. The camera serves as both security blanket(like Linus’) and a hammer-and-chisel to carve his niche. McElwee is like a masterless bloodhound sniffing around for clues without knowing where the clues(or diversions?) will lead. But then, he invariably comes around to sniffing his own butt. Still, he manages to unearth some truffles.

When McElwee was young and single, the shtick was rather endearing in a work like SHERMAN’S MARCH. But as he grew older, got married, and had children, his constant need to record became somewhat pathetic, even disturbing, though also informative, revealing, and touching. Also, in a world where most of visual medium is saturated with stars and celebrities, why not turn the gaze on real problems of life? In a way, he was ahead of his time because the ubiquity of cell phone cameras and social networking enabled countless people to record and share so much of their lives. (200 yrs from now, descendants will be able to see an over-abundance of details of their ancestors beginning with the onset of the digital-internet age, that is if the data are stored and preserved. And yet, paradoxically, future generations may have no interest in their ancestors precisely because there is too muchness of data and information. The past won't be so much a fascinating 'foreign country' as a click away that shows stupid images of ancestors taking selfies of themselves in the washroom of Taco Bell. Also, as the technology is geared to make users focus on the here-and-now, they are too busy making new data to care about old ones.) On Facebook, it’s not uncommon for people to share what they had for lunch or where their dog or child threw up. Through Twitter, celebrities and public figures instantly share whatever pops into their heads. Anthony Wiener of New York even forwarded photos of his ding dong with strangers on the internet. So, given current state of culture & technology, the neurosis on display in SHERMAN’S MARCH and TIME INDEFINITE seems the dawn of the New Normal. The ease and availability of technology have normalized what might have been considered a neurosis. In making SHERMAN’S MARCH, McElwee had to lug around a big camera(by today’s standards of mini-portability), and he stood out as a rare bird. Even with the advent of the camcorder in the 80s, most people didn’t carry around a video-device at all times. Back in the 80s and 90s, McElwee was doing something ‘different’ and ‘obsessive’, like the mad hero in FITZCARRALDO dragging a ship up a hill through the Amazon forest. But now that photographing, filming, and videotaping have become so cheap, easy, and mundane — even babies grow up playing with high-tech gadgets — , the melding of subjective/personal/private life with the public sphere has become normal and ‘natural’. There are many who rely on devices almost as indivisible parts of their bodies. They don’t feel alive unless the personal is made ‘public’, in which case, it is no longer personal or private. That said, McElwee is concerned with real life whereas most video-obsessives play at celebrity-wanna-be’s and imitate their favorite pop idols. In DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, it was the coercive totalitarian regime that tried to do away with the personal. In today’s hyper-globalist interconnected world, individuals themselves dissolve the personal as something lonely and isolating; they want to feel connected with the world at all times, like a baby inside a womb is connected to the mother. Having been cast out of the womb in childbirth and with flimsy family ties in an atomized soulless world, advent of high-tech connectivity has created a womb-like sensation for an increasingly infantilized populace. (Our lives intersect so much with technology that we are sort of like replicants in the BLADE RUNNER universe. Despite our flesh-and-blood existence, modern life has become inseparable from technology, not just for material convenience but in matters of consciousness; we are no longer content with classic consciousness of having mind and soul; we don’t feel alive unless our senses are connected with constant streams of signs, music, images, narratives, and messages via electronic networks. And yet, each of us do have an autonomy even if it goes ignored and neglected. In BLADE RUNNER 2049, the hero navigates between classic humanity and virtual humanity. The female police chief is a defender of the classic humanity. Even though she accepts the invaluable existence of replicants, she wants to maintain a WALL between humans and androids. Replicants may be stronger and even smarter than humans, but they are distinctly inferior to humans in one key department. What sets humans apart is they, and only they, can create life through procreation, whereas replicants, however capable they may be, cannot. So, the idea that replicants can create life on their own is deeply threatening to the humanity of the police chief. The ‘miracle’ of replicant procreation is presented as both holy and unholy. It is a hope for replicants who’d always been regarded as creations than creators, products than producers. But it’s also the sinister vision of super-oligarch Wallace who apparently wants reproductive replicants to replace pathetic & fragile humanity. The character of Joe is at the cross section of all these conflicting forces. A further irony is represented by the virtual character of Joi. In some ways, her kind is the most superficial ‘being’ in the world: Ephemeral and illusory. Ethereal creatures who look real but are mere signals beamed all over the city like 3D billboards. And yet, she has her own consciousness and memory. Furthermore, hasn’t the ultimate dream of all religions been for man to transcend flesh and become spirit? Joi is a kind of ersatz-spirit-being, and as such, cannot be harmed physically. Bullets will go right through her. But having something like consciousness, she can be hurt emotionally. Ultimately however, this ‘spiritual’ aspect of Joi is also an illusion because, all said and done, her existence depends on materiality; she is a software that cannot exist without hardware, however elegant it may be. Unlike Jesus who cannot be destroyed by the stepping on the crucifix in THE SILENCE by Martin Scorsese, Joi is gone when Luv’s boot crushes the ‘emanator’.)
BLADE RUNNER 2049: Status Quo vs The Future
But because the new technology is so unobtrusive and easy — a smartphone even has quasi-totemic quality — , it functions as an almost natural extension of life. There’s more eagerness than anxiety among social commentators and culture critics about new technology even when it involves something as radical as virtual reality and sex-robots. The only question is how we can best adapt to what is deemed inevitable(channeling Alvin Toffler) than question its moral, philosophical, and political implications as men like Aldous Huxley and Anthony Burgess have done in the past. While the ‘wonders’ of high-tech devices are undeniable, the paucity of discussion on how technology may fundamentally alter what it means to be human is troubling.

Though McElwee carved out a niche for himself with SHERMAN’S MARCH, his subsequent films have garnered less attention, and part of the reason could be McElwee-stics has become a humdrum part of everyday life. When so many people are recording and sharing details of their lives, there’s less need for a representative scribe of Real Life. Same happened to the art of film criticism. When so many people can share their opinions of movies online, there is less need to rely on critics as delegates of one’s views. In the age of print journalism, a person might look to a critic with like-minded views on a particular film to hoist the battle flag of righteous opinion. Critics have lost that priest-merchant role in culture because moviegoers now feel they can share their views freely with others. Granted, most voices go unheard in the busy traffic of the internet, but the SENSE of being part of a community is enough for most movie fans.

When most Americans think of quality documentary film-making, they think of someone like Ken Burns, whose technical skills are undeniable(even if conventional). Burns’ approach isn’t bombastic or propagandistic like that of Moore and his imitators even though, like most ‘objective’ documentaries on PBS, skewed toward Liberalism and Negro-mania. In conceptualization and delivery, it’s strictly middlebrow stuff. However, as treasure troves of carefully assembled archival photos and film footage, Burns’ documentaries definitely have value. However one may feel about the narratives of CIVIL WAR, JAZZ, UNFORGIVABLE BLACKNESS, and PROHIBITION, they resurrect mostly forgotten or overlooked history. As a stylist and ‘artist’, Burns is no better or worse than the people who worked on AMERICAN EXPERIENCE and AMERICAN MASTERS series.
One thing for sure, people like Ken Burns now have a decisive advantage over documentarians or visual-memorists like Ross McElwee because it’s still an expensive and elaborate undertaking to make something like CIVIL WAR, whereas anyone can now do what McElwee has devoted his life to. Also, if McElwee was once refreshing in an industry where stars and stereotypes have been favored over true eccentrics(as opposed to cartoonish characters), social networking devices and Youtube have given platform to any number of oddballs around the world. Though most people who record and share their lives on their internet don’t have the knowledge and thoughtfulness of McElwee, they can theoretically do what he’s doing. But without big budgets and close cooperation of institutions, something like a Ken Burns documentary is impossible.

Anyway, despite the useful and necessary distinctions between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ AND between ‘fiction’ and ‘non-fiction’, purity of form in one or the other is impossible, especially as pertaining to narratives dealing with human complexities. No non-fiction documentary can be purely factual and objective, and no work of fiction is purely fantastical — even if it’s entirely made-up, it says something real about the the culture that shaped the author's worldview. Non-fiction films often tell blatant lies, unwittingly pass off false information as truth(some details in NIGHT AND FOG by Alain Resnais have been discredited), favor or ‘privilege’ one angle/agenda over others, and etc. All films are from someone’s or some institution’s viewpoint, and every viewpoint posits a version of correctness based on a set of assumptions or values. Furthermore, unless there is a way to interconnect or merge all our consciousness together — and maybe with those of the animal world as well — , each of us is trapped in one’s own severely limited perspective. (Perhaps, the fact that we don’t see ourselves unless we stand in front of a mirror makes us experience life far more ‘objectively’ than it really is. Most times our eyes see other people and the world around us, and our ears are usually attuned to things outside us. We don't see ourselves and even our voices sound more 'objective' to our inner ears than to other people. It’s like in 99.99% of the time in movies, we don’t see the camera or the camera operator. [Such self-flexivity is usually encountered on occasion in Art Films or comedy skits, like those of Monty Python.] Thus, there’s an air of omnipotence about the camera, as if it’s the eye of god. Camera sees everything but who sees the camera, especially when actors are instructed to act like the camera isn’t there? Especially in big cities where we mill about surrounded by so many strangers who don’t notice us or pretend not to, we almost feel like the angel-visitors in WINGS OF DESIRE: Invisible beings with consciousness adrift, watching and hearing everything without being seen and heard. This conceit of ‘invisibility’ creates an illusion of ‘objective’ existence because we don’t need to subjectively engage at most times. We aren’t always reminded of our presence as members in the social order, as is the case in Amish communities where everyone is made aware of his or her particular role in the community in relation to all-too-familiar faces. [On the other hand, subjective awareness of personal duty by each member of an Amish community paradoxically dissolves the sense of subjectivity because all ‘subjectivities’, in carrying out their apportioned roles, must merge together to serve the collective ‘objective’ good of the order.] Perhaps, if a mirror followed us at all times and reflected each of our places, we would be more conscious of our limited subjective place in the world. In a way, the smartphone plays that mirror-like role, especially as selfies remind individuals of their place in the world. On the other hand, because selfies can instantly be shared with the world, subjectivity becomes universality, an idolatrous promotion of one’s own image. Subjectivity goes from being a reminder of one’s limited self to the projection of one’s limitless self. Incidentally, another reason why we can easily be lulled into illusions of objectivity is the sheer comprehensiveness of our eyes and ears. Even though our eyes and ears can only take in so much — indeed, just a tidbit when we ponder the unfathomable immensity of the universe — , they nevertheless take in ENOUGH to create the impression of seeing the Whole World. Two tiny eyes can span vast swaths of the sky, entire mountain ranges, and the distant horizon beyond the sea. And two tiny cochleas can take in rumbling thunders and the cheers of thousands. Them organs are tiny specks embedded in a frail little creature called ‘man’, but they have godly powers in taking in vast impressions of the world. We have the bodies of animals and senses of demigods. Impotent subjectivity is overlaid with omnipotent objectivity.) Thus, objective viewpoint is an oxymoron. However, each person can increase one’s awareness of one’s own biases and try to restrain one’s emotions/impulses to at least empathize with other points of views, and then arrive at a more balanced view of the world. Even so, one could argue that even when a documentarian suppresses his own conscious biases in order to be ‘fair’ and ‘objective’, subconscious biases are at work just the same. Take the film CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RACE by the White Advocacy activist Craig Bodeker, an anomaly because a white rightist film-maker is as rare as the Tasmanian Tiger. Still, the point is the film pretends to be fair and objective when the questions are skewed to favor the White Interest point of view. So, even though it allows all the interviewees to speak openly, the character of the questions and the manner of editing/assemblage result in something far removed from objective discussion of race. It is all the more so because neither Bodeker nor most interviewees have the slightest interest in objectivity and fall back on the same talking points. Instead of well-meaning people trying to rise above their biases, it just turns into a word-slinging feud among individuals clinging to their own biases, interests, and narratives. Also, even when libertarian-types call for total color-blindness and absolute adherence to the principles of meritocracy that objectively selects the winners over losers, they could be motivated by a racial agenda because, deep down inside, they believe whites will be favored by objective meritocratic standards over most other races on the basis of having higher IQ. I would think blacks would be totally for colorblind meritocracy in sports because they are naturally advantaged and will beat the competition. Anyway, Bodeker’s documentary is a White Advocate version of Stud Terkel’s leftist-biased RACE: HOW BLACKS AND WHITES THINK AND FEEL ABOUT THE AMERICAN OBSESSION. Because interviews mainly comprise both works, the viewer or reader may be lulled into believing that the ‘authors’ merely served the roles of impersonal moderator, but , if anything, the framing of the issues and the nature of the questions tilted the works one way or the other. In some ways, such works are more dishonest despite their conceit of objectivity because the ‘authors’ (not so)subtly provoke others to express views that unwittingly confirm the author’s thesis. And most politically-themed documentaries on PBS and TV news have such inbuilt biases that favor anti-white-ism, Magic Negro cult, pro-Zionism, homomania & homo neo-aristocratism, interracism, and anti-Christianism(unless a particular brand of Christianity happens to sermonize that Jesus died so that homos could ‘marry’). The whole Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman news coverage made it plain as day that only fools would trust the fairness and ‘objectivity’ of Jewish-controlled MSM. Not that MSM would be any more truthful if Conservatives — like those on Fox News and right-wing Talk Radio — ran them, but whether the media are controlled by Liberalism Inc. or Conservatism Inc., what goes by the name of ‘news’ is essentially Jewish Globalist propaganda because both establishment Liberals and establishment Conservatives in the West are shills of Jews. On the other hand, the radical types — the anarchists, Marxists, Christian Zealots, far-right elements, and etc. — , despite their lack of corporate connections, aren’t necessarily more honest or principled. And even so-called 'underdogs' and 'independents' seek funding from big donors who find radicals useful as street protesters or thugs. It’s fallacious to believe that, just because corporate power is corrupt and conspiratorial, those crying out from the wilderness are any more scrupulous, decent, or sane. Even though people working for the corporate media may be propagating the mad agenda of the oligarchs(mainly Jewish in our world), they must control their own personal urges and impulses to be team-players; they can’t just go off on their own tangents. They must remain ‘sane’ and ‘stable’ even as or especially because they serve demented Jewish Supremacist bosses who need obedient scribes and commentators. In contrast, even as radicals and dissidents without corporate affiliation are freer to speak their minds, there’s the real danger of their personal eccentricities running wild, sometimes going off the rails into conspiracy theory territory, or ‘theorritory’. So, MSM generally happen to be about ‘sane’ team-players serving a mad globalist agenda, whereas alternative media tend to be composed of free spirited individuals not infrequently spouting mad views. Sometimes, the dissidents can be even more demented than the mainstream, and if they win the so-called Culture War, their dementedness becomes the New Normal. Imagine if France had been taken over by the likes of Jean-Luc Godard and Louis Althusser in 1968. Imagine if Ron Paul supporters took over the US government. While radicals may be more sincere and ‘pure-hearted’, that hardly guarantees sanity, integrity, balance, and better grip on reality. The failure of the Arab Spring led to people fearing the new bosses and longing for the old bosses. One reason for the failure of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street was the simplistic view that the Power, capitalist or statist, is all bad whereas The People are so pure and noble. But the People of the Tea Party despised the People who voted for Obama, and the People of Occupy Wall Street, supposedly the 99% standing up to the 1%, alienated plenty of ordinary Americans. One look at some of their ‘leaders’ makes you lose confidence in their agendas. Also, it turned out that the leaders of both movements were easily manipulated and appropriated by higher powers. The Tea Party, which began as a condemnation of both Washington and Wall Street, was taken over by Wall Street fanboys and Zionist tools. Occupy Wall Street fixated on the abstract 1% without naming the fact that this 1% happens to be ethnically dominated by Jews who not only control Wall Street but Big Media, Big Government, Big Law, and Big Academia. Wall Street Jewish banksters got away with so much precisely because they have fellow supremacist tribesmen in so many other positions of power. I mean, how many Eskimos, Hispanics, Negroes, Asians, Arab-Americans, Polish-Americans, Greek-Americans, Turkish-Americans, and etc are prominent in the 1%, especially in the 0.01%? And it’s foolish to regard powerful Jews as mere individuals who happen to be successful. It’d be like regarding the political, military, and economic elites of National Socialist Germany as mere individuals who happened to be wealthy or well-positioned. In fact, all those elites in National Socialist Germany were working together for a common national, racial, and ultimately imperialist interest. It’s the same with Jews who may have succeeded as individuals but work as a Tribal Team.
Another problem with Occupy Wall Street was the Accusation that the abstract 1% was to blame for everything while the 99% are perfect angels? But seriously... What about the vast underclass of insane ‘groids’, ‘white trash’, and tubby Gomezers? What about the vast bureaucracy of government workers who sit on their asses and shuffle paper all day, often pretending to fix problems created by the government itself? When so much of the American ‘middle class’ is reliant on government jobs and spending, for how long will such an arrangement sustainable, especially in the age of globalism and high-tech revolutions that undermine middle class security in the West? (But then, precisely because capitalism no longer ensures middle class security, perhaps more people look to government jobs to cling to their middle class status.) There are no simple solutions to these problems, but in the end, Tea Party degenerated into cheering for Wall Street whore-mongers and Neocon warmongers, and Occupy Wall Street turned into Street Theater for pampered brats(aka Teacher’s Pets playing at radicalism); it was more status-symbol 'leftism' of privileged virtue-signaling than classic leftism of real need among the middle/working classes. But then, this is to be expected from the so-called progressive community whose idea of virtue is cheering for ‘gay pride’ parades like the mindless minions under communism cheered hysterically for Stalin or Mao. Mobs can be unruly and dangerous but also brainless and obedient, unable to think for themselves. As mobs are addicted to the euphoria of popular culture, the elites that control idolatry via mass media and entertainment can use the mobs like dogs, leaving the bark but not the bite. Homo-culture is elitist-flitist, fancy-pantsy, bitchy-snitchy, snobby-wobby, and sneering-sniveling by nature; therefore, when mob mentality has been injected with the homomaniacal germ, it no longer emotes and expresses in terms of ‘we the angry people’ vs the ‘rich and powerful elites’. Since the PC-fied mob has been made ‘gay-friendly’ and since ‘gayness’ is associated with fanciness, privilege, haughtiness, preening neo-aristocratism, and whoopsy-do vanity, the mob representing the 99%, even as they rail against Wall Street, fail to realize that the problem goes much deeper than profiteering on Wall Street. (Incidentally, 99 is also a symbol of two homos buggering one another.) Wall Street power is connected to US statist power which is connected to the corporate Jewish media that favor homo power that is so prevalent in Hollywood that is owned by Jews. There is a whole network of powers and privileges hogged mainly by Jews and homos — some call it the Deep State — , but the brainwashed mobs are too intoxicated with Jew-worship and homo-worship to realize that the deeper problem goes far beyond financial malfeasance and is embedded in the vast interconnected network of sectors dominated by Jews and homos. After all, it was their connections in media and government that enabled Jews in Wall Street to get away with their high crimes. Without those connections, they would have been brought down, their wealth confiscated, and their reputations ruined with prison sentences. In America, an Alt Right patriot can’t even work at waiting tables, but super-rich Jews can steal billions and be rewarded with billions more. But of course, since the ‘progressive’ community now worships Homomania(along with the MLK cult), Wall Street only need to hoist the gay ‘rainbow’ flag and, wallah, it can brand itself as a force for ‘progressive equality’.

Despite the obvious differences between fiction and non-fiction narratives — print or film — , fiction can convey much that is true, and non-fiction can cover up much that is true as well as invent things that aren’t true. Most news, even in the so-called free world, don’t rise above Deep State propaganda. Consider the media’s drive-up to the Iraq War, persuading 80% of Americans that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and had WMD. Consider the skewed media coverage of ‘gay issues’, using bogus terms like ‘homophobia’ to imply that those moral voices opposing the radical ‘gay’ agenda are clinically ill or pathological. Consider the utterly ludicrous US coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, especially in contrast to the equally biased way it had covered the subject of Apartheid in white-ruled South Africa. (And consider the near-total silence in the Jew-run media about the butchery of white farmers in South Africa.) It’s difficult to tell where government propaganda ends and news reporting begins because big media, all owned by globalist oligarchs like Jeff Bezos, operate in collusion with the Deep State. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and especially Barack Obama were shmoozed by the media complex, and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush got huge breaks from the media in their wars in the Middle East. Today, with Jews and homos so prominent in academia, media, law, government, and entertainment — and with most TV news being just another form of entertainment — , there is an ethno-ideological consensus of Jewish-enforced Political Correctness. Fox News and Talk Radio are two Conservative holdouts but nevertheless beholden to neocon Zionist Jews for money and to mindless Evangelical Christians for audience. In the past, Liberal Wasps had the balance of cultural pride and critical reform-mindedness. They had historical pride in their role in America but also pushed for reforms. And because they took Wasp power for granted as a permanent fixture of America, they became more idealistic in using journalism to expose problems of social injustice. In this sense, they were more virtuous than conservative Wasps who cared mainly about power and privilege. But liberal Wasps were also vainly naive, self-righteous sentimental suckers manipulated by Jews deviously pulling their heartstrings.

That said, even though Jews are not to be trusted, prior to their ascendancy to elite status they used media clout to shake up a system that needed to be shaken up, thus challenging the sacred cows of the Establishment, albeit not necessarily with the truth but counter-sacred-cows. Today, Jews have near-absolute power in elite institutions, and most Wasps, Liberal or Conservative, are merely chickenshit lackeys of Jews who, by the way, unlike liberal Wasps of the past, feel zero sense of magnanimity and feel only arrogance, contempt, and paranoia. Why is Jewish elite behavior so different from Wasp elite behavior? If Wasps in the past had elite power but also mass support, both the mind and body of political power — there were lots of Anglo-Germanic whites and waspized white ethnics — , Jewish elites have great mind power but weak demographics; therefore, Jewish elites are bound to constantly fret about the 98% of Americans who are goyim. (Another reason why Jews are less compromising in their power is their prophetic egos. Whereas Anglo cultural personality has been about reason, moderation, and balance, the Jewish cultural personality has been about Big Ideas, the Vision, the Answer. So, when Jews hold power, they think they know everything and have the power of God behind them.) Since whites comprise most of gentile power, Jews have been increasing non-white numbers and fanning their resentment at ‘white privilege’ so that the gentile majority will remain divided in relation to Jewish power. The Jew-run media operate on the basis of Jewish-Power-First mindset. As things currently stand, Jews are so powerful that even whites who are being targeted by Jews must praise Jews. We have Jews using Diversity against white people, yet we have white people opposing Diversity in the name of defending Jews from it. Jews see Diversity as generally good for Jewish Power because non-whites can be used against whites. On that basis, whites should resist Jewish power that is out to undermine white power. But because Jews are near-worshiped as a holy people, the Jew Taboo prohibits whites from calling out and working against Jews. So, even the victims of Jews must frame their argument on grounds that it’s good for Jews or GFJ. So, if a Jew uses a hammer to bash your head, you must argue against the hammer on grounds that it might sprain the wonderful Jew’s wrist. If a Jew makes a pitbull bite off your leg, you mustn’t blame the Jew; the most you can do is warn of the possible harm the pitbull might do to the Jew.
If a Jew unleashes a pitbull to tear you limb from limb, the current PC says you must not accuse the Jew because that would be 'antisemitic'. The most you can do is warn of the harm that the pitbull might do to the Jew. So, the Jew uses the pitbull to bite you, but you express concern that the pitbull might harm the Jew. Is it any wonder why whites keep losing in a world where the game has been rigged to favor the Jew?
While dominant institutions often stifle inquiry, restrict the range of discourse, and even push blatant lies on the unsuspecting or apathetic populace, there’s no guarantee of truth, sanity, and integrity among the independents. There was that KONY 2012 craziness some yrs ago. Or Alex Jones in his nuttier moments. Some people call science fiction ‘speculative fiction’, and there’s a genre of documentaries that might be called ‘speculative non-fiction’. Consider all the wacky documentaries about UFOs, paranormal activity, telepathy, ghosts, Big Foot, and over-the-top conspiracy theories, like those ridiculous documentaries about 9/11. Institutions are corrupt and compromised, but they generally have more expertise and professionalism. Even though we can’t completely rely on institutionalized education or institutionalized religion for the Truth, a lot of self-taught people and self-seeking spiritualists tend to be nuts, cranks, or lunatics.
Still, given the extent of official lies by government and media(and the extent of the coverup and misdirections), a lot of conspiracy-theory-laden speculative non-fiction documentaries are hardly worse than what we get from the news. Or, even if they are full of misinformation, they may convey certain facts and details suppressed by the Jewish-controlled ‘mainstream’ media. It becomes a case of official disinformation vs independent misinformation. Neither side provides the whole picture, but each shows something missing in the other. This is why even the most demented Nazi-sympathizing documentaries may have some value in revealing or discussing facts or matters previously neglected by the official narrative. David Irving has been an interesting case. Though not a full-blown Nazi, he’s been a Hitler-sympathizer for much of his life. Though loathsome in many ways, he’s addressed details of the war overlooked by other historians and from angles that most historians dare not consider lest they provoke the wrath of Jews who control the media & academia and have the power to disgrace and effectively blacklist any author. An example of the invaluableness of independent and even amateur media was illustrated by the attack in Benghazi where four Americans were killed. The Obama administration and the compliant media concocted a story that the outburst was triggered by some American Pastor burning a Koran. It was all a bald-faced Jewish-globalist lie to shift the blame for the disaster on a white Christian male. And consider the swarms of lies surrounding the Zimmerman-Trayvon affair. If lies were locusts, it would have devoured half the crop yield in America. Things have gotten so bad that the satirical Onion news had been rendered irrelevant by the ‘real news’. No need for jokes when serious news is an endless parade of jokes(where no one gets the joke).

In essence, ‘non-fiction’ is more a matter of form than substance. In presentation, documentaries generally rely on talking heads, archival footage, graphs and diagrams(and now lots of computerized images), extensive voice-over narration, and sometimes ‘dramatization’, which veers perilously toward fictional conventions. In terms of stated principles, documentaries purport to either search for or expose the truth. If the Truth-on-display is well-known and widely accepted as valid, the documentary can usually be trusted, though its analyses and interpretations can tip the balance between pro and con. (Consider the many PBS documentaries on Castro’s Cuba that, while admitting the general scarcity and repressiveness of the system, tended to cast an idealistic light to the radical experiment in defiance of US imperialism. And there was one about Jim Jones Cult that, while documenting all the horrors and atrocities, ended on a nostalgic note because, after all, the cult was all about diversity and equality. Apparently, the experiment failed despite its ‘noble’ dreams because it was a Woodstock that went on for too long. In some cases, however, the work can be utterly fraudulent, like LIBERATORS, a bogus PBS documentary about how black US soldiers played a key role in liberating the Nazi concentration camps. It even had pathological liar Eli Wiesel making up stuff in front of the camera. That the documentary form can be in service of such a fraud and then be beamed across millions of TV screens even in a democracy like America goes to tell you that the Power ultimately decides what is ‘fiction’ and ‘non-fiction’. Why else would the Big Media be spreading all these lies about Russia Hacking or ‘Russiagate’ when the only real ‘gate’ is Deepstategate and Jewishhategate. The anti-Trump hysteria is nothing but a flagrant act of arson set by Jewish globalists who hate him.) But if the truth remains out of reach, the documentary is, at best, a work in search of the truth, and this ‘mystery’ element of in-search-of is the pitch of many documentaries ranging from the serious to sensationalistic. In many cases, the ‘truth’ being sought is so ludicrous that it’s for suckers than seekers, but creative fraud can be fun for anyone. Often, there is both eagerness and anxiety about unearthing the truth. The truth could be disappointing or disillusioning, but even when exhilarating, the excitement soon fades(like Christmas gifts few days after unwrapping), and there is one less great mystery to unlock in the world. Sometimes, the truth is irrecoverable and lost forever. Sometimes, it goes unnoticed even though it’s right there in front of you due to misconceptions. In CITIZEN KANE, the sled was right there all along, but the reporters were focused on something so ‘special’ that it never occurred to them that it could be something so simple. But then, of course, the sled is very special, at least to Charles Foster Kane. If some things have independent value as, say, a great work of art, other things have value by association. The sled is objectively worthless but the most precious thing to Kane as he teeters between life and death. There’s a scene in MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS where the voice-over narration says of the old man in the last phase of his life: "And now, Maj. Amberson was engaged in the profoundest thinking of his life. And he realized that everything which had worried him or delighted him during this lifetime, all his buying and building and trading and banking, that it was all trifling and waste - beside what concerned him now. For the Maj. knew now that he had to plan how to enter an unknown country, where he was not even sure of being recognized as an Amberson." His senile mind is failing and adrift, detached from the world around him, but it’s precisely because his attention is no longer moored to the mundane and concrete that his mind touches upon the bigger questions of eternity and the void. Tragically, just when old minds encounter the phantoms of a deeper world, they no longer possess the mental acuity to make sense of things. In contrast, young minds are sharp and perceptive but prone to obsess on the competitive egotism of the here-and-now. It is the rare figure like Buddha or Jesus who, as a young man equipped with the sharpest of minds, possess the key to the gates of a realm that is open, in most cases, only to failing minds disassociated from temporal existence. (The tragicomic thing about Boomer Counterculture was that an entire generation thought they were Jesuses and Buddhas because they lived through Summer of Love with Beatles and Flower Power. [Anyone-is-a-prophet with bit of weed and ‘All You Need Is Love’, so implied Boomer Counterculture. Among millennials, it’s anyone-is-a-celebrity with their endless selfies and 50-gender fantasies. After decades of youth-oriented pop culture and with each generation being further removed from the traditional themes of humanism and spiritualism, the only recognizable and ‘cool’ cultural mode for young people is the ‘right’ to be fabulous and ‘beautiful’ like the celebs. So, Lena Dunham is a ‘sex symbol’, and if her, why not Trigglypuff too? In earlier times, even good-looking people were expected refrain from excessive narcissism. As for not-so-good-looking-people, they found meaning in being people of good heart and character. But with the rise of Homomania, Afromania, and Slut Pride Culture, the theme of new ‘leftism’ is the hyped-up notion that everyone has the ‘right’ to be considered ‘beautiful’. So, we are supposed to pretend that a guy with a wig is a gorgeous ‘woman’ or that a fat hippo woman should invoke ‘body-positivity’ to insist that she is hot. What a world we live in when the most ‘progressive’ idea is the ‘right’ of universal narcissism. Narcissism now molds spiritualism, as in the case of churches that bend over backwards to accommodate the vanity of homos who not only feel so pretty and creative but so holy-schmoly as the favorite little darlings of god.] The convergence of mass media, radical movements, cult of eternal youth, big ideas, pop culture, consumerism, and commitment made the 60s one of most prophetic moments in history. Young people were into the bacchanalia of Rock but immersed in 'difficult' Art Film. Cinema, hitherto mainly associated with Hollywood and mass entertainment, became the premier Art Form in the 60s, a huge contradiction. Boomer kids, with drugs and Eastern Literature, wanted both eternal truth and instant gratification. Cynicism and irreverence hung in the air but also hope and innocence for new revelations. It is no wonder that so many looked to Bob Dylan to take on the role of Prophet of the Age because he embodied all the contradictory yet converging threads of the 60s: Idealism, cynicism, romanticism, nihilism, egotism, traditionalism, urbanism, back-to-nature-ism, radicalism, spiritualism, arrogance, self-doubt. Paradoxically, it was precisely because Dylan opted out of his prescribed role that he became the most emblematic prophet of the age via mystique and the art of survival. Always keep a few cards up the sleeve. He instinctively understood such heady times not only create prophets but devour them all-too-easily. Those who ride the tidal wave will crash and wipe out. At some point, Dylan chose to tend the fire than play with fire. He’d seen the burning bush, and the heat that made him but could just as easily burn him. Indeed, it’s hard to think of another time that produced so many would-be-prophets whose acclaim rose and fell so fast. Ken Kesey, with ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION was on the verge of something momentous, but he lost himself with Merry Pranksters. Timothy Leary went from an intellectual to guru to cult figure to loony in a span of few years. The cult of youth and drugs created the conceit that a lifetime of commitment and contemplation was no longer necessary for attainment of enlightenment and wisdom. You could have it right away with the right songs, right dosage, and right mantras. Norman Mailer wasted most of the 60s on antics and publicity stunts. Susan Sontag and Jean-Luc Godard never recovered their relevance since the late 60s. Sontag became overly esoteric, Godard became overly radical. If there was a 60s cultural figure rivaling Dylan as a prophet casting a long shadow, it was Andy Warhol, not least because he too understood the value of caution and the art of survival. Had Warhol thrown himself into the world of his own creation, he would have been consumed and destroyed like the others in the Factory. But even as he encouraged others toward excess, he knew well enough to keep the distance and observe the horrible but fascinating wreckage of egos and lives, like a scientist injecting toxins into lab animals and watching them slowly deteriorate. It would have been more apt to call the Factory the ‘Laboratory’, and in the end, Warhol was more like a mad scientist with a serpent’s egg than an artist with a brush. He even survived a shooting, unlike John Lennon. Warhol’s influence on art and culture has been huge, though, unlike Dylan’s genuinely worthy contribution to music, wholly negative. Because the 60s was such a brash and splashy time, we tend to focus on music stars and big names. But some personalities have a more silent, subdued, even insidious, influence. In this respect, Herbert Marcuse has to be regarded as a key figure who had a profound, indeed prophetic, impact on the boomer generation. He didn’t make movies or sell records, but his formula struck a chord in combining hedonism and radicalism, possibly a modern variation of Abraham merging pud and heaven via the Covenant, which also could have inspired the scene in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY where the ape gets all excited about his ‘bone’ and hurls it into the air to be juxtaposed with a spaceship in heaven. So, whether it was Abraham’s boner and its connection to God’s domain above OR the ape’s bone and its technological link to future space travel, there is the sense of limitless power in the unity of the basic and the beyond.)
I recall watching as a child — with some interest as I didn’t know any better — a 1970s ‘documentary’ film called IN SEARCH OF NOAH’S ARK, which I later discovered to be nothing more than a publicity stunt by fakers looking to make a fast buck; but to a nine year old, that was pretty heavy stuff. Anyway, that experience illustrated how total hokum could be used to fool th suckers if packaged ‘seriously’ enough. (How Jewish globalists manipulate the academia-media apparatus to dupe the ‘thinking’ public about world affairs is just a more elaborate and sophisticated version of that bogus Noah documentary. Even when presented with utter nonsense, people can be fooled by the manner of presentation. It’s like a quack doctor can fool gullible patients by wearing a white coat and speaking medical-sounding jargon. The trick sure worked for Alan Sokal who fooled the fools. Incidentally, Jewish Power is so dominant because Jews control both mass media and elite institutions. If Jews controlled only trash culture and tabloid news, the more intelligent and educated people could use elite institutions and higher channels to set the record straight, and in time, the truth could trickle down from top to bottom. But Jews also have an iron grip on elite colleges and scholarly think-tanks. So, even well-educated individuals just come under the ideological bias & tribal agenda of Jews.) That the category of ‘non-fiction’ is more a matter of style than substance was playfully demonstrated by films like THIS IS SPINAL TAP by Rob Reiner and DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, which mocks the conspiracy theory about Kubrick’s alleged faking of Moon-landing with a straight face. Though neither film is the first of its kind — a ‘mockumentary’ — , it is distinct from something like REAL LIFE(by Albert Brooks), THE RUTLES(with Eric Idle), and NORWAY HOME OF THE GIANTS(with John Cleese) that are clearly pseudo-documentaries. If the viewer didn’t know any better, he could almost be fooled into believing THIS IS SPINAL TAP is an actual documentary, though perhaps there’s another layer of humor in the Jewish realization that, since they control all the media, they can turn falsehood into reality and reality into falsehood, in which case the Jewish Reiner’s film isn’t just a playful comedy but an ecstatic declaration of Jewish control of the Narrative. The Bush years(WMD and Iraq War), Obama era(The One and Homomania), and Trump hysteria(literally Hitler) all amply demonstrated that it’s hard to tell what is real news or Fake News. (And then, what to make of films like PUMPING IRON? Given that so much of it was ‘scripted’ and ‘acted’, it could almost be considered a mockumentary... in the way that Elie Wiesel’s NIGHT was re-categorized as a work of fiction because of its many inaccuracies and inventions. If there’s any truth to THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO’s depiction of the publishing world, such things might even be commonplace, as when we discover Chloe Sevigny’s character[one of the more principled characters] ingeniously repackaged a fraudulent autobiography into a self-help book. With a spark of cleverness, she turned loss into gain.) But it isn’t just a matter of our gullibility but of our innate longing to believe in something ‘more’ complete or fulfilling. (Most historical documentaries, especially about the distant past, are less about sticking to known facts[usually scanty] than speculating about them. They are like Hollywood movies ‘based on a true story’ that play loose with facts to make the story more compelling. If documentaries had to stick to known facts of archaeology and surviving texts — usually preciously few even from great civilizations — , they would be dry and boring. So, the storyteller aka narrator, often attractive and engaging like Bettany Hughes who did a splendid telling of Ancient Sparta, uses the tricks of the trade to transform the fragmentary bits, few remaining pieces of a lost puzzle, into an illusion of a completed picture. It’s like imagining a living being from the remains of a skeleton. Real scholarship requires caution, patience, and ethics of the profession, and as such, has little appeal to most people who grow bored unless something is viscerally engaging. [This doesn’t mean documentaries are necessarily dumbed down as there are intelligent ways to explain expert knowledge to lay people. Best documentaries do convey the essence of a subject and may instill children with interest in the field. But there are too many documentaries that are less complexity-simplified than complexity-vulgarized.] It is why documentaries rely heavily on music because sounds, more than images, stir and engage our emotions. It’s somehow fitting that the two films by Michael Wadleigh consist of one documentary and one feature film. WOODSTOCK is like Living History, possibly the biggest cinema-verite project up to that time or even until now. Generally, the cinema verite style was employed on small intimate subjects or up-to-date newsworthy events. In contrast, the Woodstock concert had been long in the works, and the makers of the film could opted for more of a formal approach, though, of course, not to the extent of Leni Riefenstahl in the making of TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and OLYMPIA that had the full backing of the state and worked on themes of orchestrated order than orgiastic disorder. Wadleigh wanted a freewheeling documentary that would capture the spontaneous spirit of the event: An instant recording of events as they unfolded among countless individuals following their bliss. Granted, the film-makers were heavily biased in favor of Counterculture. They assembled and edited footage to make the event momentous and epic. And yet, Wadleigh was also artist enough to show the things that didn’t go according to the vision: The disorganization, confusion, and growing weariness between musical numbers as the days dragged on. And in some cases, the irony was plain to see even if not intended. The hippies turned a hick ‘garden’ into a muddy wasteland strewn with an ocean of trash, much of it plastic. Still, what is memorable about WOODSTOCK the film is that, despite all the helter-skelter chaos and grimy details, it is also an act of myth-making not unlike STAR WARS. It was shaped by the sheer power of will to believe in the Youth Generation dream of peace and love, the realization of a new covenant with history and the cosmos. Indeed, it was that mythic element that made Woodstock so nostalgio-iconic to the boomer generation even long after signs of its ever having taken place was reclaimed by nature and grass. If WOODSTOCK is about stubborn reality willed into utopian myth, WOLFEN is about myth in search of truth. The American Indians in the film look like any other denizens of the modern city. They wear white man’s clothes, speak English, and go about their daily lives. The reality all around them is urban. And yet, despite their adaptation to asphalt, glass, and steel, their souls are still animated by the myth of their lost and scattered tribes. Their world is gone, but the spirits still carry on somehow. This myth makes them feel whole, ‘more complete’. Now, there are hardly any signs that would indicate that Indians had previously inhabited and roamed the New York area, even less so than for Woodstock as the site of landmark event, but through the power of myth, the Indians in WOLFEN channel that lost reality. There’s also the hint that modern world too will eventually collapse and fade from decadence and decay, in which case the natural world of the ‘hunting nations’ will return. Both WOLFEN and M. Night Shyamalan’s SPLIT make striking metaphorical use of the zoo as a condition of modern existence. We are animals in a zoo that keeps us safe but disconnected from the timelessness of nature. History, in measuring and utilizing time as an instrument, cut off man from the cycles of nature. In nature, man lives in accordance to the time of seasons, moons, stars, rains, and droughts. Man has no control over Time. He submits and adjusts to it. In contrast, the mastery of time with the rise of civilization allowed for tremendous human achievement. It led to greater organization, regularity, planning, efficiency, and order. And with technology, we could turn winters into summers with heated rooms and could taste the chill of winter with cold drinks in summer. But we’ve also created a bubble that is divorced from the way of nature, the theme of KOYAANISQATSI. [In MOSQUITO COAST, a confused man tries to make ice in the middle of a jungle; Harrison Ford’s character seeks to both return to nature by abandoning everything AND cling to civilization by making ice in the middle of a jungle. Perhaps, he feels that modern folks have come to take for granted the amenities and conveniences made by scientists. Science and technology are actually awesome powers, and people who invent things should be feared and admired as wizards, sorcerers, and prophets; and there was some of that in the time of Thomas Edison. But as mankind became so inundated with technology, they came to regard further innovation and new gadgets as normal and mundane, and scientists and inventors because faceless lab workers with white coats. In contrast, a strange object that makes ice will be seen as magic to virgin eyes and senses of the jungle.] The Woodstock event was like 300,000 white Counterculture kids pretending to be Afro-Injuns for three days. Of course, they all arrived by car and soon went back to their parents’ home to take showers, but the myth is often more powerful than reality — the very real death of Jesus could be re-narrated, hallucinated, and retold as His triumph. It’s like the Burt Lancaster character in THE SWIMMER whose romantic myth shields him from the grim facts of life. In many ways, WOLFEN is a wiser and maturer film than WOODSTOCK because it takes stock of the dark side of primitivism. The Indians are tragic characters but also bloody killers, and their way leans toward nihilism. Like the replicants in BLADE RUNNER, they are wanna-be-masters. Romanticism about Indians sure didn’t save Jim Morrison, who ended up dead with too much firewater. Perhaps, the Indian partiality to firewater betrayed the unbearable harshness of their world. If they were so happy being Indians, why did they take so readily to the escapism of the bottle? But then, why did the advanced Chinese take so readily to opium? Perhaps, both extreme primitivism and extreme civilization-ism leads to want of escapism. WOLFEN’s darkness is informed by something akin to the obsessive themes of John Boorman who, in films like DELIVERANCE and ZARDOZ, appreciated both the mythical beauty and grim brutality of nature. Burt Reynold’s character sure loves the smell of hospitals after busting his leg. Werner Herzog, in AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD, depicted nature’s stony indifference to the fate of man, and in RESCUE DAWN, the main character knows a candy bar is sweeter than raw snake. Still, there is a side of us that doesn’t feel quite at home in modernity, just like there’s a side of Willard in APOCALYPSE NOW that wants to get back into the jungle. It’s not just because he’s an American soldier who wants to kill Viet Cong commies but because the jungle stirs something deeper within him: A warrior and hunter than mere soldier, an interchangeable unit in an industrialized military. Unlike the soldier who is faceless and identified by number on his tag, every tribal warrior is distinct as a trophy hunter. It’s like cats and dogs happily return home for food and comfort, but a part of them never quite feels ‘at home’ in man’s environment. It isn’t long before they’re eager to run outside, sniff scents, chase after animals, and pee all over to mark territory, something not allowed in the human home. To the extent that people at Woodstock shat and pissed all over — reportedly, the smell of human fecal odor lingered even ten yrs after the event — , it was their way of being like dogs-and-cats outdoors and marking territory. Woodstock was their Tree of Forbidden Fun on which they relieved themselves to mark territory. The Stink Factor that had long been suppressed by Anglo-Americans made a vengeful and proud stand.) In this sense, documentaries and mockumentaries paradoxically give us ‘facts’ about fairytales. Though the notion of Kubrick having faked the moon landing is ludicrous, there is something in us that wishes it were true precisely because it sounds so outlandish. If such could be true, then anything could be true, which means dreams could be true. (Also, there is the lingering sense of anti-wonderment, which in itself is a kind of wonderment, of losing childhood innocence and seeing the truth. The loss of innocence is like a second birth, both traumatic and liberating. Up to a certain age, a child can be made to believe anything: Santa, elves, fairies, goblins, etc. His mind floats in an amniotic sack of innocence. But at some point, the bubble bursts, and the kid realizes Santa isn’t real. It is disillusioning but also exhilarating because the child gains autonomy of truth and begins the see the world with new eyes. Instead of just believing what is told, he feels the stirring of a free mind that notices things for himself, and as such, is no longer so gullible about what adults tell him. And it’s not just about a disillusionment about a detail but a fundamental overturning of the mental processes. It’s not just about Santa but Santa as metaphor. All Santa-like things are no longer very believable. It’s like WIZARD OF OZ and ZARDOZ: The moment of disillusionment is dark but also illuminating. The scales finally fall off the eyes, and all the king’s men cannot put them back together again. This could be why so many people are partial to ‘conspiracy theories’. It offers a chance at replay of that key moment in childhood when the mental bubble burst and consciousness emerged into a wholly new state of thinking. We want to relive that moment when we realized Santa isn’t real. So profound a moment is bound to reverberate throughout our lives on some level. It’s bound to ‘shine’, like what Scatman Crothers’ character says of certain events in THE SHINING, a film about a father-husband-writer whose progression of life turns out to be cyclical than linear. Kubrick’s film illustrates another aspect of the moment of disillusion. When children grow disillusioned with the fairytales told by adults, what they gain is choice than truth. With this choice or ‘free will’ they can use facts and logic to find the truth, OR they can choose or even create new fantasies. Freedom from imposed ignorance can lead to truth, but it can just as easily lead to self-chosen ignorance, which is what the Current Year is mainly about. Its anti-‘essentialism’ encourages even adults to choose their own fantasies, especially among the 50 genders. As for the theory of Kubrick’s Moon Landing, it has elements of both freedom for truth and freedom for fantasy. In a way, the theorist is poring over clues to connect dots to arrive at what may have really happened. But, it is also a creation of a myth that is ‘cooler’ and more ‘far out’ than what really happened.) So, even rational people who don’t believe in paranormal stuff sometimes find themselves reading books or watching documentaries on such things, and even as they snicker at the silliness, they can’t help hoping on some level that it may be true. Via modern science, all educated people know nothing is possible outside the laws of nature. There are no such things as miracles, believed only by ignoramuses and dummies. And yet, mankind having evolving to believe in gods, phantoms, and spirits, there is still an emotional craving for a truth that defies the strictures of physics, chemistry, and biology. Go to most book stores, and there are more non-fiction books on paranormal phenomenon, spirituality, and mystical stuff than about hard science and technology. For one thing, religion is more 'democratic' than science. Even an atheist who never believed in God has a longing for signs and meanings that go beyond the empirical. (Just like our bodies need both meats and vegetables, our souls need both reality and myth. This is why certain diehard atheists who denounce tiniest vestige of spirituality or religion can seem like vegans. Even if they are better grounded in reality, their souls seem undernourished and sickly. And because they reject spirituality, they have this obsessive need to turn their atheism into a kind of messianic crusade; paradoxically, they try to obtain spiritualist nutrients from anti-spiritualist atheism. In this sense, Richard Dawkins is ‘religious’ in emotions if real in science and logic. It’s like a vegan, unwilling to eat meat, tries to absorb as much protein as possible from foods low in protein; they crave most what is most lacking in vegetables. But then, exclusively religious people have their own problems. Constipated with religious dogma, they lack the necessary fibers to get the mental digestion flowing, and this accounts as to why so many diehard religious types are shi*heads.) Unlike science, religion is open to all. Conversion doesn’t require years of study and mastery. It’s a matter of few basic tenets, faith, and devotion. In contrast, science(by which I mean real science) is only for the experts who have mastered the scientific method. Most of us blindly accept what the experts tell us because it sounds ‘true enough’ and we trust our institutions against our intuitions. (If an actor-roleplaying-a-scientist presented a totally sci-fi lecture on chemistry with a straight face, most people would fall for the hoax because of his said ‘expertise’ convincingly acted.) Science is elitist, and it can’t make allowances in discerning fact from fiction. Though religion too has hierarchy from the priesthood to the layperson, anyone can feel equally loved and blessed by God. Anyone can pray and speak with God, whose truth and justice don’t necessarily favor the learned over the unlearned. After all, God could whisper into the ears of an illiterate while shunning the erudite, even those devoted to serving Him. It’s said the Lord works in mysterious ways, and no amount of human learning and knowledge can predict His next move in ways that scientists and engineers can calculate when a spacecraft will reach Mars.

Religion seeks meaning based on prophecy and vision, whereas science isn’t supposed to venture beyond what is knowable and has been proven. Science informs us about star systems, cells, evolution, and etc. but can’t ascertain right or wrong. It’s only a matter of true or false. Religion, on the other hand, says there's a reason why the universe is governed by God. God kills a lot of people in the Bible for a reason, but an asteroid wiped out all the dinosaurs(according to science) simply because laws of gravity set in motion a big rock hurtling toward Earth in that moment in time. God kills to punish, but laws of nature destroy entire star systems for no reason. So, even God’s angry presence is more comforting than a soulless universe. While most scientists accept the meaningless ‘accidentalism’ of the universe, the kookier members of the community, such as Michio Kaku, believe that, in the absence of god-mind in the universe, such might be created by science with a technology that can beam our consciousness throughout the universe at the speed of light or something. On some level, scientists feel stifled by the restrictions of science, just as an athlete feels frustrated by the rules on the field. If scientists must only stick with what is known with certainty and reiterate that anything else is mere speculation, they would sound like robots or accounts crunching up the numbers. After all, even the best scientists know only so much. So, despite the strict rules of science, scientists are prone to make grand statements and speculate rather too freely to make things more lively and interesting. Consider the Out of Africa Theory that posited that homo sapiens that had left North Africa some 80,000 to 60,000 yrs ago wiped out all other hominids in Europe and Asia. The theory seemed likely but not 100% certain, but archaeologists and scientists spoke with total confidence and spun grandiose all-encompassing theories on that premise. Scientists tend to get sloppy, simplistic, sensationalistic, and/or sermonizing when dealing with the public. On the assumption that most people are too dumb, ignorant, and impatient to handle complexity, they are fed Narratives that tie together various threads rather too neatly. Often when engaging the public or the media, scientists don’t emphasize that "this is what we know so far" but act as if they possess the final truth, not least with the encouragement of the media that are always looking to add entertainment value to the reporting. So, physicists will talk of the Big Bang as if it’s a certainty when it’s really a theory, even if a very likely one. And in the 1970s, nutritional science was so sure of its latest findings that, in tandem with the government and the media, it pushed a set of dietary guidelines as holy writ, only for much of them to be debunked later. And now, we are told that scientists are so sure about global warming. Now, it may well be true that global warming could have a devastating impact on the world, but too many scientists sound off like prophets than professors. But then, the concept of ‘scientist’ itself has been corrupted over the years because even pseudo-scientists and semi-scientists with only cursory knowledge of the field are often presented to the public as ‘scientists’ — like chiropractors in the US are recognized as ‘doctors’ — and because real scientists in one particular field spout off as ‘experts’ on fields they know little or nothing about. It’d be like a dermatologist giving advice on neurology. A lot of scientists who’ve endorsed the ‘climate change’ theory are not even experts in climatology, which itself is a very incomplete science as it incorporates and coordinates data from so many sources.

With COSMOS, Carl Sagan presented himself as the pop-prophet of science-as-new-religion. He voyaged through the universe in the ship-of-the-imagination to Vangelis’ celestial choral to impress upon us the wondrousness of the cosmos. But wondrous to what and how? A sense of wonderment exists only in consciousness of emotions and senses. So, if the main theme of COSMOS is the wonder of wonderment, science can’t be the central key to the ‘meaning of life’. After all, we can have wonderment without factual truth, and we can have factual truth without wonderment. Wonderment is a wish to transcend limitations and be overwhelmed with a magical sense of discovery or rediscovery. COSMOS’ success owed largely to its resounding electronic music, classical music, gushing narration, and still-impressive use of special effects. It was like STAR-TREK-done-right. Now, one could appreciate Sagan’s perspective: Scientists are, first and foremost, people with emotions and imagination; therefore, science isn’t just collection of dry data for analysis but a search for more missing pieces of the puzzle so that we can, through speculation based on evidence-so-far, ‘imagine’ a more amazing and more awesome picture of the universe. Even as increased knowledge destroys so much of our imagined reality, it provides us with new material to imagine something more complete and also takes us to the precipice of yet grander mysteries to be unlocked. (There are times, however, when we wish we could have stuck with the legend than struck with the fact. Mars and Venus were places of speculative wonderment before astronomical advances proved one is too hot and the other is too cold for life.) According to Sagan's COSMOS-ology, science is the methods and processes that go into preparing the ingredients to finally be cooked into a great feast. Science, as a way of collecting and analyzing data to gain a better understanding of micro- and macro-cosmos and everything in between, is a means than an end. Once the laborious harvest of data and numbers has been completed, the sharing of that knowledge is to ignite wonderment in the world: A festivity of discovery. The joy of presentation is the ultimate goal of science, just like serving the feast is the fulfillment of all the work in the kitchen. Our eagerness to imagine and discover life in other parts of the universe suggests at how consciousness and imagination are the real keys to ‘meaning’. After all, if the cosmos has a trillion stars but is incapable of creating life, none of it would matter since matter only matters to life. But with advanced life, there can be wonderment with the cosmos, near and far. Now, if in a cosmos of a trillion stars, only one planet can create or sustain life, beings would feel most lonely in their wonderment that cannot be known or 'shared' in any other part of the universe. After all, the most beautiful palace has no meaning without humans to appreciate its magnificence. So, a universe with a trillion stars but only one planet with life would be like a great palace or cathedral with only one person to stand in appreciation. We all dread the idea of being the last person on Earth because, despite ‘owning’ all the planet for oneself, there is an emptiness without anyone with whom to share the wonderment. Scientists are pretty sure that they are other intelligent life-forms in the universe somewhere, but based on present knowledge, being an Earthling feels like the last-man-on-earth in cosmic terms. We feel as if we are the ONLY ones in the limitless universe. At any rate, if wonderment is the ultimate goal of science, may it not undercut science-centrism? After all, people can have a sense of wonderment without factual truth. Spiritualists seek illumination through meditation. Artists seek it through imagination. And the citizens of Aldous Huxley’s BRAVE NEW WORLD find it through soma. And so many people around the world seem perfectly enchanted with zips and zaps of electronic media. Carl Sagan as a young boy was lured into science because he was fascinated with the dream of traveling through the stars. Though he immersed himself with real science all his life, what had drawn him to science was a sense of wonderment. But if wonderment is what makes life most meaningful, what about the problem that wonderment as a sensation can be had without any truth? Just consider the Negroes who be wild about Wakanda and vibranium. Sheeeeeiiiit!
Carl Sagan in his ship-of-the-imagination gets ready to do battle with Klingons
Steven Spielberg said his obsession with UFOs in the 1970s declined with the exponential increase in the number of camera(still and video) all over the world. UFO enthusiasts had hoped more cameras would produce more UFO footage, but the result was the exact opposite. More cameras only proved the lack of UFO’s, which had always been figments of imagination or remnants of distorted memory in absence of proof. In technology, the 1970s were still the ‘dark ages’ because many people around the world still didn’t have cameras, and relatively few people in America has movie/video cameras. Thus, much of reality remained in the ‘dark’. But with the universalization of digital and video cameras in every part of the globe, nothing remains hidden or unrecorded anymore.
Even so, human nature being what it is, people to still hope to document the mysterious or miraculous. Some people are fascinated with the demonic, possibly because if they can prove the existence of demons, angels might exist too. Or if the Lochness Monster really does exist, maybe dinosaurs are still among us. And if there are space aliens in UFOs hovering over us, maybe the universe is brimming with the wonder of life. Not surprisingly, pseudo-amateur mockumentaries(cinema unverite) like BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY have been huge hits. Their put-on actualism makes it seem all too real. Even though earlier films like the harrowing NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, disgusting THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, putrid TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and retarded EQUINOX used elements of documentaries, the ubiquity of camcorder devices led to the rise of the new genre of Homemade Horror — America’s Scariest Home Videos — , surely a reflection of how video technology has intruded into every corner of our lives. It would have been unlikely that just anyone would have been lugging around a movie camera in the late 60s world of THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD — and even if he were, it would have been costly and cumbersome — , but today, even people who aren’t interested in video have one attached to their nimble cell phones. Not surprisingly, DIARY OF THE DEAD was made in the style of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. One could argue that such overt documentarization of the horror genre has been bad for style — gothic horror is especially unimaginable in docu-style — , but an added element of fright derives from the pretense of seeing the Real thing. Though PARANORMAL ACTIVITIES was essentially a cheap gimmick, it does get progressively terrifying near the end.

The genre called Reality TV directs celebrities or wanna-be-celebrities to act ‘reality’ than real, with ‘reality’ being a trademark for loud, lewd, shameless behavior. So, TV hype now defines what is and isn’t Real American Behavior. And as talk shows became more confessional(often spilling over into exhibitionism), they were less about discussion of ideas and more about exposing or exchanging bedroom secrets and private feuds. And because new guests take their cues from earlier guests, especially those who got the most attention, the shtick turns into an imitation game of what constitutes ‘reality’ on the basis of entertainment value. Over time, the ‘reality’ format comes to favor the shameless and exhibitionistic among the players and the trashy and vulgar among the audience. If the original PEOPLE’S COURT was a rather educational and instructive glimpse into the working of the judicial system, the later variations of Justice TV turned into a sham not unlike the court scene in Mike Judge’s IDIOCRACY. Justice became less a matter of principles than of personalities and of all stripes: Jewish, Negro, Cuban-American woman, some guy from Texas.

One of the most interesting American personalities on the subject of fiction and non-fiction was Orson Welles. While directors like John Ford and Frank Capra also made documentaries(more like propaganda) — especially during World War II — when not working on feature films, Orson Welles circumvented the restrictions of both, not least by subverting the conceits of the categorical imperatives. CITIZEN KANE begins with a mockumentary newsreel of Charles Foster Kane’s life, and the movie itself was inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst(whose yellow journalism empire freely mixed truth and fiction)and Welles’ own colorful life experiences. The hunt for ‘Rosebud’ through the fictional landscape creates the impression of searching for the key that may unlock the space between fiction and truth(like the mysterious blue box in MULHOLLAND DR. that serves as a ‘black hole’ portal between the dimensions of dream and reality. Because movies look so real or more-real-than-real, something in our psyche seeks a pathway between movie-reality and real-reality. Of course, movies are just actors filmed in front of a camera plus special effects, but the impact of suspension of disbelief in cinema goes far beyond that of any other art form. No matter how convincing a play, we know we are watching a stage performance. No matter how vivid a novel, we know we are conjuring images in our heads. But the movie is right there on the screen and visual prowess goes far beyond the capacity of human eyes. It feels as if watching through the super-eyes of gods that can go anywhere and anytime. If someone runs up on a stage, he is interrupting a performance than entering another reality. But it’s tantalizing to think what kind of Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass wonders might await us on the OTHER side of the screen. Films such as MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, LES CARABINIERS, PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, THE LAST ACTION HERO, TRUMAN SHOW, and just about anything by Charlie Kaufman played on this obsession. The power of cinema has a way of making us forget in Groundhog-Day-fashion that movies are just actors-playacting-in-front-of-a-camera. It makes us want to believe that movies comprise an alternate reality. And yet, we know it’s not real but just pretense. So, one side of us wants to sneak into this other reality, but once we imagine ourselves to have made it inside, another side of us wants to find the hole that leads us back out to expose the fraudulence. This inside/outside dialectic dominates the BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, AUDITION, and THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. Part of the reason why Franz Kafka’s works are especially relevant in the Age of Cinema is because of their ominous sense of uncertainty between real and unreal, an aspect strikingly conveyed in Welles’ adaptation. The cinema has especially been confounding to intellectuals because of its intoxicating power to overwhelm the mind. It’s like the doctor in Ingmar Bergman’s THE MAGICIAN is made to ‘feelieve’ what he can’t rationally believe. The dead can’t come back to life, but the magician’s trick overrides the power of reason. It’s why even the most rational person can be scared by a horror movie that he knows isn’t real. If some critics, like Pauline Kael, happily surrendered to the Kiss-Kiss-Bang-Bang of cinema, others like Godard, who began as a critic, increasingly found the power of cinema threatening and degrading, not least because it was so American-dominated. Initially, Kael cheered Godard’s blend of bohemian romanticism and ingenious self-reflexivity as a hide-and-seek of instinct and intellect. He was the picklock of cinema puzzled but also intrigued by secrets that always eluded his grasp, much like the Richard Gere’s character in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES can’t crack the code of the strange ‘visitations’. Kael sensed Godard’s cinema as analogous to his attitude about women. [Highly cerebral, Godard’s natural tendency was to wrap his mind around everything and render it into a logical formula, except such attempt proved futile with something as sensual and seductive as cinema and women. No amount of philosophy or any -ology could do justice to something with such powerful hold over the senses. In a way, Godard was drawn to Marxist theory for providing him with a framework for a ‘clearer’ understanding of cinema and womenfolk. He could argue capitalism reduced women into ‘consumer products’ or ‘prostitutes’. This was, at once, a criticism of capitalism’s baleful effect on womanhood AND a clutching-for-straws to gain mental mastery over subjects that perplexed him. Marxism gave him license to call out women as corrupted ‘witches’. As Godard’s intellect stumbled over the mystery of womanhood, he settled for zeroing in on shallow stupidity of womanhood under consumer-capitalism that flattened humanity into a comic strip. From his Marxist perspective, women were not naturally ‘consumer products’ or ‘prostitutes’ but made into such by capitalism’s marketing of narcissism and materialism. It was half-sincere but also disingenuous. Unwilling to acknowledge the natural vanity of womanhood, he settled for Marxism’s interpretation of female wickedness as the product of capitalism’s distortion of values. So, blame America. But minus capitalism, would women really be different in their root nature? Would they be more virtuous and self-sacrificing and less likely to run off with some big-time American movie producer like in LE MEPRIS? If Truffaut in JULES AND JIM and THE SOFT SKIN was willing to accept the natural power of womanhood as both dangerous and alluring, Godard’s first film BREATHLESS ends with Belmondo’s character calling the woman who betrayed him a ‘bitch’ in his last dying breath. Truffaut, more romantic and less cerebral than Godard, could accept women as whore and goddess without judgement, but the controlling mentality of Godard simply couldn’t yield to such a vision of womanhood that stood independent of the man’s theoretical understanding of her. He wanted a math formula to figure out womenfolk, but none was forthcoming or satisfactory, and in films like A BAND OF OUTSIDERS and ALPHAVILLE — and some others with Anna Karina, which whom he was deeply in love for a time — , there were hints at accepting the mystery of love and womanhood.] Being an intellectual and sensualist herself, Kael regarded Godard as a kindred spirit who was too smart & thoughtful to regard cinema simply as entertainment but also too poetic and playful to regard it as Art, Message, or Thesis. Even up to WEEKEND, she was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and pretend that he was having fun making satire, but his subsequent films proved how delusional she’d been, at least since 1966 when he grew increasingly radical, purist, and intellectual to purge himself of all ‘bourgeois’ notions of sentimentality and romanticism. Godard’s view of cinema was like the Madonna/whore Complex: Cinema is magic - Cinema is mendacity. He felt like both a priest guarding its canon and a pimp exposing its cunt. [But if cinema is such a soiled form of expression, couldn’t one argue that serious art films are in some ways graver sins than commercial works are? Isn’t an honest whore preferable to a prig in a whore-house pretending to be a saint?] But when Godard later purged every last vestige of cinema-as-magic, the sado-masochistic berating of self and the audience became unrelenting. Anyway, the hypothetical ‘secret’ passageway between movie and reality isn’t an issue with most viewers who fall into two categories. Super-movie-fans, aka film buffs, love to blissfully lose themselves in the fantasy of movies and block out reality. Then, there are others[most people] who just see movies as on-and-off entertainment, a diversion or escapism. They are grounded in reality and don’t obsess about cinema except as diversion. And then, there are those who are captivated by the magic of cinema but also seriously connected to real world issues. Straddling both realms, they are troubled by the barrier between the power of fiction and the weight of reality. How do they square the two worlds and the wall between them that is, at once, so porous and so impenetrable? Some may argue that we should love the arts & cinema for what they are and never mistake them for reality. Some may argue that art/cinema should be molded to serve the forces of good in the real world, which is the message of UNDER FIRE where Nick Nolte’s character even fakes a photography of 'resurrecting' a Che-Guevara-like figure to aid the revolution. But then, there are those who argue that even when cinema purports to address real world problems — PLATOON as opposed to the silly business of RAMBO — , it cannot escape its innate escapism and vanity. After all, grim as it was, PLATOON was made of actors and special effects, and Stone used it to stoke his ego as Mr. Conscience. When we watch a film like THE KILLING FIELDS or SCHINDLER’S LIST, are we really being better people OR are we just indulging in moral vanity of caring by crying into our popcorn? Are the emotions really any nobler than watching something like THE LEGEND OF BILLIE JEAN? Also, just because a film seems powerfully realistic doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true-to-life or faithful-to-events. And given the power of movies to frighten and shock us, don’t even serious films play us like a piano than provoke us to think about real history? And so the question in CITIZEN KANE... what can we really know about someone through the existing media with their limitations, biases, and compromises? Furthermore, do we prefer myth over truth because the myth may summarize a larger vision of the truth as a recurring archetypal formula? It’s like a metaphor in a poem can illuminate a truth more potently than a mountain of data can. If ‘Rosebud’ was a secret hidden in the mind of Kane drawing its final curtains, Christopher Nolan’s INCEPTION goes up a notch with the ‘radical notion’ of implanting a ‘rosebud’ in the mind of someone. It suggests at the strange power of cinema working with two cylinders: the conscious and subconscious. While our eyes and ears take in everything on the screen, a deeper process happens somewhere within us. After all, most of what we see, even exciting and moving moments, soon pass from memory and leave no lingering trace. They spill over us but don’t seep into us. However, certain combinations of sound and images have a psychological effect far more penetrative[or insidious] than any visceral impact that usually come and go. Indeed, the Jewish control of Hollywood has implanted or ‘incepted’ the Negro-as-god in the hearts of so many whites. Subconsciously, so many whites now worship the mountain-sized-Negro-who-luvs-a-little-white-mouse as their god. They didn’t just sentimentally weep over the poor noble Negro but were infected with that ludicrous but iconic image. It’s like Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE thinks he’s just watching something on the movie screen but is actually undergoing profound transformation due to chemical injections that associate certain images and sounds with inner mechanisms unbeknownst to him). ‘Rosebud’ being Kane’s last utterance, there’s also the suggestion of somewhere between life and death. Incidentally, Jim Jarmusch’s DEAD MAN, a prolonged hallucinatory journey between life and death, may owe a debt to Kane. Even though CITIZEN KANE is one of the most self-consciously cinematic films ever, it owes a debt to non-fiction formats in radio and documentaries. (Radio and Film led Welles, already established as a man of the theater, toward both more artifice and realism. Realism was never convincing in the limited space of the theatre, whereas one of the main uses of radio was the news of the real world. Not surprisingly then, Welles told fiction in radio news format in his version of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS broadcast. Fiction and non-fiction both have limitations. Generally, fiction is restricted by rules of genre, and non-fiction must stick to facts, at least in principle. As such, fiction tended to be limited by its formalism whereas non-fiction tended to be haphazard stream of latest events. But what if two modes could be combined to create something more powerful than either could be alone? Even though the relation between Welles’ work in theatre and work in cinema has been much noted, one could argue Welles’ cinematic vision owes most to the dynamics of radio. Radio storytelling is frenetic and fast, and voice-narration conjures in the mind’s eye of the listener an ever shifting and morphing series of images and impressions. Thus, Welles’ approach to cinema was less photographic than ‘radio-graphic’. It was less about representing reality than conveying flaring impressions of the mind’s eye stimulated by voice-over narration. This makes Welles’ expression both more avant-garde in experimental potential and more traditionalist to the extent that his cinema approximates the visual dynamics of the human mind since the advent of story-telling. Words, especially as expressed through artful narration, stir up constantly shifting shapes and patterns of peoples, places, and things. The later works of Terrence Malick could be striving to capture something similar, but the too-muchness just leaves us feeling seasick. What’s striking about Welles’ work is the balance of the real and unreal, of the stable and unstable. It’s a ship with sails and anchor. In contrast, Malick’s cinema has become just loose sails flying in the wind. Anyway, its radio-graphic quality set CITIZEN KANE apart from most Hollywood movie where images were staid and solid, usually tethered to a fixed set and setting. In contrast, the ghostly eye in CITIZEN KANE slips in-and-out through time, places, and states of mind. It wasn’t affixed or assigned to things but free of things, like an out-of-body experience where perspective has been detached from the strictures of form. Strikingly, CITIZEN KANE is far more realistic and artificial than anything Welles did in Theater. It has both the shopworn grist of the newspaper trade and the dreamlike aura of memory. Its power also owes to the tension between the moment and the monument, not only of Xanadu but Kane’s labyrinthine ego that grew darker and emptier as it grew bigger, constantly craving more novelties and possessions to fill the void. It rather sounds like current America where the elites just want to hoard more hordes in the ‘exceptional’ Lazarus-World.) The interviews with the various people who’d known Kane even has something of those talking head documentaries. Perhaps, the ever-shifting modes of expression reflected a sense of precariousness that had marked Welles from childhood. He was born into privilege, even wealth, but he lost his mother at an early age, and his father went into decline. As a young man of boundless energy, he never felt at home anywhere in the world. Either he was too big for the world or the world was too small for him. Welles was born for risk and success. It was going to be Moon or Bust. Success brings stability and security, and risk brings the danger of losing it all. And the two are forever entwined because greater the risk, greater the chance of success... or failure. Because of his great talent and intelligence, Welles could have been a wealthy man had he gone into business or film production instead of directing. But he was a natural showman and furthermore an artist(a bad word in Hollywood), and this put him at odds with producers, money-men, and the public that as usually fickle about the wrong things. Welles had the talent to conquer the business world, but he preferred creative conquests, and in the end, he failed in business and in art(at least relative to his true potential as a film-maker that was frustrated throughout his career; while his failed works are still many times more interesting than the successful films by lesser directors, they are still far less than what they could have been under the right circumstances). To succeed as a businessman, one has to be willing to abandon or compromise any plan for the more profitable one. In contrast, to success as a visionary, one must be willing to stick to his vision against all odds. Businessman gains wealth by betraying everything for profits. Visionary gains honor by holding steadfast to his idea against all temptations. They are opposites but, for that very reason, could form a potent symbiotic relationship as envisioned in Ayn Rand’s THE FOUNTAINHEAD where a tycoon who betrayed everything for the buck finally commits his wealth to realizing the work of a true visionary who never compromised. Welles was a strange figure as he possessed all the savvy of a sleazy businessman, yet the larger part of him held steadfast to the hope of realizing his personal projects. He was Howard Roark with the character of Gail Wynand. He was a man of great confidence and appetite that, as often as not, served him badly. Being too sure of himself, he took too many thing for granted and left too many things to chance, as if the world would set itself right in his favor. He stood atop the globe like a nimble-footed log-roller only to be tossed over and rolled underneath. Welles wanted to commit himself to the art of film-making, but especially after the commercial failures of CITIZEN KANE and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS(that was also badly butchered), he knew the Industry giveth, the Industry taketh away. In talent and intelligence, he was bigger than any suit in Hollywood, but the suits had the money & means, and admittedly as well as unfortunately, a better understanding of what the mass audience wanted. And it wasn’t so just in Hollywood but in Europe as well, where Welles often raised money to make films in the 50s and 60s. So, it’s not surprising that a film like MR. ARKADIN, another butchered work, combines elements of grandiose myth with grim reminders of reality.

Perhaps, Roman Polanski, a sort of exile himself — a double exile, in fact, from both communism and gentile Poland — understood this aspect of Welles, which may account for certain similarities between his treatment of CHINATOWN and Welle's CITIZEN KANE & MR. ARKADIN. CHINATOWN's private eye mystery was run-of-the-mill film noir(though Robert Towne’s inclusion of incest would have been too perverse for Classic Noir), but Polanski stripped the formula naked(like prisoners in concentration camps) and ruptured fiction into reality(one that is uncomfortably all-too-familiar), a grim world where truth hangs by a thread like Jake's nose. Polanski stuck with the noir style only to bitchslap it into raw meat. Noir was always grim but wrapped in myth; it was like a nihilo-decadent form of romanticism. But even that element of 'dark mist' blows away in CHINATOWN. The ending is especially appalling in its reverberations. It’s as if the bullet tore through the dark movie screen and killed someone in the real world. When the shots are fired, Polanski doesn’t cinematically cut to the impact but lets the car stall in the distance and then we hear a scream. Thus, it creates an impression of violence taking place in the inconvenience of real space than in the reserve of cinematic space, in which a quick cut would have revealed the impact of the bullet. Reality is uncertain, and its truths hidden in the dark are revealed only gradually, if ever, whereas fictional space assures of constant proximity to the truth. Though violence is intrinsic to Noir, the ending of CHINATOWN deviates from classic noir because mood and style break down. Even gloom can be reassuring as a philosophy of fashionable pessimism, but even that is missing in the ending of CHINATOWN. Like the final moment of DOG DAY AFTERNOON, there is only the brass knuckles of reality. It’s like no amount of style or attitude can undo the fact that Polanski’s mother was destroyed by the Nazis in WWII.
The confrontation between Dunaway’s character and John Huston’s character(as her father) explodes into an open event. It is no longer happening in the secretive private world of noir. It’s like a John Cassavetes moment, and as the old tycoon tussles with his daughter, you can almost smell his breath. The style breaks down into reality, and Jake’s conceit as an all-knowing mole is ground to dust. If Nicholson’s character, a cynic privy to the underbelly of L.A., still naively believed that the Law would protect Evelyn(Dunaway) from her father, what would the average Chinaman in the street know? If even the ‘knower’ didn’t know, imagine the ignorance of the ‘unknower’. There is tragic romanticism in Noir, but the darkness finally enveloping CHINATOWN is just blackness of ignorance and indifference. It is a void, just clueless Chinese people who don’t care about white affairs — and who are denied access to the white world — washing like a wave over the scene of the crime which will soon be forgotten. (And yet, maybe there is a suggestion that the Chinaman does know because he comes from an old and corrupt civilization where people have long ago made peace with 'mystery' and gave up on seeking clarity and 'justice'. Chinese are more resigned to the way of things. The clueless-ness of the Chinese could be a kind of ‘wisdom’. Unlike the inquisitive Jake who thinks he can unearth and expose the truth, it’s as if the Chinese have an age-old intuition that the truth is always elusive and uncertain. They are resigned to defeat and dismissal by history. They think less in terms of good vs bad or clean vs corrupt because they accept the corruption of cosmos itself. No matter how heroic a man’s struggle against history, all will be forgotten, all will fade, in the never-ending cycles of rise and fall. And indeed, this is why Jews have been so obsessive about keeping the flame of Shoah alive. It is the natural tendency of mankind to neglect and forget, with new peoples and new generations not even knowing that such-and-such ever happened. Unless Jews keep saying, "You European gentiles KILLED US HERE ON THIS SPOT", it will be just another street that people walk over as the Chinese walk over the crime scene at the end of CHINATOWN. Without constant reminders, Shoah will be just another Rosebud tossed into a furnace without anyone even knowing the significance of what is being lost.) A similar darkness should have engulfed the ending of MEET JOHN DOE — a noble self-sacrifice covered up by The Power and the snow of Christmas — , but it copped out for a happy ending, albeit one that works emotionally. (Incidentally, the shooting toward Dunaway’s car at the ending of CHINATOWN reminds me of Bert the cop shooting at the fleeing George Bailey in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, surely one of the strangest blends of lightness and darkness in American cinema.)
Anyway, Welles’ playfulness with dynamics of fiction vs non-fiction may have owed to his great ‘promiscuity’ as an artist. John Ford was a full-time director, so were Kubrick and Kurosawa. But Welles wasn’t just a film director but also an actor. He was also a famous voice-actor and narrator who became a legend on radio. He also directed theater. He was also a reasonably talented painter. He also dabbled in journalism. Working in theater, he had mastered just about every facet of production, and of course, he’d been a precocious child who learned to read in the crib. So unlike most artists who specialized in one form or another, Welles traversed the entire spectrum of the arts and media. He was also a gifted magician. His radio production of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS combined journalism and storytelling and freaked out plenty of suckers. When funds rant out on the theater production of CRADLE WILL ROCK, it was turned into participatory theater the dissolved conventional distinctions between performers and audience. He combined Shakespeare and voodoo in his Negro version of MACBETH and directed JULIUS CAESAR with fascist aesthetics as a cautionary tale of political troubles brewing in Europe(and possibly at home from the American Right). When he ran out of money on his Brazilian movie about struggling fisherman, he combined fact and fiction. To be sure, Sergei Eisenstein and certain Soviets, especially Dziga Vertov, had pioneered the synthesis of fiction and non-fiction, and categorizing a film like MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA and OCTOBER isn’t so simple. Is the former a visual symphony, a theorem, or a documentary of life in the Soviet Union? Is the latter a docu-dramatization of actual events or historical fiction? Welles’ heroic but doomed Brazilian project that was recovered in the 1990s and released as IT’S ALL TRUE(ironic title) pales in comparison with Eisenstein’s QUE VIVA MEXICO!, but it unwittingly set a template for Welles’ future projects, not least because he was often strapped for cash. Though he wished to have once again the control and funds available on the sets of CITIZEN KANE and MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS(before it was taken from him), he became something of an anomaly as a maker of big films by small means. It’s said of Jed Leland by Bernstein in CITIZEN KANE, "Mr. Leland never had a nickel. One of those families where the father is worth $10 million...then one day he shoots himself, and it turns out there's nothing but debts", and that was pretty much Welles’ fate as a film-maker. He was famous and renowned but the wandering minstrel of cinema. A hobo emperor. He dreamed and planned big, but he never had enough funds to realize the fullness of vision, and so, he had to tirelessly ‘improvise’, which sometimes added to the creativity but also wore him out like an old shoe patched too many times; it’s no wonder films like OTHELLO and THE TRIAL are such mixed bags. There are many striking moments of brilliance, but there just aren’t enough threads and fabrics to hold them together as seamless wholes. Though Welles’ personality was so unlike Kafka’s, perhaps his difficulty with film-making made him empathize with a character like Joseph K, a lone man against the system. Welles would have been more content in theater as director or actor. But theater is alive only on stage. While plays have eternal value, performances do not. In contrast, cinema has eternal value because the pristine image can live forever. With theater Welles savored being king of the moment, but with cinema he tasted what it meant to be emperor of eternity, and he couldn’t let it go. But what an expensive medium cinema is. Raising funds for film made him travel all over the world looking for financiers, some of whom were less reliable than others(especially as the industry was filled with hustlers and charlatans, of whom Welles was one except that he had creative genius to back up his chicanery. The showmanship aspect of Welles may have been what turned off Ingmar Bergman the most. Sure, Welles could be dazzling, but, in Bergman’s estimation, the Welles’ showmanship was all there was, i.e. Welles didn’t sincerely pursue any meaning or truth but just juggled images and played games with mirrors to impress people with Cinema Bravura. He was a masterly chef than a master chef, demonstrating mastery of technique but with rubber chickens & meat and plastic vegetables. To Bergman, it was all a stunt, but for those of us who believe Form Is Content, does it matter?) Unsurprisingly, Welles was pursued by creditors all his life. As for his legion of admirers, the film critics and buffs, they could give him love but no money, the lifeblood of movies. Fittingly, his last finished project was F FOR FAKE, in which Welles went all out to splice various modes and genres, shuffling questions of reality, art, history, journalism, myth, and magic like so many cards. But then, Welles was more like a poker player to Kubrick’s chess player. In his films, chance plays a bigger role(if only as an illusion) in defiance of the loaded dice of the universe. (Given Welles’ penchant for eccentricity of perspectives, he was the perfect narrator of the based on Alvin Toffler’s book.)
Welles was one of the few true geniuses in cinema — genius not only as film-maker but all-around individual — , and part of his genius was drawing inspiration from just about everything, artistic or otherwise, to expand cinema’s potentials. He was the Shakespeare of cinema in the sense that he was endlessly inventive with images in the way Shakespeare was with words. Everyone admires Shakespeare, and Welles felt as a kindred spirit because he too could take anything and render it poetic or dramatic with creative whim. Granted, Shakespeare achieved so much more since a writer can just sit and write whereas a film-maker can’t film without the necessary materials and manpower. Still, just like no one did more than Shakespeare to demonstrate the power of words, no one did more than Welles with the power of images. Welles’s use of cinema was richer than that of Eistenstein and Kubrick because he experienced cinema from inside and out as both actor and director, player and planner. There was spontaneity along with the spectacle.

In the first half of the 20th century, cinema tended to be, at least in terms of cultural status, slavish and referential/reverential to the more highly respected and long-standing art forms. This was especially true with the advent of sound whereupon synchronicity of image and sound became paramount though, to be sure, the visual fluidity of silent cinema has been much exaggerated. For every SUNRISE(F.W. Murnau), there were countless silent movies with routine constructions and editing.

At any rate, the aesthetic ‘promiscuity’ undoubtedly affected the style of Welles’ films. One striking contradiction owes to the tension between grandiosity and imbalance, like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Especially with low and high angles, few directors created as many looming & towering architectural spaces, and yet, there’s granular to the grandeur, a world of castles made of sand, especially with the aid of odd angles and disorienting montage that is however ingeniously threaded with continuity of motions and motifs. Welles’ keen eye usually keeps track of the needle in the haystack. So many of his images are artfully-composed and seem definitive, yet there’s an element of uncertainty principle that any image, however stately or commanding, can be nixed with a flick of the wrist. Welles’ images often emerge and disappear through mischievous ‘backdoor editing’, and that may account as to why they may seem less iconic than those of other masters. There are actually countless outstanding images(that would make wonderful stills) in Welles’ films, but the pervasive uncertainty principle makes them feel less grounded or complete than the images of a Kubrick film that follow a logical than elliptical pattern. (The real power of a Welles image comes from a kind of seamless disjointedness[that he may have picked up from magic], and therefore an isolated still image from a Welles’ film fails to do justice as why that particular image has such power.) It is stable and unstable, grand architecture made of shifting shadows. Looking at the images of John Ford, David Lean, William Wyler, Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, and Luchino Visconti, one can’t help feel they are the masterly culmination of the ideal visual construction. There is a definitive sense of finished-ness, a complete world of fixed logic, rules, and relations. In contrast, even though CITIZEN KANE, MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, LADY FROM SHANGHAI, TOUCH OF EVIL, and CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT(as well as parts of MACBETH, OTHELLO, MR. ARKADIN, and THE TRIAL) have some of the most memorable images in cinema, there’s a sense that a misstep can teeter the world upside down. It’s like a Titanic that rocks like a rowboat. There’s a surreal quality as, in dreams, the most prominent images and sounds can morph or fade in an instant. In dreams, our perception becomes god-like, moving in and out of time and space, even in and out of bodies and personalities, but that power is of course illusory; furthermore, not only does a most powerful moment vanish instantly upon waking but so do virtually all traces of it despite its having felt so striking and memorable while happening. There’s a similar sense of uncertainty and/or infinite possibilities in the films of Welles, and only a handful of other directors — Eisenstein, Murnau, Lang, Dreyer with VAMPYR, etc. — had comparable means to spellbind us with cinema where possibilities multiply before our eyes: Cinema that seems not so much like a perfect product, finished and packaged for delivery, but a prophetic revelation that opens up whole new avenues of expression and meaning. (Some directors maybe had this magic just once in their career: Frank Capra with IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE, Federico Fellini with 8 ½, Sam Peckinpah with THE WILD BUNCH, Sergio Leone with ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, Ridley Scott with BLADE RUNNER, John Boorman with EXCALIBUR.)
The snow globe scene in CITIZEN KANE encapsulates the essence of Welles’ powers as a film-maker. When we first see the snow globe, it’s a dream-image of a home — comforting and reassuring — , but then the view lurches back to reveal a miniature house within a water-filled globe atop Kane’s palm. It’s a tycoon’s hand going limp in his passage into darkness. Sure and unsure become two sides of the same coin. Even stranger is how the fake snow inside the globe is dissolved with the room itself and over the Kane’s muttering lips(‘Rosebud’), and then outside the globe as it slips out of Kane’s hand. Thus, the distinctions between inside and outside, between psychology and physicality, and between private and public thaw into intimations of another dimension. Usually when film-makers convey weirdness, the visual style tends to be frenetic, murky, and bewildering — done well in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, done terribly in TWELVE MONKEYS — , but the signature achievement of Welles was to convey instability and disintegration with the subtlest and/or quietest of means: Hypnotic than Hysterical. Welles had a knack for shuffling impressionism with expressionism, dream with drama, fact with fantasy. Even the manner by which we found ourselves in the room where Kane lies on his deathbed(like David Bowman at the ending of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY) is, at once, stable and unstable. We see the arched window from the outside, and then the light goes out inside the room, but when the light comes back on, we happen to be looking at the same window but from the inside. One may credit such techniques to Welles’ flair for Magic, but it probably also owes to theater and radio, possibly his training ground for film-making(even if he didn’t realize it at the time). Someone beginning in film is likely to develop a habit of thinking in terms of solid images: What is and isn’t filmable and how it can be constructed into a scene. One’s imagination is hampered by established technological limitations of cinema. In contrast, a radio person can visualize the story in infinite ways inside his head. If you begin in film and must shoot a battle scene, you think of production values. If you work in radio and narrate a battle scene, your imagination runs wild. As Welles came to prominence in radio, his mind must have brimmed with infinite possibilities of the stories he narrated. When Welles went to Hollywood, he faced the same technological limitations of other directors, but his imagination, possibly enlivened by radio, pushed harder to convey free-flowing images in his mind. Therefore, as striking as Welles’ images are, their power derives from an inspired sense that they are merely a set of possibilities among countless others. (This element of spontaneity is generally missing in Hitchcock's cinema where the finished product feels utterly authoritative.)

Before Welles mastered(and transformed) radio, he’d mastered theater, which also had a significant impact on Welles’ cinematic approach. Most obviously, there’s the element of acting, prop-work, and lighting, but more importantly, theater’s key contribution to Welles’ cinematic imagination may have been analogous to that of radio. This may seem counter-intuitive because the stage works so differently from airwaves. Of course, many theater productions were aired on radio, and to the extent that the essence of drama is conveyed through dialogues, theater and radio was a marriage made in heaven. But radio and theater are wholly different in the way they’re processed by the audience. A theatergoer fixes his eyes on the stage, which is the only reality during the performance, whereas the radio listener generates his own visuals. Thus, even as one listens to a radio play, one doesn’t necessarily visualize a stage; he may imagine real characters in real-world settings. Since theater performance is limited to what happens on the stage, one could argue it curtails visual possibilities. Even with lavish set designs and production values, a theater show is limited to the stage, and even the largest stage is puny compared to the mental expanses of the radio listener. And yet, in one way, the theater stage is infinite and dreamlike in a way cinema screen can never be. Though a movie can take us to all sorts of places — even the worlds of other planets in other galaxies — , the inherent ‘realism’ of cinema means that our characters literally have to move from one specific space to another. Thus, if a character in Wyoming is supposed to be in NY the next day, it must really seem as if he moved from place A to place B. Thus, place A can only be place A, and place B can only be place B. Such literal use of space in cinema is imaginatively limiting compared to the theater stage that can be places A to Z, even simultaneously. (In this sense, the final part of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY follows the logic of Theater because the space that Bowman-thru-the-Stargate occupies is all-places and all-times.) Therefore, even though theater performances are limited to the small stage and nothing but the stage, it can be Everywhere. Because theater cannot literally turn the stage space into exact facsimiles of real places, tricks of lighting and sleight-of-hand prop-work are used to create the often dreamlike impression of the stage as a place of magic. This is something Welles seems to have drawn from theater. If movies generally convey the sense of characters going from place to place, there is a sense throughout a film like CITIZEN KANE that place A can morph or meld into place B or place C and vice versa. Time and space are rendered fluid and illusory. Thus, the present and the past seem less like separate domains than two sides of the same translucent coin. Thoughts and reminisces materialize into reality, reality bleeds into memories, memories meld into dream worlds, and so the cycle continues. Even though the reporter visits different persons in various places to unlock the meaning of ‘rosebud’, there isn’t much in the way of spatial movement. Instead, he seems to move in and out of few doors, peeking or peering into the tinted windows of the interviewees. Much of the film is told in flashbacks but the demarcations between past and present and among the various accounts aren't steady and stable but rather like the shadowy borders between fantasy and reality in MULHOLLAND DR. (This owes to Welles’ approach being a kind of Mind Cinema. There’s the sense of almost everything being seen and processed by an intelligence than merely a pair of eyes. A kind of thinking camera, like Hal computer or the Monolith in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Cameras have no mind and just capture what are in front of them. But eyes, organic cameras, always operate in coordination with the mind that always processes new stimuli in relation to stored memory, fantasy, desire, and anxiety. The Hollywood convention was for the camera to serve as eyes to ‘faithfully’ observe characters and actions. Camera eye was subordinate to the characters, action, and literal space. Welles and others like him made the camera think, emote, and dream as well as observe and convey. So, it was fitting that Welles’ first film was about memory, which is as much about the mind as well as the eye. After all, memory survives only in mental space. Without capacity for memory, the only reality would be what we see at any given moment. It is memory that creates the past that is always confluent with the present.) Possibly, Kubrick cribbed something of this in the final segment of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that plays like a mini sci-fi version of CITIZEN KANE or Citizen Bowman in which we are no longer sure of when is when, what is what, and where is where as Bowman or Bowmans seem to exist in multiple planes of extra-reality. The final segment of 2001 also shares something with COLOR OF POMEGRANATES(Sergei Parajanov) that came out a year later(1969). Both draw us into an imaginary ‘box’ where objective time and space are supplanted by sublime subjectivity stage-managed by divinity or higher intelligence. Also, the creative tension in both films stem from interaction of the iconic and steadfast with the idiosyncratic and unsteady. COLOR OF POMEGRANATES is composed of mounted tableaux inspired by Armenian culture & history, and its archetypal characters stand rigidly like statues or move like mechanical devices. And yet, in the fragmented passages of time(not always linear) from the artist’s childhood through moments in adulthood unto old age and death, it conveys a unified vision of life, especially as all the elements are of a carefully coordinated artistic pattern, which suggests at the larger design for all and everything set by God Himself. Everyone is fixed and finite, almost puppet-like. There are two ways to ‘escape’ from this determined 'bondage'. To live for the thrill of the moment, but moments are come-and-go. The other way is to live life, remember, and gain a deeper glimpse of the fuller picture. Even though no one escapes one’s fate, a realization of this condition-of-no-escape is a kind of liberation as truth unbinds us from ignorance. Even if both animal and human is about the inescapable fate of birth-live-and-die, it makes all the difference that the animal cannot understand whereas the human can.
Likewise, in the final scene of 2001, we see Bowman ‘trapped’ alone in a room where time seems both frozen and fragile like crystal. There is an overwhelming sense of man’s limitation and insignificance in face of infinity yet also the hope of revelation. (After all, Nirvana in Buddhism doesn’t promise to change the world or alter its course; rather, it promises illumination that is liberation enough. If two men are both unfree and can never be free, does it matter if one man realizes the truth while the other doesn’t? After all, know the truth or not, both will be unfree. And yet, to know the truth of one’s unfreedom is to be free of the illusion. When astronomers discovered that Earth is an insignificant planet in a vast universe, none of which we can control, we learned how unfree we are in the cosmic scale of things. But in knowing than not knowing, we gained the freedom of illumination. It’s like Joseph K in THE TRIAL ultimately cannot escape his fate, but there is a need to know, like the Richard Gere’s character needs to know in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES and the hapless Buckwheat-gone-bad Negro needs to know in DIRTY HARRY whether Callahan's pistol fired six or only five shots.) Bowman’s knocking the glass off the table is reminiscent of the amniotic snow globe falling and shattering in CITIZEN KANE.

Anyway, whatever inspiration Welles may have drawn from radio and theatre, he was obviously a born genius fascinated with creative riddles regardless of the task before him. Had he been a caveman, he would have been the kind to pioneer cave paintings, idol-making, and tool-making: the Moon Watcher ape-man in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Welles love to explore ways, splashy and subtle, to smash or slip through established formal limitations. If he lacked sufficient production values to fully realize his visions, he resorted to artful trickery not unlike the stylistic fusion of fact and fiction in the radio performance of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. (Incidentally, the greatest example of how facts and fiction were intermixed to create a narrative of ‘higher truth’ is the story of Jesus. If the stories of the Old Testament read like myth and/or history, remembrance of the legendary past, the New Testament reads like ‘you are there’ journalism; there’s a sense of immediacy and eye-witness account, a kind of proto-journalism, and indeed it has served as a template for certain type of reporting, what with men like John Reed and Edgar Snow mixing fact and fiction to herald a new dawn. As the newspaper in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE says, "when legend becomes fact, print the legend." Christography has certainly been a big factor in the coverage and remembrance of the Civil Rights Movement, which is why it has a quasi-spiritual hold over the American public. MLK has been sold as the story of black jesus. The 1980s film UNDER FIRE is about an American journalist who feels morally compelled to mix facts and fiction to create a Christographic news-gospel or ‘newspel’ about a Che-Guevara-like revolutionary who is dead but photo-resurrected to appear alive to keep up the morale of rebel fighters. [BROADCAST NEWS shows us another way fact and fiction can be blended to make us experience news not only as reportage but emotional support system.] The journalist and/or intellectual who cares about the truth above all, even more than his ideological biases, is a rare bird, which is why George Orwell, a leftist intellectual who spoke about the truth about the crimes of communism, was an exception than the rule.) One thing for sure, despite the invaluable lessons of theater and radio on Welles’ film career, success in one art form rarely translates into success in another. Peter Brooks was much lauded for work in theater, but his films ranged from adequate(LORD OF THE FLIES) to awful. Ingmar Bergman began in theater, and he did become a great film director, but he was never quite the cinematic artist of Welles’ caliber even though, perhaps, such isn’t a fair assessment because of their different outlooks. Welles relished being a public figure who reveled in the clash of personalities. Charles Foster Kane dies before his literal death because he is nothing without dynamism of human contact and friction. The tragedy of his life is he wants to be surrounded with people of talent, but his monstrous ego reduces partners and colleagues into foes or flunkies. He is utterly pitiful when his second wife Susan Alexander leaves him. In this sense, Welles had something in common with Fellini, whose cinema was also about the constant circus of personalities. (8½ is a film of distractions and evasions. A story of a man so enamored of company, festivity, and celebration that he finds it nearly impossible to sit quietly and delve into his own soul for inspiration. It could be that his creative well has run dry or he no longer has the will or determination to stick with one line of thought or overriding theme. It’s like someone who finds every excuse or diversion not to do his homework and then turning in the story of his evasions as the homework. It worked One Time with 8½, but it’s the sort of stunt one can pull off only once.) Both Welles and Fellini liked to tell ‘busy’ stories where a whole series of colorful characters constantly collide with another like so many billiard balls. Aloneness is hell in the worlds of Welles and Fellini, and almost no character willfully seeks it. Even when the eponymous heroine of NIGHTS OF CABIRIA finds herself walking alone after being defrauded by a lowlife hustler, she finds solace when surrounded by a merry band of revelers. The scene may have inspired the final moment of AU HASARD BALTHSAR where the donkey in death is surrounded by a cloud of sheep.
Perhaps, this is why Bergman didn’t much care for Welles and Fellini — though he liked Fellini the man if not exactly the artist. There’s a lot happening in the works of Welles and Fellini, but however artfully and impressively presented, they detract(and distract us) from the core matter of the human condition, meaning of life, and the central theme. (Bergman’s great admiration for Andrei Tarkovsky may have owed to the Russian director’s intensity of contemplation in vision and theme. Welles and Fellini’s films are about ‘the party is on’. Tarkovsky’s films are about the truth after the ‘party is over’. Tarkovsky’s characters feel truth than boredom when alone.) Perhaps from Bergman’s perspective, neither Welles nor Fellini had the patience, seriousness, and commitment to sit down and get down to business. But then, Fellini might have agreed, as his alter ego played by Marcello Mastroianni in LA DOLCE VITA admits to lacking the resolve to finish writing a serious book; despite his doubts about the circus of celebrities and the decadent rich, they are his kind of people. Granted, prior to Fellni’s grand ventures beginning with LA DOLCE VITA, he worked on smaller projects about more modest people, producing masterpieces like WHITE SHEIK and I VITELLONI and several other excellent films. But even there, there was always the sense of impatience and wish for escapism, to be where the action is. WHITE SHEIK is oiled with comic situations; the characters are too deluded or aggravated to find meaning... except by accident. The bride goes for escapist fantasy, and the groom anxiously does his best to salvage the situation, and if there is a kind of lesson, the couple stumbles on it. And I VITELLONI is about a group of ne’er-do-wells who do their utmost to evade responsibilities of adulthood. Pathetically and comically, they are grownups who refuse to grow up; they are growndowns. The only members of the bunch who seek any kind of meaning is the playwright and a character aptly named Moraldo, but the former is presented as something of a deluded fool(who craves approval and validation) while the latter is usually naive and clueless, and in the end, decides to leave the town... apparently for the big city where the action. 8½ is generally considered Fellini’s greatest film, and it too is about a character who lacks the patience to sit still and take a long hard look at his life. He is perturbed by the distractions of the people around him but not because he wants them gone but because he can’t do without them. He needs his wife here, mistress there, friends and hangers-on all around him, admirers and shmoozers everywhere. He wants to be considered a great artist but is racked with insecurity and relies on an intellectual to provide him with sobering advice, which he can’t stomach. He wants to make love to all the women in the world; he wants the adulation of the critics and commentators but also fears and hates them, but then, he can’t do without them either since he’s an attention hog hungry from approval and adulation.
8½ is as different a film can be from Bergman’s PERSONA, and yet it’s like Fellini’s own version of it — though it predated Bergman’s film — in the sense that Fellini’s alter ego or fictional persona Guido finds his sense-of-self integrating and fusing with those around him. It’s as if Guido has lost a sense of who he is and must be. If he is an artist whose identity is defined by his imagination and if his imagination is inhabited by all the people he’d known, then he is them and they are he. Who is Guido-as-Guido as opposed to Guido-as-circus? (On the question of "who am I?", late Bergman took a hard close look by retracing the lives of his parents and his childhood. Fellini’s preferred mode was impression and sensation than concentration.) Does he have the will to define what he is? Is there a kind of paradox to ‘egotisticality’ where the person with the biggest ego has the weakest sense of self? There is, after all, a degree of Jesus complex in 8½ though done in self-mocking humor. Fellini-as-Guido is half-clown but also half-martyr-to-art. When Jesus tried to be everything to everyone, He could no longer be ‘himself’. He had to be Him, the Son of God. Grander one’s ego and the more one’s life is intertwined with other peoples and the larger world, the more one has to live up to what others expect of him. Thus, bigger the ego, less stable the identity. Especially with the grand success of LA DOLCE VITA, Fellini underwent a crisis of identity, not unlike that of the heroine of LOLA MONTEZ. When he'd made films like WHITE SHEIK, I VITELLONI, LA STRADA, NIGHTS OF CABIRIA, and IL BIDONE, he was an Italian film-maker who combined neo-realism with personal whimsy. Though world famous in the 1950s, he was seen as essentially a director of provincial or rustic themes. But LA DOLCE VITA elevated him to a 'modernist'(and maybe even an 'intellectual') artist with ‘something to say’ about the world, and this made Fellini extremely self-conscious and anxious. In essence, Fellini was a terrific storyteller of the lives of simple souls and rascals. He was best at working small and personal, but LA DOLCE VITA made him something like a philosopher-moralist-social-commentator-and-even-prophet on the modern world, and Fellini knew he’d chewed off more than he could swallow. On the other hand, his ego basked in all the awe and adulation. He got away with maybe the greatest scam in film history with 8½, a film of evasions and diversions where Fellini refused to say anything(of any substance) by pretending to have too many ideas, too many complexes, too many inner-conflicts. If the actress in PERSONA refused to say anything by shutting up, Guido-as-Fellini refused to say anything by turning EVERYTHING into a lie. But it was so masterfully and brilliantly pulled off that 8½ remains as a towering achievement. It was a con-trick of the greatest order. But then, it’s difficult to pull the same con twice, and Fellini’s subsequent films could no longer hide the creative bankruptcy. In film after film, Fellini fell into the habit of falling back on distractions — an array of minor characters(often freaks or decadents) moving in and out of frames mouthing gibberish — to create the impression that his film was brimming with life, love, energy, inventiveness, and creativity when, in fact, Fellini seemed unable to focus and fixate on anything of substance. It was like a chef who goes about busily ordering the staff to move around a lot, mingles with the customers and talks endlessly, and serves a lot of appetizers but never gets down to preparing the main course. The old Jewish lady in the Wendy’s commercial would have demanded, "Where’s the beef?" upon watching Fellini films after 8½..
Close Encounters of the Creative Kind. The place where Guido is crucified by the mocking media and then resurrected by his irrepressible muse.
Similar criticisms have been leveled at Welles, namely that he was more of a showboating circus master than an Artist as Seeker of Meaning and Truth. Even in Welles’ most ‘arty’ film THE TRIAL, the maelstrom of striking visuals dominate, and the frenetic realization of Joseph K.’s character renders him like a pinball within a circuit-box of wizardry, all the more so because Anthony Perkins’ ‘balderdashy’ performance is riddled with shot nerves of someone who seems drained physically as well as emotionally. If Kafka’s story is akin to a hockey player wondering why he’s being consigned to the penalty box, Welles’ version is akin to a player wondering why the ice-floor is shaking and cracking and messing up his balance over and over. It’s less about closed doors than hall-of-mirrors. Though K of the novel is caught in Kafka’s maze, he is clearly the center, and the meaning of the work emerges through the duality of identification and alienation that we are made to feel in relation to K, not least because K is obviously Kafka’s literary double — Kafka shares K’s disorientation & anxiety as fellow mice, but Kafka also plays the role of the cat-god who toys with the hapless mouse; K is both Kafka’s hero and victim. We can identify and even sympathize with the part of K that appears to be an innocent falsely accused by a system that is either inhuman, tyrannical, crazy, or merely inept. (But then, the system’s ineptness could be as dangerous as inhumanity. One wrong file or button can send an innocent person to death without anyone knowing. Or even if the error is identified, maybe the system wants to get rid of him as evidence of its own failure. After all, HAL computer decided to erase all trace of its own ‘error’ by wiping everyone out. Power has pride and prestige, and it will do ANYTHING to cover up its ineptness that could go from a chink in the armor to a breach that breaks the dam.) Yet, there’s also a sense of alienation, for there is something odd about K, and we can’t help thinking that there is a reason why K has been charged of something.
Also, K’s dilemma seems at times to be a public matter, something that has larger implications for rest of society; but at other times, the problem seems as though K’s psycho-drama is warping fictional space itself, in which case his psyche is intruding into and violating the contract of ‘reality’ in fiction with a clear division between subjective characters and objective reality. Though these concerns are present in Welles’ THE TRIAL, the main strength(but also weakness) lies in Welles’ film-making prowess, prodigious despite problems of budget and production.
But a key advantage of Welles’ showmanship over Fellini’s was it was of much higher caliber(with the exception of 8½, a true cinematic marvel where magic and meaning merge into one), indeed an art in and of itself. Brush-strokes of brilliance and visionary power contain their own truths and need no further justification. Take LADY FROM SHANGHAI with its mythic resonance despite the ludicrous plot. Tumults and rushes stirred up by Welles’ roulette-like cinema jangle our nerves, setting off more responses than we know what to do with. We don’t know what exactly Welles is doing, but it’s more than style because it doesn’t merely dazzle but strike a deeper chord. It is genius. Why could Shakespeare assemble words to convey so much with so little? Likewise, what was this rapport Welles had with moving and shifting images? How was it that he could do so much more with so much less compared to Hollywood directors like Cecil. B. DeMille whose works, such as THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and TEN COMMANDMENTS, while grandiose and spectacular, are really storytelling by the numbers(which is also true of LA DOLCE VITA except for the unforgettable opening scene). Just like the bartender in THE SHINING serves something more than drinks, Welles the magician served more than tricks. But what exactly is this secret that is spiked within the tricks? We don’t know, which is why it’s genius. It’s also why Welles imitators pale in comparison because they copy the externals without possessing the internals: The Style without the Secret. There is a Faustian element to such secrets because it goes over/under our conscious ability to understand. It’s like the girl in BLACKCOAT’S DAUGHTER doesn’t understand the power the Devil has over her, but she is transfixed by it; she feels sympathy and love for the devil. Listening to a great symphony, we don’t think about the ‘message’ or ‘meaning’. It is there in the expression itself: Form is content. The gods don’t have to explain or justify themselves; they can do what we can’t do. Genius is a case of the rare mortal possessing, if only for a blip in time, the touch of gods. Fellini at his best was formidable, but he was never the genius and symphonist on the level of Welles. And when Fellini’s inflated ego floated freely, divorced from his limited but real talent, he even lost the mantle of the Artist. (Even most fine artists are not geniuses.)
Ingmar Bergman's THE DEVIL'S WANTON
Ingmar Bergman was a different kind of artist. Though many of his films have ensemble acting and colorful characters, Bergman had the tunnel vision of the miner for truth. This side of him could have been a matter of personality or a product of his Lutheran upbringing. Unlike the Catholic tradition — often on display in Fellini’s films — where the faithful are bedazzled by a panoply of quasi-pagan and idolatrous theatrics, the Lutheran Faith insisted on sternness and quietude necessary for concentration. Though both Bergman and Fellini lost their religious faiths, the cultural mind-sets remained along with the quirks of personality. Similar to Fellini’s LA STRADA, Bergman made a number of films about traveling performers or circus troupes, but the centrality of solitude in Bergman’s films is absent in Fellini’s. Fellini’s characters are social animals, and when they’re exiled from the community, the film might as well end as in the final scenes of I VITELLONI(where Moraldo finally leaves his hometown), LA STRADA(where Zampano is left to wail alone), and IL BIDONE(where the mortally wounded con-man is abandoned by fellow thieves). Being alone can be painful in Bergman’s universe, but it is also a ‘monastic’ path to deeper truth. In Fellini’s universe, being alone is a curse, a cruel exile. In Bergman’s films, people feel alone even in the company of others. The fat guy in SAWDUST AND TINSEL(aka CLOWN’S EVENING) has a mistress and circus people all around him, but he feels estranged and profoundly alone. Bergman’s first film TORMENT — directed by Alf Sjoberg — is about a young man who arrives at a deeper understanding of self away from family and classmates. Aloneness doesn’t necessarily mean being literally alone. Rather it means departure from comfort zone of familiar community or from festive zone of escapist merriment in order to seek/gain a more honest or redemptive understanding of oneself by facing up to one’s own demons or learning to interact with others on a truer basis. (Bergman felt at home in theater because the stage is both prison and mind. A prison in the sense that characters are trapped together in claustrophobic space. And yet, precisely because a stage character is spatially marooned unlike a character in a novel or movie, he must create a mind-space, especially through monologue, to stake his rationale for existence. There is a theater-like quality about Bergman’s films in the use of monologues, verbal and/or visual[monolooks], to assert a character’s justification before others, nothingness, or God. Being itself is oppressive, morbid and morose, as in HAMLET, a story where one isn’t sure if Hamlet is enlivened or enervated by tragedy. While it is true that he struggles against villainy, would he be happier if nothing had gone wrong? Is his gloom-and-doom outlook the result of misfortune, or does the misfortune provide him with a worthy target for his innately and perhaps inescapably gloom-and-doom personality? Bergman’s obsession with baring inner truth increasingly placed him at odds with humanism. WILD STRAWBERRIES and THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY come closest to bridging truth with heart. He dug up much that was false or ugly but still strove for semblance of common ground, the meeting of hearts and minds. But the deeper one digs into psycho-drama, people seem less like moral creatures and morality itself comes into doubt as fiction created by man to favor mediocrity against true desire, true talent, and true truth? There is no hope in the humanist sense for the characters of PERSONA, HOUR OF THE WOLF, PASSION OF ANNA, and etc., just like there is nothing to save about humanity at the end of ICEMAN COMETH and STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE. Look at the human soul ‘too closely’, and it’s a diseased heart.) A simpler version of truth-seeking was in SUMMER WITH MONIKA where young lovers go off on their own to experience freedom, only to get on each other’s nerves when supplies run out, novelty of adventure wears off, and aggravations pile up. Also, Monika is ultimately selfish, and the guy is weak. Bad combination in a couple. Though a tale of youthful misadventure, it sums up the essence of life itself as a story of reality, longing for dream, loss of dream, and back-to-reality again. A more complex version — though not necessarily better — involved the accidental exile of the sisters in the hotel in a foreign country in THE SILENCE. Bergman himself chose to live on the island of Faro to be free of distractions in search of the truth, and this side of Bergman could be glimpsed in films such as THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, PERSONA, HOUR OF THE WOLF, and especially THE PASSION(released as PASSION OF ANNA in America). And of course, SHAME, the strangeness of which derives from being maybe the most solitary-feeling of all ‘war films’. Nothing is more public and anti-privacy than war that forces so many to share in same horrors, but the overwhelming sense in SHAME is the psychological isolation of the couple from everyone else, in some ways even from one another. Even when forced onto the same boat, it’s like everyone is an island unto himself or herself.

Bergman sensed the paradoxes of truth-seeking, i.e. one must disassociate from distractions of the world, but the disassociation could just as easily be a form of escapism that leads to a dead-end. This is one of the problems of academia, a self-enclosed realm in search of truth about the world from which it is disassociated except in data and theory. Or the Monastery and Church, sanctuaries from the world but claiming to behold the Truth of the World.
Solitary quietude allows a person to focus on certain matters without the dizzying distraction of the ‘business’ of life, but it also isolates him from reality. Also, more likely than not, even the thing he wants to fixate on with full concentration is the product of the World of Distractions. In a way, every distraction is itself a truth that happens to be irrelevant to one’s particularly chosen 'field' of truth. But irrelevance doesn’t mean unimportance. Making pizza is irrelevant to metallurgy, but who denies the importance of pizza?
Liv Ullmann’s character in PERSONA, the neurotic actress Elisabet, may be a psychological soul-searcher, but she cannot handle the TV image of a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire in Vietnam. Not only is the image shocking but it features a monastic figure engaging politically with the world. One wonders if such monks are violating their own principles or exposing the cowardice of those who seek truth only in the solace of seclusion.
Anyway, Elisabet becomes such a purist for truth(or at least against falsehood) that she refuses to work, see her family, or even talk because human relations are tainted with lies, deceptions, and obfuscation. Worse, even the sincerest effort at truth only leads to more lies because truth is too complex and/or because the sincere could be as deluded as the insincere could be deceptive. In an earlier age, such a woman might have become a nun and offered herself to God, but Elisabet is living in the modern world of Godlessness. She shuts herself from the world to either protect herself from its lies or to shield the world from her lies. As with Holden Caulfield of THE CATCHER IN THE RYE, there is no escape. One cannot be separate from the world, of which one is a part. As in the novel ARK SAKURA by Kobo Abe, all the problems of the world are found anew even in isolation because we carry the disease within us no matter where we go. It’s like when the eponymous character of Darren Aronofsky’s NOAH realizes that, even if he starts anew with this ‘good’ family, all the rot will begin again because the germs of sin infect every human soul.
If Elisabet listens to the world, she hears its lies. If she speaks to the world, the world hears her lies. She is an actress in an art form that is meant to convey truth, but art is all make-believe, a lie. And yet, fiction is the most powerful way of conveying truth about the nature of man. Art is a mask that unmasks, an idea that became ever more loaded with neuroticism in the Modern Age of psychology and personal meaning. Of course, this is one sure formula for madness, and indeed she is committed to some haute funny farm.
Bergman was well aware of the crisis of Truth. You couldn’t find it with people because social relations are built on lies necessary for people to get along. Also, ego prefers pride & vanity OR praise & approval above all else in social interactions. But then, truth can’t be found apart from humanity either because the very essence of our nature is that of social animals. Whatever one seeks alone has meaning only in the sharing. Buddha and Jesus ultimately shared the truth that had been attained alone. Even as True Artists take pride in not pandering to the lowest common denominator or the unwashed masses, it makes no sense to create anything unless SOMEONE ELSE will know about it. Even in isolation on the island of Faro, Bergman made films for the world. And even when an ascetic shuts himself from others, he finds himself communing with the imagined being of God(or gods or imaginary beings) or with the ghosts of his memory.
And even when one recedes into one’s own soul-space, one can never be free of the larger world, if even at the most rudimentary mundane level. After all, Elisabet has to be taken care of by other people. Diane Selwyn in MULHOLLAND DR. can’t shut off the world forever. Someone has to cook breakfast, take out the garbage, and feed the cat. There’s also no clear borderline between recess into fantasy or search for truth. In MULHOLLAND DR., Diane Selwyn clearly recedes into her fantasy world; she becomes like a poor girl version of Howard Hughes or Charles Foster Kane in the final stage of his life. Unable to face reality, they recede into fantasy. In contrast, other people seek higher truth that rises above desires of ego and vanity. To attain this, they feel a need to break out of the shell of comfort, physical and psychological. A need to see the world as it really is, the ugly side as well as the cosmetic side. And the need to realize that one's ego is a mere speck in the grand scheme of things governed by God or the ultimate truth, thus attaining humility over hubris. And we see this powerfully in the figure of Jesus who went among the sick & diseased and experienced the worst horrors of physical torture but also surrendered His Soul to God.
Even when one seeks solace from others to be true to oneself, one’s isolation or escape has meaning only in relation to others. Man can never be alone-alone. He is alone-from, alone-against, or alone-toward something. When the eponymous character of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA went off to think all alone, he was imagining a bold military strategy. So, even upon discovering a truth on one’s own, there is an urge to share it with or foist it upon others. (Even if ascetics choose to mostly remain alone, they are with God or gods.) It’s like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad all went off to seek the Truth on their own, but it was ultimately to share it with the tribe or the world. Likewise, even as Ingmar Bergman became increasingly introverted as an artist in the late 60s and early 70s, he was plumbing for deeper truth to show to the world. Thus, the emotional psychology of Truth is a limbo between isolation and intervention. We see this in how academia, clergy, and artists operate.
In Bergman’s films, the search for truth is often a lonely endeavor. The minister in COMMUNICANTS(aka WINTER LIGHT) is often a solitary figure who can’t communicate with members of the parish because he himself can’t communicate with silent God. (The socially awkward character of THE DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST isn’t good with people either, but there’s a sense of spiritual calm. He’s not a capable agent but nevertheless a good servant of God. Townsfolk may not think highly of him, but perhaps God looks favorably upon him.) The minister in WINTER LIGHT desperately seeks God alone but agonizes over the silence. A man of the cloth without the voice is an empty suit. He seeks the voice just like the dark soul in THE BLACKCOAT’S DAUGHTER longing for the Devil. He feels abandoned, but then, did he ever hear God? Did it occur to him only later in life that his role as minister is meaningless and phony without contact with God? Is he like a failed scientist in a laboratory coat going through the motions without ever finding any proof of his hypothesis? What is it like to be a Man of God who is ‘shunned’ by God Himself? Sometimes, the chosen are not those who seek. (Salieri in AMADEUS sought God for musical gift, but he was not the chosen.) In contrast, despite the terror of madness, there is at least the voice from the dark side or the devil. In this sense, the minister in WINTER LIGHT is a more pitiable character than the mad daughter in THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY. Her hallucinations grow dark and terrifying, but at least she is in communication with something powerful and beyond banal reality.
The rational/scientific types in Bergman’s films tend to be like Richard Dawkins who, for all his conceit of lifting humanity from ignorance toward the light of reason & science, takes glib pleasure in feeling so superior to 99% of humanity. Personality-wise, Dawkins is a snobbist. Like the preening know-it-all ‘rational’ types in Bergman films, Dawkins gets off accentuating the difference between his highfalutin self and moronic humanity. His form of atheism might as well be called Sneer Studies. He’s like the doctor/scientist in THE FACE(aka THE MAGICIAN). Or consider the scientist in THE SERPENT’S EGG who regards humans as experimental fodder and history as theorem in accordance to some prophetic logic. But because only a select few are sufficiently intelligent to be privy to such truth, it is ultimately a brahmanic science of separateness of those-who-know controlling those-who-don’t-know in the name of making them know what those-who-know know but which can’t be known by most who-don’t-know because, ultimately, those-who-don’t-know also happen to be those-who-can’t-know.
Anyway, even as Bergman sought solitude(relatively speaking, of course, in the most cooperative and public of art forms), he became acutely aware of the impossibility of truth in art. (Indeed, it is interesting that the concept of both 8½ and PERSONA is predicated on the finding-of-art-via-abandonment-of-art. In Fellini’s film, it is upon Guido’s realization that he has nothing to say that he finds something to say. PERSONA is about an artist who finds all forms of communication to be phony and shuts herself from the world, but then, this very ‘shuttening’ served as the basis of what may be Bergman’s best film. Both films are predicated on the confusion of I-don’t-know that results in I-can-show. And yet, that notion can only be a dead-end. It’s not something that can be pulled off again.) All he could do was search alone despite the inevitable dead-ends. To be with people means distractions from the truth. To be alone means the truth of one’s need for company. Welles lacked Bergman’s level of concentration as an artist, but then, his personality and sensibility were altogether different. He was a symphonist than a soloist, a bullfighter-as-master-of-spectacle than a butcher rummaging through organs for portents.
In terms of technique, Bergman was like a gymnast whose every move had to be precise and exact. In terms of theme, he was like wrestler exerting all his strength to pin down some hard-earned truth. Hitchcock’s cinema was like baseball or cricket. Anything is possible but according to strict rules of the game. This is why movies like REAR WINDOW, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, PSYCHO, and THE BIRDS are so jarring. Because Hitchcockian world is one where spatial politics is strictly regulated and observed by civility and manners(closer to British sensibility than the American one of John-Fordian-School-of-Barroom-Brawls-and-open-spaces-trampled-by-John-Wayne-and-gang), a transgression is more than a mere individual act of crime; it is a violation of the order of the universe itself. Consider the parody of the Western in NORTH BY NORTHWEST where Cary Grant’s character, the urbane city-slicker, is dropped in the middle of nowhere and then pursued by an airplane. What makes it especially jarring is the contrast between rules of urbanity and sheer terror from the sky. Or consider how the sexual politics of transgression in THE BIRDS leads the whole world to shake and rattle with the madness of nature unloosed. In cricket and baseball, there is plenty of hitting and running, but one must stick to apportioned spaces. Violation of rules turns Jerusalem into Sodom.
In contrast, Welles’s cinema might be compared to football where the action is far less predictable and wields a greater spectrum between primal brutality and sublime grace. Not for nothing is there a play in football called the ‘hail mary’. While every sport has its unique qualities and strengths, it’s difficult to think of another sport more intensely athletic than American Football, and understandably, Welles the master quarterback became the most revered film-director for his sheer prowess as film-maker.
Anyway, returning to the subject of Louis Malle and his career as both a feature film director and documentary film-maker, one may argue Europeans had a more complex understanding of the relationship(in terms of similarities, differences, convergences, divergences) between the two forms, and that sensibility may have inspired films such as AMERICAN SPLENDOR and BEYOND THE SEA, as well as the works of Charlie Kaufman where ‘non-fiction’ and fiction loophole into one another. While Kevin Spacey’s film about Bobby Darin is what is called a ‘biopic’, it deviates from convention by questioning the meaning of identity, further complicated by Spacey’s conscious self-presentation as yet another ‘identity’ of Darin, which also calls into question Spacey’s own identity because his lifelong obsession with Darin sometimes made him feel he IS Darin. (In a world of Elvis Impersonators, Spacey was fixated on Darin. Now, with the rise of Rap music, imitation has become the core of music culture.) If most biopics affirm the life of a famous celebrity, BEYOND THE SEA questions it(and this cynical aspect of the film may have doomed it at the box office). The notion of ‘based on a true story’ becomes fuzzier as the film is more about Darin the ‘legend’ than legend. Instead of presenting the official legend, it makes us ponder how legends are created and not just by the industry but by individuals who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to weave myths about themselves. Consider how the woman whom Darin had regarded as his sister was really his mother.
Revelations about his personal history makes him question his role as a ‘star’ as well. To the world, he is ‘Bobby Darin’, but to himself, he becomes a question mark.
Kevin Spacey: BEYOND THE SEA
Todd Haynes tried so pull off something similar with I’M NOT THERE(a ‘decon-pic’ about Bob Dylan), but its self-conscious and conceited academism stinks to high heaven, whereas BEYOND THE SEA conveys the themes without turning into a classroom lecture about postmodernism. For all I know, much of BEYOND THE SEA may not be factually true, but then it calls into question the conceit of veracity in movies purporting to be ‘based on a true story’. If the real Bobby Darin didn’t know so much about his true self, how much can we learn from the movie Darin? Furthermore, even if every detail in the film is the result of exacting research, how ‘true’ is it when everyone in the film is an actor? Due to the power of movies, many people will be more likely to associate a certain historical figure with his fictional depiction in movies than to his actual self. I’d wager that most people conflate T.E. Lawrence with Peter O’Toole. (Also, why do we care so much about the private lives of celebrities? After all, our interest in them concerns their roles in arts & entertainment, without which they would be just Ordinary People. Furthermore, even famous people notable for some talent dealt mostly with mundane issues in their daily lives. Then, why are their 'boring' facts of life suddenly interesting or remarkable simply because they are famous for something or other? If two people, one famous and one ordinary, eat apple pies, is it more special when the famous one eats it? But there is nothing more commonplace than people eating pies.)
Oddly enough, fame paradoxically leads to both more lies and more truth. For sake of celebrity, the industry spins false narratives to whitewash the stars. But fame and fandom also attract scrutiny, and the hunt for facts by reporters and biographers often leads to revelations that even the subject himself didn’t even know about: Matters pertaining to his family and the cultural community from which he'd sprung. Thus, the lives of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson became both myth-laden and truth-exposed. The industry protected and promoted them as stars, but reporters and biographers dragged out all sorts of dark secrets from hidden places. (Granted, there are also lots of rumors that are neither preferred myth or verifiable as truth.) Most of us don’t know too much about our lineage or backgrounds, but suppose one of us became famous. Bunch of journalists might dig into our backgrounds and dig up stuff that we ourselves never knew or realized. BEYOND THE SEA, due to its playful auto-subversiveness(as in Oliver Stone’s NIXON and, to a lesser extent, Clint Eastwood’s J. EDGAR) provokes us with questions, whereas most biopics — even the best ones like COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER, RUDY, and RAY — present the stories as affirmations of life.
Thus, BEYOND THE SEA is more than show-and-tell. It is show-and-tell crossed with Charade, Pin-the-Donkey, and Simon Says. Reality isn’t an homily, but that’s what we usually get from ‘Based on a True Story’ movies, hilariously spoofed in MR. SHOW. The ‘uplift’ of ‘Based on a True Story’ movies is meant to be quasi-religious and ‘inspirational’, even make you feel ‘guilty’ if you don’t play along, like the pressure to stand up at sports games for the national anthem. I remember being moved by Richard Attenborough's GANDHI, so much so that I went to see it again the next day. The movie made you feel as if Gandhi was the greatest man that ever lived, but then, few weeks later, the Gandhi-bubble was pricked by an article I read about the Gandhi the man as opposed to ‘saint’, and I felt like a fool for having proselytized it to everyone, as if they could be ‘saved’ by a movie. The disillusion made it difficult to sit through the movie again, and now, it has more value as political comedy than serious history. It now seems the best way to appreciate Gandhi is not as a wiseman, guru, teacher, and prophet but as savvy operator, an Asian-Indian Groucho Marx as master middleman manipulator of Anglo psychology. (That said, given that the West is now under the rule of Jewish globalists and being demographically colonized by the Third World, GANDHI is a timely movie. It is a time when whites must go ‘gandhi’.) Richard Attenborough would go onto make other films ‘based on a true story’, but even Liberals lost interest as CRY FREEDOM, CHAPLIN, and SHADOWLANDS were regarded as both painfully earnest and slyly manipulative, a perverse mixture of holy water and gin.
GANDHI, a spectacle of sanctimony redeemed by Ben Kingley's semi-comic performance.
SHADOWLANDS, a rather nice if sappy movie. Its message is "It's holier to serve a Jew than Christ" or "Serving a Jew is like serving Jesus." The goy studio exec in HAIL, CAESAR! might agree.
I haven’t seen CRY FREEDOM or CHAPLIN, but I did see the sentimental philosemitic SHADOWLANDS. Attenborough is a decent film-maker, but his main interest isn’t truth(problematic because his movies have been ‘based on true stories’) but secular sanctimony. He was the Santa Claus of feel-good Liberalism and atonement of ‘white guilt’. In SHADOWLANDS, the abrasive and manipulative Jewish woman is near-sainted because, well, she is Jewish. One wonders to what extent Attenborough was a wishful sap of piety or a cynical operator who wanted plaudits & prizes from the Jew-run media industry. Given the tricks of human psychology, I suppose he could have been both. After all, the easiest person to fool is yourself.
In a way, it was fitting that he played the visionary oligarch in JURASSIC PARK. A man of good cheer and dreams but also a cunning and cynical manipulator of mass culture. Of course, the real South Africa — in contrast to the dream of presumably a ‘rainbow nation’ in CRY FREEDOM — is turning out like Jurassic Park where the beasts run wild and free, with white folks having to fly away in a copter to save their own skin. Spielberg’s casting of Attenborough was ironic, perhaps even subconsciously so on Spielberg’s part. On the one hand, Spielberg the Jew surely appreciated Attenborough’s ‘white guilt’ complex and Liberal goodwill, but on the other hand, he must have looked upon Attenborough as a self-delusional dupe with no idea what’s really in store for white folks when the shi* hits the fan. (The conceit of superior wit and charm among privileged members of British Society had a way of shielding men-of-brilliance from the full brunt of radical social change. As with Gore Vidal, these wits and charmers are so used to winning the status game with haute disdain or virtue-signaling that they take their vaunted positions for granted, as eternal entitlements. But, as with Arthur Frayn in ZARDOZ when the barbarians overrun the Vortex, the wits will be bloodied and dragged through the streets like all the rest. A Negro with a machete doesn’t care about your wits or manners. In this, the wits and dimwits have something in common. Both are clueless if for different reasons. Consider the dimwit Chance in BEING THERE who thinks he can makes Negroes disappear with a remote control. But then, is it really dumber than the conceit of wits who think their cloistered little world can always be maintained with charm and a wink? Did William F. Buckley’s brand of Conservatism really conserve anything? He had charm that couldn’t undo the harm. Still, at the very least, he saw barbarians for what they were, even if he failed to understand that Jews, despite their intelligence and ability, are really uncouth boors without scruples. Ability isn’t the same as sensibility; credentials aren’t the same as pedigree. More deluded than Buckley are men like Gore Vidal and Liberal wits who fail to understand the full implications of the rise of degeneracy and barbarism. As dissident elites, they see whites and/or the elites as the sole sources of evil and foolishly regard the radicals and Third World mobs as merely useful tools of ‘progress’. They were mostly blind to the horrors of communism until it was too late, and they now sweep the grim reality of new South Africa under the rug simply because, like Chance with the remote, they can.) Though Spielberg is officially a Liberal, his real animating spirit is Jewish tribalism and, as such, is a ruthless rightist(for the interests of his own kind) who spins fairytales before our eyes to make us ‘believe’. SCHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are weak as history, biography, and character study but overwhelming on the visceral level of born-again hyperbolics. Spielberg is a master-manipulator of Christian tropes to dupe goyim into worshiping and serving Jews. His movies’ mixture of shock-brutality and hug-sentimentality has something of Christian mythology that uses horror to drive people toward hope. This is, of course, why Jews hated Mel Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST with such virulence. The main reason wasn’t the supposedly negative depictions of Jewish rabbis but the fact that, in contrast to earlier Jesus movies, it combined shocking brutality with sentimental rapture. It worked on the visceral level that overrode the mind, something that can’t be said for earlier respectable Jesus movies that limited the violence and restrained the element of uplift. One might consider Martin Scorsese’s THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST an exception, but Jews figured it’d be too porny and heretical to be inspiring to Christians. Jews welcomed it as an anti-Christian movie even though Scorsese had no such intention.
Anyway, what do we learn from SCHINDLER’S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? Schindler was redeemed by his love for the Jews, and Jews were a saintly flock, and why would you want to know anything more? What are you, a Nazi, a Holocaust Denier, an anti-Semite? (Even so, those works were still sold as fictionalized accounts of ‘true stories’ whereas something like LIBERATORS by PBS was a staggering piece of mendacious propaganda sold as non-fiction documentary. Unfortunately, even those who knew it was a lie muted their criticism lest they be suspected for ‘antisemitism’. Also, the Jewish network may seek revenge on whistle-blowers just like the culture within the Police Department made it so difficult for Danny Ciello to speak the truth in PRINCE OF THE CITY. For those reasons, Jewish hoaxes are exposed only if some conscientious Jewish social critic or historian calls foul. Apparently, non-Jews are too afraid to say or do anything that might ruffle Jewish feathers, in the same way that so many whites, even conservatives, are afraid to call out on black pathology — it be ‘racist’! — or homo degeneracy — it is ‘homophobic’! Needless to say, even though LIBERATORS was a filthy lie, almost no one knows about it as it’s been flushed down the memory hole. Furthermore, no one involved with the project suffered consequences for having produced or aired such a blatant lie. The main problem in the West is not ‘Holocaust Denial’ but Holocaust Delusion, a phenomenon where the actual tragedy of Shoah is spun to concoct feel-good fantasies on par with Televangelist frauds. The current ‘Russia Hacking’ hysteria is proof of how the Jewish-controlled media and networks will inflame public consciousness with any amount of lunacy to maintain their bogus Narrative as the only permissible one.) Though some ‘Based on a True Story’ movies have the stuff of grit and heart — COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER is a good example — , too many are about converting true stories into pop cults, as in the cases of GANDHI and CRY FREEDOM. Even though Steven Spielberg would like us to believe that his main inspirations come from John Ford, David Lean, Akira Kurosawa and Stanley Kubrick — he is certainly their equal in terms of visual mastery — , his sensibility is drawn mostly from Disney and Attenborough. Though Lean’s LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is more entertainment than history, it portrays a complex and troubled figure of boundless ambition and agonizing doubt. He is both granite and sand. David Lean and Robert Bolts’s telling is inspired but not 'inspirational'. Like Anthony Mann’s EL CID, it is for tough adult sensibilities than for childlike sensitivities. Lean’s tragic sense walks the tightrope between will and fate, but in the end, history is bigger than any man, and something mysterious is bigger than history. Lawrence gained mastery over a burning match, and he sees Arabia as one big match over which he shall test his will. But even as he triumphs in body, he is left parched of soul and identity. He has proven a man can write history but at what cost to himself? No one walks away from films like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, RYAN’S DAUGHTER, and PASSAGE TO INDIA with clear answers. The ending of DOCTOR ZHIVAGO may be the most hopeful among Lean epics, which is rather odd given its historical setting is the most violent and murderous of all Lean films. Even so, Bolt and Lean must have appreciated the bitter irony of Lara crossing Zhivago’s path once again only to miss him. It’s like the elusive Rosebud in CITIZEN KANE. Just as no one will know what Kane meant by ‘rosebud’, no one will know why Zhivago died as he did there and then. For most Russians, the main tragedy is that a great poet died. For Zhivago in his final moment, the greater tragedy is he failed to meet Lara once more. And yet, could a poet have met a more poetic death? There is a kind of ‘justice’ in that ‘wrong’. It’s a Deep Sadness buried within the General Sadness. (It’s like the private sadness hidden within the souls of characters in Kurosawa’s RED BEARD, one that is more piercing and incurable than the general sadness of poverty and disease.) In contrast to the bitter tragedy of DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, there is the heart-warming reunion in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE between David and ‘mommy’, and yet, that is one time when Spielberg reached heights of tragedy because the reunion is a fantasy, like cinema itself.
In contrast to Lean’s approach, Attenborough presented Gandhi as a saintly sage — even though, between the frames, Ben Kinsley seems more prankster than leader — about whom we are supposed to feel so uh-goshy about. (Does any of this matter anymore? When GANDHI was released, UK still had a sense of its distinct place in history despite having undergone the great cultural transformations of the 60s and 70s. Also, the overwhelming number of Brits were native whites. Since then, UK, especially London, has been remade almost entirely by soulless ‘conservative’ yuppie materialism, working class degeneracy & decline — not least due to the toxic effect of punk culture —, and mass colonization by Pakistanis and blacks, along with the spread of black rap culture. The overall effect is amnesia, loss of distinctness, and obsession with Afromania & jungle fever. The official idolatry of UK is promotion of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, indeed even retroactively by casting black actors to play historic British and European figures. Movies like GANDHI and CHARIOTS OF FIRE of the early 1980s still tugged at themes and emotions more serious than blings, gangsta attitudes, jungle jive, and wanton hedonism. I can’t imagine either film having any relevance now when most people are addicted to pornification of mainstream culture, jungle fever among white women, and wussy cuckery among white men. Also, in a sports-and-pop-music drenched culture, history means little because history encompasses humanity. The rules of Pop Culture and Mammonic Idolatry see value only in those who hog all the trophies and prizes of Sports and Pop. In the Age of Idol-worship, there is no place for humanity. Worse, the main idols of the West are no longer white but black. Manhood is owned by black athletes, spirituality is hogged by MLK & Mandela, and womanhood is about white women imitating black dancers and having black babies. Jews want it that way, of course, in order to break the spine of white identity and power. Thus, the Brazilization of UK.) In 1993, Spielberg cast Attenborough in JURASSIC PARK and cast Kingley-Gandhi as Holocaust Jew in SCHINDLER’S LIST. It was shamelessly hokey even if Kingsley, as usual, turned in a fine performance. Most Americans rely on movies and TV to fill in the blanks of their historical knowledge, and even those who still read have little choice but to read books published by Jewish oligarchs who totally control the book industry. Before SCHINDLER’S LIST, most Americans associated Jewish history with the DIARY OF ANNE FRANK and the TV mini-series THE HOLOCAUST. In middle school, we were required to watch HOLOCAUST and MASADA. For most Americans(and people all over the world), what they see in movies and TV is history. And even for skeptics and cynics, certain images from the screen stick to memory and subtly affects the way they see the world. (Also, there is no guarantee that smarter and better-educated people will champion the truth over falsehood. If anything, they often relish the power of media control to manipulate masses of dummies deemed to possess childlike hearts and minds. Especially Jews feel this way about ‘dumb gentiles’. After all, why promote truth and intelligence when ‘dumb gentiles’ might ‘misuse’ them or pose critical challenges to Jewish Power? It’s safer for Jewish power to treat the masses like childish dummies who deserve mindless propaganda than thoughtful provocation. Also, even among well-meaning smart people working in the media, their sense of Higher Truth has less to do with hard facts than holy faith in the icons and idols fed to them in their formative years. So, even as they know the facts about MLK, they stick to the ‘legend’ and myth of the Civil Rights Movement because it made them weep like boo-boo babies as young ones. After all, who hasn’t read TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD in school?) It’s like when many people of my generation thinks of slavery, the images from ROOTS come flooding into their consciousness. Thus, true or false, accurate or inaccurate, TV and movies define how we ‘remember’ history.
Often, movie or TV trumps actuality. When most Americans think of General Patton, it is George C. Scott than the actual figure. And when we think of Muslims, images of stock Hollywood terrorists fill our minds.
One of the films that oft-aired on PBS in the late 70s and early 80s was JULIA(directed by Fred Zinnemann) from Lillian Hellmans’ PENTIMENTO, which, as it turns out, should have been called Sentimento or Dementimento. Hellman was a vile(and unattractive) Jewess, but I didn’t know anything back then except that she was played by the attractive and statuesque Jane Fonda. I recall watching it several times and being affected by it(even powerfully), and I thought the story must be mostly true since what kind of a sick freak would lie about something like that? Then, about a decade and half later, while reading Paul Johnson’s INTELLECTUALS I found out that Hellman was a dirty Stalinist bitch liar. Now, I’m no fan of Johnson, a big liar himself, and INTELLECTUALS is often ridiculous(including even Ernest Hemingway as an ‘intellectual’), but the chapter on Hellman opened my eyes about the odious woman and made me feel not unlike a fool. You know those old cartoons where someone stares in the mirror and sees the face of an ass/donkey? It’s how I felt because I’d trusted PBS(as the provider of quality TV) and Jews as tragic & noble people, but such discoveries(of how an entire network of Jews conspired to spread lies and half-truths through the media, academia, arts, and culture) raised key questions about the nature of Jewish power. How was a vile creature like Hellman able to get away with so much rot, that is until the courageous Mary McCarthy finally blew the lid off the tawdry, lying, and self-aggrandizing witch. Though it would be wrong to say most Jewish women are as bad as Hellman, her type is all-too-common in the media, academia, law, and government. They pretend to defend value and principles but have no qualms about pulling every dirty trick in the book to push a radical agenda, promote the Tribe, and/or prime the ego. They are opportunistic, cynical, and fanatical in their words and action. Now, if Hellman had altered a few details to spice up her material for dramatic effect, that would have been one thing. Instead, she fabricated an entire story of how she’d been involved, at considerable risk to her own life, with some clandestine network in Germany to lend support to the anti-Nazi underground and save dissidents. I mean it takes a special kind of liar and bullshitter to pull off something on that scale, but evidently Jewish Hollywood saw fit to produce such a film, and the Jewish Fred Zinnemann(the talent behind HIGH NOON and FROM HERE TO ETERNITY fame) saw fit to direct it, and the Jewish-controlled PBS ran it ever so often. I must have seen it at least five times on PBS. This is the Tribe that, for the longest time, made endless denials about Jewish leftist involvement in espionage for the USSR. Jews, who’d never come clean about their involvement in massive spying for Stalin’s empire(while impugning anti-communists as ‘paranoid’ and ‘hysterical’), are now in total control of the government and using the NSA and other institutions to spy on all of us, ostensibly in the name of defending America from terrorism. (And, if at least McCarthy and HUAC were essentially correct about Soviet espionage, the current Jewish Power that rules America cooks up total fantasies about Russia Threat to prevent good relations between Russians and White Americans. According to Jews, Russian-ness is a bigger threat to America than communism ever was. Jews are totally into Anti-Slavicist mode.) Non-Jews trusting Jews is like chicken trusting fox in the hen-house. In a similar vein, even though I don’t know the entire truth about Elie Wiesel — who, btw, gave false account in LIBERATORS, relating a story that was too good to be true — , the sheer preponderance of Jewish lies about everything — their involvement in communism, tribal networking to promote Hellman, and etc. — makes me wonder about his claims as a Holocaust Survivor. And consider how powerful Jews around the world pulled strings to protect Roman Polanski and allow him to live with wealth and privilege. Though Jews demand that every Nazi criminal be brought to justice, they’d throw a fit if anyone suggested Jewish communists and Zionist imperialists be called to account too. Jews still bitch about Wasp power and ‘white privilege’, but if you mention Jewish power and Jewish privilege, the entire media network circles the wagons and blasts you as a ‘Nazi’ and ‘anti-Semite’. And American conservatives, browbeaten to playing running dogs to neocon Zionists, just bark along to the instructions of their masters.
JULIA came out in 1977, and the feud erupted between Hellman and McCarthy in 1980, but if McCarthy hadn’t raised a fuss, the movie might still be highly regarded as an inspiring tragedy about a woman of enviable courage and nobility. (Granted, the movie is even dishonest about the extent to which Hellman was a shill of Stalinism. It has a scene where she is shown yawning during a Soviet Theater production, as if to suggest she was too intelligent and sophisticated for such State Propaganda. Apparently, her service to Stalinism was as a reluctant well-meaning idealist than a dogmatic true believer.) Jane Fonda, the wanna-be ‘radical’ dolt, was more than willing to whore herself out to the Jewish Left. But the McCarthy-Hellman feud ruptured certain myths about Hellman, and her reputation never recovered since then. (Intellectual types will support and protect fellow elitists who lie and cheat against The Enemy — consider all the foulness tolerated by the Elite Set in regard to Trump, Deplorables, and the Alt Right — , but they will think twice about defending one of their own suing another of their own.) For Hellman, Mary McCarthy proved to be more dangerous than Joe McCarthy. Mary McCarthy was of a generation that had yet to behold Jews in quasi-spiritual reverence, but even so, hers was a gutsy act given the formidable support Hellman had on her side. Of course, McCarthy could sound off more freely because she had all the proper political credentials — she was a left-liberal who also belonged to influential circles. If she’d been someone like Phyllis Schlafly, the Jewish Establishment would have made a greater effort to protect Hellman and destroy McCarthy’s reputation. Maybe it was McCarthy’s Irish blood that made her feisty, plus the fact that she was 1/4 Jewish, accounting for her chutzpah. Anyway, if not for the famous feud between McCarthy and Hellman, the latter would be a far more respected figure today.
Of course, things are completely insane in the current reality. Jewesses with the (lack of)character of Hellman can spew any amount of lies, and almost no one will dare call her on it. (Consider the filth and vileness that endlessly spew forth from the likes of Jennifer Rubin and Emily Bazelon in the media. Consider how Sabrina Rubin Erdely could have gotten away with the Hoax of the 21st Century if not for Internet Sleuths.) Jews now have supremacist power, Jews are now revered & obeyed(via the Holy Holocaust as the Neo-Religion), and Jews stick together. In contrast, there is no meaningful white goy unity because too many have been raised with mindless Jew-worship and/or because they are deathly afraid of Jewish Power that can destroy them. Even a casual remark about Jewish power got Rick Sanchez fired and blacklisted from MSM. Helen Thomas got canned after decades of working as a top journalist simply because she said European Zionist-Imperialist Jews should go back to whence they came. Of course, it would have been fine if she’d said Christian Europeans have no right to colonize non-white lands or that Chinese should return Tibet to the Tibetans. Scum like Jennifer Rubin can bark like a mad bitch and destroy the reputation/career of a conservative like Jason Richwine whose great ‘crime’ was having done a study on the differences in IQ among the races. Jews can bitch and call for blood; they announce witch-hunting seasons, they have lots of people censored and blacklisted, and yet, Jews flatter themselves as ‘tolerant liberals’ and defenders of truth and freedom.
Even though many Jews were undoubtedly upset with Hellman and came around to seeing her real self at last, she had many defenders to the end(and still do so to this day). Also, even Jews who were upset with her absence of character and lapses in judgement were surely perturbed that such a high priestess of Jewish Cultural Life could be tarnished so badly. In the paranoid Jewish mind, PENTIMENTO-denial could be a prelude to Holocaust-Denial. Therefore, it seems the main lesson for Jews from the McCarthy-Hellman affair was NOT the need for greater integrity honesty but for more safeguards to prevent such thing happening again to a prominent Jewish figure. Since then, Jews perfected the art of circling the wagons against anyone who dares to challenge the reputation of a Great Jew.

Anyway, the lesson gentiles must take from the Jewish Way of Political Warfare is that mutuality is key in dealing with the Other, especially if it is potentially a formidable rival/enemy. Though all sides should IDEALLY strive for honorable fair play, any group-strategy must consider the context of the situation. One must sling mud with the mud-slingers and go low with the low-blowers. While it’s despicable to cheat in sports and NO ONE should cheat — ideally, if someone on your side is cheating, you should call out on the transgressor — , if the other side has adopted cheating as its core strategy, it won’t be so wise to keep playing squeaky clean and honorable. (This is even truer if the referee is biased or corrupt, calling every foul, real or imagined, on your side while ignoring the fouls on the other side.) Now, such a scenario doesn’t mean that your side should cheat against all sides. Rather, the attitude should be on a one-on-one basis. Stay high with those who stay high, go low with those who go low. If a certain team has a long-running policy of cheating(without shame), then the only ‘moral’ option is to counter-cheat against THAT particular team. ‘Necessary Evil’ is sometimes the only good. Play it by ear(though, unfortunately, it is difficult to adjust one’s strategy in a world of global competition; in cheating against the cheater, one could easily develop the habit of cheating even against those who don’t cheat). Since Gypsies are incorrigible cheaters and crooks, Europeans should shelve the notion of ‘fair play’ and deal with them harshly. Since migrant-invaders from the Middle East and Africa come to leech off Europeans, there should be no sentimentality or sense of honor in dealing with such people, all of whom should be rounded up and sent back home. And since too many Jews in the West chutzpastically cheat, lie, swindle, subvert, and spread toxicity on an industrial scale, the ideal of ‘fair play’ with them can only be a dopey pipe-dream. (The current situation is especially untenable because Jews, though acting like gangster-sociopaths, present themselves as ethical betters and moral models. Despite all their sadism, parasitism, and destructiveness in service of supremacist-tribalism[that is both petty and megalomaniacal], Jews deign to sermonize about ‘compassion’ and ‘universal rights’. It’s like crazy people as arbiters of sanity and sobriety. When the crazy[as a holy-schmoly people] are allowed to determine what is ‘real’, even non-crazy people[as pliable sheeple] fall under the spell; it is all the more reason why no individual or group should be ‘sacralized’, thus made above-criticism and an object of blind reverence. While certain individuals are extraordinary and certain groups have achieved more than most, people are not angels[and certainly not gods] and shouldn’t be regarded as such by humanity. Notice how Jews express zero culpability for all the harm their hegemonic power has done to nations like Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria, BUT they throw moral tantrums as if they and only they know what is ‘good’ for all peoples of the world. They go about this in such maniacal manner that they’ve come to believe in their own lies. According to Jews, truth is subjective than objective. If THEY insist something is true, it must be true because THEY said it. For Jews, ‘truth’ is more a matter of who/whom that what/where. Consider the Jewish-Supremacist Yinon-ist BS about how the US military must remain in Syria for the sake of the Kurds. Right, Jews really go to bed every night weeping about the Kurds! [Interesting that these ‘humanitarian’ Jews never call for US intervention to protect Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank from invasive Zionist caravans or the IDF death squads.] The West has a serious problem when psychotic Jewish gangsters & their globo-homo minions own the pedestal of Official Morality. Just imagine if we looked to the Mafia as our moral arbiters, betters, and instructors. Jews have become the godfathers of America. We must bow before them and kiss their rings. It has resulted in lunacies such as ‘gay marriage’, rap-music-as-jeremiad, and pornification of culture as ‘liberation’ and ‘empowerment’.) It’s like what Sean Connery’s character says in THE UNTOUCHABLES. You can’t fight fair with gangsters, thugs, and criminals. They will not fight man-to-man by Queensberry Rules. They will bring a knife to a fight, so you must bring a gun. Such is the ONLY way to deal with Jews(though Jews feel likewise tenfold in their eternal distrust of and contempt for goyim); problem is Jews consider as ‘fair play’(what others deem as foul) on grounds that Jews, as a people of superior wit and strategy, deserve dominance over ‘soulless dimwit goyim’ by hook or by crook. Jews feel that goyim not only lack intelligence but soul itself because, if indeed goyim really do possess souls, why was there a need for them to ‘steal’ God and the Sacred Narrative from the Jews to have blessedness for themselves? Why must goyim, as Christians or Muslims, leech off the spiritual prophecy, imagination, and heritage of the Jews? So, just as humans are not obligated to treat animals as equals, Jews don’t feel moral obligation to treat goyim as equals. Indeed, regarding goyim as equals is an affront, even blasphemy, to the cosmic order as Jews understand it. Just as most people look askance on humans who embrace animals as equals, Jews feel queasy about ‘excessively’ idealistic Jews who regard non-Jews as moral/spiritual equals. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all Jews believe goyim should be treated like slaves or animals, even though plenty of Jews do feel that way. There are Good Jews who believe that goyim should be treated decently, just like Good People believe animals should be treated with kindness or slaughtered with least cruelty. Good Jews favor decency toward goyim, whereas Bad Jews feel contempt for goyim, but BOTH GROUPS share the overall perception that goyim are inferior to Jews, just like even Good Southern Plantation Owners who strove to treat blacks with decency nevertheless regarded black slaves as inferior beings whose main purpose was to serve the white man. It’s like, even though Good People pet their dogs while Bad People kick their dogs, both groups believe dogs can never be the equals of humans. Alas, even Good Jews more-often-than-not side with Bad Jews because they fear the Goyim will grow uppity in defiance than remain browbeaten in deference. From the perspective of Good Jews, all members of the Tribe should ideally strive to be kind toward Goyim, that is if and only if the Goyim could be trusted to be ‘good’, which is to say remaining-obedient-loyal-reverential-to-their-Jewish-Masters. But, just like God found much of humanity disobedient and deserving of punishment, even Good Jews can’t help feeling that most goyim, given their natural instincts, will ultimately choose ‘badness’ over ‘goodness’ and sin against Jews, Good and Bad, with pitchforks to carry out another Shoah. So, even though Good Jews want to treat Good Goyim with kindness and call out on the viciousness of Bad Jews, they feel they’ve no choice but to make common cause with Bad Jews against Goyim, most of whom are condemned to be more bad than good; it’s like, even though Good White Slave-Owners were troubled by the behavior of Bad White Slave-Owners, they nevertheless sided, when push came to shove, with fellow white slave-owners against blacks who might rise up and act violent. For Jews, idealism has value only among themselves, the people with true souls. When dealing with goyim, Jews believe idealism must be strategy than principle, the trick being to load goy minds with do-goody naivete while Jews pull every trick in the book to gain more leverage, i.e. Jews fake ideals over the table with goyim while making deals under the table among themselves. Jews cheat shamelessly without remorse. They are like Greeks or Southern Italians with hyper-brains. I wouldn’t trust a Greek or Southern Italian, but at least I know his kind isn’t going to be controlling Wall Street, government, top law firms, Ivy League schools, and etc. anytime soon, or will it be making us worship them as an Eternally tragic-magic people. But Jews not only control those institutions/industries and then some, but they possess an ethnic nature and historical memory that encourage them to see goyim as lesser beings who must be put in their place. (This is why Jews have a special hatred for ‘Aryans’. Jewish women feel this animus even more strongly because women are more looks-conscious. Aryan Beauty is an affront to the Judeo-centric view of the cosmos. If God chose the Jews, then Jews must be the central race of humanity. By rights, Jews should be not only the most intelligent but the most beautiful. And yet, Jews can’t help thinking that God made the Aryans more attractive. But why? How could this be? Thus, Jews have a love/hate thing with Aryan Beauty. They want it but also can’t stand the fact that it is of the Other, the non-Chosen. So, one part of Jewishness seeks to destroy it by promoting race-mixing, especially with blacks. Janis Ian, the Jewish hag of the song "At Seventeen" that seethes with envy over Aryan Beauty, also recorded a song promoting white/black interracism. Jewish women especially push this because Aryan female beauty drives them crazy with envy. Some Jews want to race-mix with Aryan and steal some of that beauty for the Semites, and they figure WHY NOT when the 'Aryans' stole the God of the Jews. Indeed, the most popular Jewish female celebrities in Israel tend to look more European than Semitic. But even as Jews want Aryan Beauty destroyed, they know it has great commercial value, and so, they’ve turned whiteness from an identity to a commodity. An identity belongs to a particular people, whereas commodity is sold on the marketplace. If whites are commodity, they are little more than dairy products to be sold to other races... by Jewish merchant-masters of course; indeed, Hollywood pioneered just that, the commerce where Jews own the white image, just like Tyrell owned the more-human-than-human replicants in BLADE RUNNER. Whiteness-as-commodity cannot be solely owned by whites, no more than milk is owned by cows that produce it. Commodification of Whiteness is the New White Slavery, just like Jews use gambling as the New Confiscation and use pornography as the New Prostitution carried out electronically in a media controlled by Jews.)

There was a sci-fi-themed TV episode long ago of some alcoholic guy who, while driving drunk, had killed someone who was a relative or close friend of the doctor who is treating the alcoholic. Basically, the doctor plants a tiny ‘monster’ in the stomach of the alcoholic, and this creature grows bigger and causes increasing agony whenever alcohol enters the gut. Otherwise, it remains quiet and dormant inside the patient. So, if the alcoholic drinks again, the monster grows bigger and wreaks more havoc in the stomach, eventually leading to death. But if the patient remains a teetotaler, the monster remains in hibernation and can’t do him much harm. This is how Jews(as ‘doctors’) regard white goyim(as ‘alcoholics’). Because Jews believe that white goyim murdered all those wonderful Jews — like the alcoholic driver killed an innocent victim — under the intoxication of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism’, the monster-creature of White Guilt has been planted inside the soul-bowels of white folks. Thus, whenever whites dare to take a sip of ideas or sentiments that may contain ‘antisemitic’ content, their hearts and brains have been made to feel paroxysms of self-loathing and self-disgust. (Of course, Jews seek to turn whites both more ‘sober’ and more ‘drunk’. Whites mustn’t lose themselves to the racial-tribal spirits and instead be led on the narrow path of sober righteousness alert to the dangers of ‘racism’. Whites are told that white emotions + white ideas is like drinking + driving. Yet, in another way, Jews seek to get whites addicted to the wild passions of degeneracy and decadence, especially with drugs and Afro-adulation. Now, if white passion is so dangerous, why do Jews encourage whites to act wild and crazy in certain ways? Because passion without tribal and/or moral direction leads to disorientation and dissipation. It’s like the White Man feared Indian Braves with tomahawks inflamed with tribal pride but was eager to get Indians drunk on firewater. Drunk Indians may have been just as wild as Warrior Indians, but if warrior passion is directed outward at the enemy, wino passion in directed inward toward self-destruction. Then, it shouldn’t surprise us that while Jews take away the bottle of white identity, they supply the bottle of white degeneracy. Jews also push an inversion of values so that the sober becomes the ‘new intoxication’ while being drunk becomes the ‘new sobriety’. Jews screech that White Awakening of identity is ‘irrational’ and insist whites should guzzle down PC to become ‘woke’. And Jews say whites surrendering themselves to gambling, drugs, and sexual degeneracy is 'liberation' and ‘empowerment’. Jewish Logic would have us believe that Miley Cyrus is the most serious and sensible white person alive.) Political Correctness is a form of neo-Prohibitionism. Certain ideas and outlooks are said to be ‘odious’, ‘noxious’, and ‘toxic’, indeed to be handled as if they are dangerous liquid/gaseous substances. The only thing white gentiles are allowed to imbibe is Holocaust Juice, Magic Negro shake, and Milk of ‘Fagnesium’(as antidote to the reeking beer keg of ‘homophobia’). Of course, Jews would have been nasty and manipulative even without the Holocaust(as history and narrative), but it has been most invaluable as an arsenal in PC Neo-Prohibitionism. Jews see white folks as inveterate alcoholics who, if allowed another sip of white racial consciousness, will turn into mobs with torches and pitchforks marching to town to tear Jews from limb from limb. Jews refuse to consider the possibility that such passions, though certainly out-of-control at times(and utterly so during WWII among Nazi Germans), are often reactions to Jewish foulness, i.e. there is enough blame to go around among Jews and whites alike. If one could demonstrate that Jews are indeed perfect and saintly, we would have to agree that ‘antisemitism’ is totally wrong, but the reality of Jewish behavior throughout history and especially in current America indicates otherwise. (Paradoxically, the US has proven the validity of ‘antisemitism’ by having been the least ‘antisemitic’ nation’. Anglo-made US allowed Jews to rise rapidly to the top with far less discrimination than in the Old World. This super-success has made us see the Real Jew at Last. A general rule-of-thumb says the True Nature of someone or some people doesn’t emerge until he or they gain supreme power, the ultimate position to do pretty much as he or they please. In the movie ALL ABOUT EVE, the aspiring star conceals her true character, that is until she rises above all those who’d unwittingly aided her out of sympathy or condescension. Then, she betrays and shits on everyone. She was passive/aggressive until she accumulated enough star power to be aggressive/aggressive. Men like Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong could seem modest/moderate when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles on their paths to power. Their true nature emerged ONLY AFTER they made it to the top. Because the Old World denied Jews the top position, Jews had to moderate their behavior so as not to rock-the-boat too much. One possible exception was in the USSR where many Jewish communists rose to top positions. With great power, they unleashed an orgy of bloodbath against Christian Slavs. Still, Jewish communists had to be communists first and Jews second. It was in the US that Jews were able to rise to the top as Proud Jews. But even in the US, prior to their ascension to the uppermost echelons of power, Jews were careful not to seem too pushy, contemptuous, and megalomaniacal. But now, with near-monopolistic control of finance, media, academia, and much else, Jews can do pretty much as they choose. As such, we got to See the Real Jew At Last, and it has been exposed as most monstrous. Seeing the Real Jew At Last, we know that the so-called ‘Anti-Semites' through the ages were more right than wrong about the Tribe. True nature of something emerges only when it has gained the world. What is finally bared is the naked lust for power in place of a soul. The figure of Jeffrey Epstein is emblematic of our satanic age. He wasn't just some lone pervert but was enabled by the Tribal Network. Granted, one could argue that the nature of something CHANGES as it gains power. While some people may conceal a long-held agenda of total-control UNTIL they gain total power, others may not initially nurse such ambitions but develop them along the way to power, as the logic of power makes one crave more and more. Take Modern Japan. For centuries, Japanese were focused on shutting out the rest of the world and minding their own business. Initially, Japan modernized only to protect itself from Western Imperialists. But as it kept gaining in power and prestige, a new power-dynamics took over the mindset of Japan that just had to have more and more, finally planning to control all of Asia. Japanese once again got over-ambitious in the 1980s when its economy seemed poised to overtake that of the US. But Japanese seem to feel that way only when they get lucky with sudden flushes of wealth or power. When things go south, they revert to focusing on their own nation and culture. In contrast, Jewish agenda of total-domination can be traced back thousands of years to the Covenant.)
There is a historic pattern of Jews gaining notoriety for foul and devious behavior all over the world. It’s no wonder Jews rely so much on irrational ‘white guilt’ to maintain grip over whites. If whites developed a rational view of Jews, they wouldn't think like Mike Pence the worthless cuck. Once the scales fall from their eyes, whites will freely call out on Jewish corruption & collusion and denounce the Jewish agenda of humiliating, subverting, and dehumanizing the white race. Paradoxically, Jews are now safest in those parts of the world where they'd historically been most despised, distrusted, and perhaps most persecuted(though we have to keep in mind that few if any Jews lived outside the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe for most of human history. Somehow, I highly doubt if Jews would have made themselves any more welcome(in the long run)to Hawaiian tribesmen, Aztec warlords, Mongolian horsemen, Japanese samurai, Zulu warriors, or some such because all those goyim would have realized that Jews are up to no good — not content with mere tolerance and opposed to assimilation, Jews would have pulled every trick in the book to gain dominance over goyim by gaining financial, intellectual, and moral control over the elites: Change the goy mind and the goy body will usually follow. Historically, Jews preferred to do business where the locals worshiped the same God(of Abraham) as the commonality let the Jews slip their foot through the door. Even with the Muslim disdain and Christian demonization of Jews, worship of the same God and shared allusions to Biblical narratives allowed for some degree of appreciation between Jews and Christians/Muslims.
Anyway, because Jews did periodically suffer in the past( and went through real hell in the Shoah) — , they’ve played on ‘white guilt’ as a special kind of Sin to browbeat white folks into bowing before Jews as neo-christs. But Jews have no comparable moral leverage against other races and nations, and so, they cannot manipulate them in the same manner. (Jewish power over non-white lands is the result of Jewish power over the US. Jews can use US might to levy sanctions or militarily threaten other nations. Consider what Jews made the US to do Iran. As the US is the lone superpower, even non-white nations have to come to terms with American policy as Jews define it. Even though US is now said to be post-white-dominant and pro-Diversity, the real power is with Jews who pushed Diversity as a weapon against whites to secure Jewish supremacism. When Jews speak of the wonders of Diversity, they don’t mean power should be shared equally or proportionally among diverse groups but that Jewish Power shall manipulate Diversity to shame and suppress whites.) So today, Jews feel safest and most privileged in places where they were once met with the most suspicion and hostility but are far less powerful and influential in places with little or no history of ‘antisemitism’. Furthermore, Jews were never eager to move away from ‘antisemitic’ white nations to non-white territories. Even Jewish refugees who sailed on the ocean liner St. Louis refused to dock in the Dominican Republic(even though they were given permission) and chose to sail back to Europe despite the Nazi threat. Indeed, if Jews love non-whites so much and loathe whites, why don’t they just leave white nations and emigrate to non-white ones, especially since Jews say constant migration is natural and wonderful? Wouldn’t that be easier than to bring tons of non-whites over to white nations? Of course, what Jews really want is to live in white nations and exploit white people, all the while importing non-white immigrant-invaders to play divide-and-rule among white goyim and non-white goyim.

Because Jewish power maneuvers like virus, bacteria, and rodents, one must maintain one’s guard at all times. Just because you feel pity for something in a sad state doesn’t mean it won’t spring back to action with special virulence. Take the Canadian Geese for example. At one time, they faced extinction, and many people in North America were concerned about the species. Would they go the way of the passenger pigeon? So, when the geese made a great comeback, people were happy to see them in the skies once again, but then, the bountiful geese began to shit all over and make a mess of parks, affecting recreation and business. Facing what seemed like precipitous decline, the geese looked so helpless, but their dramatic comeback made it all too clear the limit to which mankind can co-exist with nature-kind. Now, not all organisms are so virulent and aggressive. American Indians are a defeated people and in a sad state, but even if the US government and people were to shower them with special treatment and care, it's hardly likely that the stolid and rigid Indians will amount to much. In contrast, some groups are especially virulent and tireless in their aggression, adventurousness, and/or lust for domination. American Indians took pity on the first Anglo settlers who faced starvation, but it proved to be a big mistake. Adventurous and ambitious Anglos came in larger numbers and took over. Give Jews an inch, and they will take a mile and then a thousand miles. Let starving black Africans into your country, and soon, they will be running wild like blacks in Australia. And Somalis in Minnesota turned out to be a disaster. Instead of showing gratitude, the obnoxious East Africans just demand more and more.

Suppose all rats died but a few. We might look upon the few surviving members as pitiable and harmless, and we’d think, "What harm could such few tiny creatures do?" So, suppose the few surviving rats are allowed to run free, but guess what? Within a few yrs, they’re all over the planet causing all sorts of problems again. Jewish power is like Gremlins gone wild. Though Jews are not huge in number, there are still millions of them in the world, and they have a ratty-radical and virulent natures that won't leave other peoples alone. American Indians are like opossums that just want to be left alone, whereas Jews are like rats that want to gnaw into every house. Jews don’t merely maintain their own communities but seek out networks of information, finance, laws, and trade to gain control over other peoples. Of course, Jews use paralysis to further their parasitism. After all, it’d be more difficult for Jews to take over if the goyim react to the threat with alarmism. Via control of information, Jews seek to put goyim at ease with assurance that Jews mean no harm and come bearing gifts. But lest goyim refuse to be hoodwinked by the Jewish Hustle, Jews use the method of paralysis: Burden of Guilt. Then, it’s no wonder that the icon of the Holocaust is none other than Anne Frank, a pale and innocent-looking girl who wouldn’t hurt a fly(though it must be said she sort of looks like child-Hitler-gone-tranny). If the Icon of Jewishness were a full-grown globalist elite — a rich businessman, powerful bureaucrat, influential banker, fiery radical, or etc. — , we might be less likely to see Jews as helpless victims. But, just stare at the pale and gentle face of Anne Frank, a mere girl on the verge of blossoming into womanhood. Ban the 'antisemitic tropes' and make philosemitic idol-worship compulsory. Thus, animus against Jews is made almost synonymous with hatred innocent children, which is rather amusing since it’s hard to think of another people who are as Anti-Innocence as the Jews are. From a young age, Jews are made to think critically(for the Tribe, against the Goyim) and show allegiance to no one but fellow Jews; Jews may forge temporary alliances with non-Jews but allegiance must be to the Tribe only. Indeed, Jews often mock dumb Christians for their earnest goodwill and culture of trust. Consider Larry David’s attitude toward two earnest Catholic women with simple ‘innocent’ faith in an episode of CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM. He finds it hilarious that the dimwit goyesses would mistake his urine for the miraculous tears of Jesus. What goyim may admire as being pure-of-heart, Jews disdain as dim-of-mind. Jews certainly know that Anne Frank was no ‘innocent’ child. She was a smart precocious girl with a keen eye and probing mind. She was an innocent victim of the Nazis, but she wasn’t of an innocent personality(as most intelligent Jews aren’t), whereas even lots of smart white goyim tend to be naively trusting and simpleminded in their good will. Though Anne Frank was a genuine victim, the manner in which the Jewish media made her the face of Shoah victim-hood is more than a bit dubious. It certainly spread the false impression that Jewish victims in World War II were mostly innocent maidens like Young Ann. Countless whites, especially girls from a young age, came to worship at the altar of Anne Frank than identify with their own kind — but then, for 2,000 yrs, the Man most whites came to worship as the Son of God was a heretical Jew — ; they failed to understand that, while the Shoah was a horrible tragedy, Jews have indeed always been a dangerous, aggressive, subversive, and nasty people(as well as a great and profound one). Even if Jews didn’t deserve something as extreme as the Holocaust, there’s no getting around the fact that they’d done so many bad things that fueled the ire of goyim. It was never the case that Jews were always pure-as-snow innocent and that goyim, wherever Jews went, just burst in paroxysms of ‘irrational antisemitic’ fury for no reason. Similarly, humanity would certainly be overreacting if they tried to wipe out all rats, but there is a reason why people dislike like rats. It’s not due to mindless ‘anti-ratitism’. Rats do cause property damage and spread disease. Though the Nazi comparison of Jews to rats was rightfully deemed notorious, who can deny that Jewish Power gnaws, psychologically and physically, at the defenses of other peoples’ cultural/national domains AND spreads cultural pollution far and wide? Of course, given that there have been many intellectual giants among Jews, the spread of Jewish ideas, culture, and values have done much good for the world as well. Also, Jews like Jesus, Karl Marx, and Simone Weil were consciously trying to go against the Jewish grain of morality-for-us and immorality-against-the-other. There has been a bright side to Jewish influence. As there was a bright and dark side to German intellectual/cultural influence, the same has been true of Jews. Nietzsche was both a great thinker and a dangerous charlatan. Wagner was both a great artist and mad shaman who unleashed dark energies; it must be said his NIBELUNGEN and PARSIFAL, as epics pitting the Aryan Spirit vs the Jewish Spite, proved to be hugely prophetic in the following century where the fate of the world was decided in Gotterdammerung-like World War II where Aryan Warriors were pitted against Jewish Wizards. Otto von Bismarck was both a great statesman and a cynical manipulator who sowed the seeds of future crisis. If we can see both the good and bad sides of Germanism, we must do the same with Jewism. Jews, like all great peoples, have been both a blessing and curse upon mankind. Paradoxically, all Great Peoples are bound to be hated with special virulence due to unmet expectations, the distance between the reputation and reality. Because of their said greatness, humanity may expect most members of the group to be full of wisdom, justice, and kindness, only to realize that even a Great People are mostly made up of deeply flawed individuals — also, greatness is often the product of extreme struggle and boundless ambition that are hardly on the side of angels; many great artists have been total a**holes. Christians have been a deep disappointment too. If one reads the New Testament, one might think Christians are all about love and forgiveness as followers of a great religion of compassion. But in fact, countless Christians have been louts, hypocrites, or jerks... like the rest of humanity. Who can deny the great mind of Karl Marx, but then, who can deny the intellectual arrogance and intolerance? Noam Chomsky made key contributions to linguistics, but his radical politics blinded him all too often. Both his moral and intellectual narcissism got the better of him. Susan Sontag was a leading intellectual of the 1960s and 1970s but also an insufferable bitch by all accounts. Then, it should be obvious by now that the prevailing custom of praising everything and everyone Jewish is out of sync with our real needs. Especially if a certain people are great and powerful — Jews may be the greatest and most powerful people ever — , humanity must be critical and take a cold hard look because great power is rarely associated with kindness and niceness. (The trick is to advance and present an intelligent and responsible critique of Jewish Power, the kind that cannot be dismissed as cuckoo antisemitism, of which there have been too many, though many such are now being pushed by Hasbara to create the impression that anti-Jewish voices are invariably nuts.) Effects of meritocracy notwithstanding, general drift of history indicates the kind of people who gain an excess of power and/or wealth tend not to play by the rules and are more likely to be motivated by greed and vanity than noble sentiments. It’s like The World views America with envy and admiration but also trepidation and anxiety(and even horror) because great power often goes awry. Linking Jewishness in an essential sense to some mytho-‘innocent’ girl who perished during World War II is utterly foolhardy. It’s like fixating on a pitiable image of a dead rat baby as the essence of rat-hood when, in fact, the world is teeming with destructive and disease-ridden rats. Paradoxically, the Jewish peddling of Anne Frank’s cult of Madonna-like ‘innocence’ is the product of Jewish cynicism about the psycho-politics of power. Power-mad Jews know full well that Anne Frank is supposed to serve as a sappy icon to soften goy hearts about Jews and as a moral shield of Jewish power-lust. If Jews admire anything about Frank, it was her assertive high spirits. She has been sold as a passive victim to garner goy sympathies, but Jews see her as an aggressive heroine, someone who could have grown up to an intellectual or judge who could have subverted the goy world for the benefit of Jewish Power. Jews secretly adore Anne Frank as a ‘bad girl’(for Jewish Power) but put forth a ‘good girl’ image for dimwit gentile edification. Jews promoted Anne-Frank-ism — the Little Orphan Annie of the Holocaust — not because they themselves value pure-hearted innocence but to hoodwink white gentiles into associating Jewishness with saintliness, all the better to hide Jewish nastiness. It’s a Jewish version of Uncle-Tom-ism, the notion of a Negro so pure-of-heart that he takes the beating and dies for the souls of white folks than cuss and beat up the ‘honkey-ass motherfuc*er’.
Needless to say, the Jewish media also crafted a Politics-of-Innocence/Childhood in relation to blacks, e.g. the Sainthood of Emmet Till(who was really a punk-ass kid, and Trayvon Martin, the 17-yr old child ‘armed only with skittles’). Even though countless full-grown Negroes(and juvenile blacks as well) have robbed, raped, and/or murdered innocent white folks of all ages, the most famous image of interracial violence perpetuated by the Media is that of Emmet Till. Till didn’t deserve to be murdered, but he was no saint. He was some trashy Negro thug who sexually harassed white women. Of course, if a white kid went into a black neighborhood and taunted or insulted some black woman like Emmet Till spoke to white women, the white boy would be dead in no time, and the black community and even white Liberals would argue that the ‘racist’ white boy got his just desserts for having ‘dissed’ a black women. Indeed, blacks all over America attack whites and non-blacks of all ages for no other reason than to act like wild apes. But the Jewish media perpetuates the Politics-of-Innocence/Childhood by using images of little black children as iconography of white prejudice. It’s like Liberals oftentimes bleat about the ‘children’ to boost their moral credentials. Now, if all blacks remained little children forever, even ‘racist bigots’ would find them nice and cuddly. It’s like white folks of all stripes adored Gary Coleman on DIFF’RENT STROKES and Emmanuel Lewis on WEBSTER as munchkin monkeys. But, of course, blacks grow up and indeed grow bigger and stronger than other races. And even shorter blacks can often beat up taller and bigger whites because blacks have harder muscles, more explosive power, and faster physical coordination. So, using pickaninnies as emblems of blackness isn't very convincing to many whites. Then, it’s no wonder that Jews in Hollywood often conflate even big blacks with childhood. Consider the mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE who’s so childlike and wants nothing more than to pet his wittle white mouse. He’s bigger than a hippo but has the heart of a puppy. And there’s the whale-sized Negro teenager in THE BLIND SIDE, a gentle giant meant to blind white folks to the dangerous side of Negroes. It’s Mighty-Joe-Young-ism. Stuff like this makes you hear Marvin Gaye’s "Save the Children" in your head. Save the babies! SAVE THE BABIES!!! And consider the silly study that showed that black children prefer white dolls to black dolls. You see, blacks under-perform in school since they’ve been socially conditioned to hate their own blackness. I wonder why Japanese kids do well in school even though their pop culture is saturated with white-looking anime characters. And why do geeks do better than jocks in school even though many more geeks are admiring of jocks on the sporting field than jocks are of geeks in the computer labs? And Jews are the most successful people in America even though pop culture favors ‘Aryan’ looks over Jewish looks. How many dolls are there with hooked noses and brillo-pad-heads like that of Albert Brooks? In the 1970s and 1980s, Hollywood’s most popular sports movies were the ROCKY series, and yet, the top heavy weight boxers weren’t white. Shouldn’t Larry Holmes have lost to Gerry Cooney since ROCKY movies undermined black self-esteem? Now, this isn’t to diminish the impact of racial stereotypes on the black community throughout American history. If the culture so often presents your people as ugly, childish, and stupid, it will have some impact on them. After all, who can deny the rise of ‘white guilt’ and white self-loathing as the result of Jewish control of popular culture? There’s no doubt that many whites have been inculcated from childhood to worship Jews, blacks, & homos while feeling uniquely tainted for being white. That said, it’s simply wrong to ascribe all failings of a community on external forces; it also encourages the community to scapegoat outsiders while dodging all responsibility. The rage and hatred of Malcolm X(and his fixation on the White Devil) was understandable given the time and place he grew up, but after several decades of black-on-black mayhem, blacks calling each other ‘nigger’ from cradle to grave, black men reneging on their duties as fathers, black teachers cheating in schools, black students playing hooky and flunking, black bureaucrats and politicians robbing the system blind, cities like Detroit being run aground, and etc., isn’t it about time blacks took a cold hard look at their own shitty failings? But given the junglo-pathological nature of blacks(and its encouragement by the Jewish-dominated media), the official policy is to see blacks as ‘helpless children and babies’(when not as the black god), and this idolatry turned into self-parody with the George-Zimmerman-and-Trayvon-Martin controversy. Zimmerman, a short and tubby ‘Hispanic’, was guarding his neighborhood when he was jumped by Martin the 6 ft seventeen yr old thug, but the Jew-run media tried to make Americans believe a towering white southern ‘redneck’ white shot Emmanuel Lewis who was just nibbling on Skittles. Sometimes, one wonders if Liberals and blacks are pathologically dishonest or just plain crazy. On the matter of race, they have no sense of irony and don’t even realize that they’ve sunken into self-mockery.
The Politics of Innocence/Childhood has appealed to both Jews and gentiles in the postwar world. Jews exploited it to alleviate white goy anxieties about Jewish power and to intensify white ‘guilt’ about the Holocaust by associating Jewish victim-hood with childhood. Surely, even a die-hard ‘anti-Semite’ must feel bad about the death of a young girl like Anne Frank, though to be sure, she died of illness. (Japanese too played on this trope with the anime GRAVEYARD OF THE FIREFLIES where a victim of US bombing is a little girl, and who can forget the photo of the naked Vietnamese girl burned by napalm? Even supporters of the war flinched at such images. Anti-Semites also played on themes of childhood/innocence, depicting Jews as despoilers or even destroyers of white Christian children. Some of them spread rumors about decrepit Jews using the blood of Christian children to make matzo, and OLIVER TWIST — the movie as I haven’t read the book — has a wicked wizened Jew exploiting poor English lads.) As for whites who couldn't shake their anxieties about cunning Jews even after WWII(when it became increasingly taboo to be 'antisemitic'), it was less jarring to think of Jews-as-children than Jews-as-adults. It’s like even as we dread going near tigers, bears, and gorillas, we wouldn't mind doting on tiger/bear cubs and ape babies. Ben Shapiro as a young boy playing SCHINDLER’S LIST on his violin is easier to stomach than the nasty full-grown hypocrite. So, one of the big French hits in the 1960s was TWO OF US, a story of a bigoted codger who befriends and comes to love a Jewish boy hiding from the Nazis. Of course, the Politics of Childhood can also be used to show how children can easily be corrupted or turned. REVOLT OF JOB’sscenario is the reverse of TWO OF US. A gentile boy is adopted into a Jewish family, and when the Jews are led away at the end, they must leave the boy behind. The boy thinks he’s a Jew, but he isn’t and could well have been raised as an ‘Anti-Semite’ had the Nazis won. The Spanish film BUTTERLY’S TONGUE is more explicit about the Corruption of Childhood when the young boy, who was adored by a leftist teacher, in the final scene screams abuse at the old man who’s being taken away with other leftists by rightist forces. (Never mind the Spanish leftists did their share of killing, but as the left has long controlled culture — even under right-wing Franco regime because conservatives simply haven’t been culturally engaged for the most part — , the official narrative of the Spanish Civil War has been that of poor leftists being hounded by evil rightists when, in fact, Spain certainly would have seen more bloodshed had the communists won. PAN’S LABYRINTH is Mierda Pura. Also, much more of Spanish heritage and culture would have been destroyed by communists, just like the Bolshevik-Jewish orgy of destruction laid waste to so much of Russian culture, a fact that has been largely suppressed by the Jew-controlled media and academia. On the other hand, Eastern European communists turned out to be better preservers of heritage and culture than Western European globo-capitalists who’ve been among the worst scum in history. As for Spanish anarchists, they were even worse than the communists, even raping and murdering nuns and burning priests alive as they laughed and jeered. This isn’t to say Spanish priests were innocents either, as many of them arduously worked with right-wing forces in the persecution of liberals, leftists, and communists.) Both the Reagan and Clinton presidencies were embroiled in the Politics of Childhood. Walter Polovchak refused to return to the Soviet Union with his family. For Cold Warriors, Polovchak became the poster-child of Americanism over Sovietism, even if it meant that conservatives had to compromise their principles about ‘family values’. RED DAWN by John Milius, like COWBOYS with John Wayne, was about boys learning to fight like men. And there is an element of Politics of Childhood even in RAMBO and UNCOMMON VALOR in the sense that POWs are depicted as akin to orphans abandoned by their parents. RAMBO accuses the US government and military as bad parents who sacrificed young men in the jungle. The Soviets too jumped at their chance to play the Politics of Childhood when Samantha Smith wrote a letter to Yuri Andropov, whereupon the Soviet leader not only assured Smith that he had no plans to blow up the world and invited her as a ‘peace activist’ to the Soviet Union, and of course, American conservatives cringed, American Liberals were bemused, and American Leftists loved every minute of it. During the Clinton era, there was much brouhaha over Elian Gonzalez, who was like Walter Polovchak and Samantha Smith rolled into one. In Miami with his relatives, he was the poster-child of American liberty against Cuban Castroite tyranny but once returned to Cuba and smiling in his father’s arms, he was the poster-child of Cuban independence and revolutionary respect for the family. Unlike Reagan, Clinton see-sawed on the issue before finally deciding to ship the kid back to Cuba. More recently, there’s been a campaign on the part of Jews and homos to inoculate children with the ‘psychobiotics’ of homophilia so that it can develop into full-blown homomania, whereupon they will grow into adults who stand alongside ‘gay pride’ royalty procession, wave ‘rainbow gay flags’, and chant globo-homo hosannas or ‘homosannas’. Jews and homos have spread homophilic indoctrination and propaganda even to elementary schools so as to acclimatize children from the youngest age possible to Revere the Queer. Since it’s natural for people to find homosexuality icky and ewwww, extra effort and constant attention are needed to reiterate globo-homo as the ‘new normal’. Without such effort, people will revert to the True Normal, which is to regard homosexuality as a natural abnormality(or 'abnaturality') where men prance around like girls, stand funnily with their hips sticking out, kiss each other on the lips, suck each other’s dongs, and stick their sexual organs into the putrid fecal holes of other men. Homosexuality is about regarding the shitting-and-farting orifice(or SAFO) as a sex organ. Since the natural normality of human psychology is programmed to disdain homosexuality, the homo lobby — in coordination with Jews — has decided to work on children’s minds as early as possible because childish minds are malleable and can be led to believe just about anything, even in Santa Claus. A child can be made to believe in Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Nazism, Communism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Scientology, Hare Krishna, or whatever else under adult supervision. Though the notion of Blank Slate — that anyone can be made to excel at anything is false — , it is true enough that children do have blank credo-slates onto which any ideology, religion, or culture can be etched/inscribed. Even so, there are things that are naturally appealing and naturally repulsive. For instance, people naturally prefer pleasure over pain, so a culture where pain is prized as a necessary element of virtue must train its young to accept the ‘glory’ of pain from a young age, certainly true of the Spartans. Even people who never had vanilla ice cream will naturally find it delicious. One doesn’t need to be conditioned to like ice cream. Indeed, even those conditioned to dislike ice cream will still find it delicious. But certain foods are on the gross side and would naturally repulse most people; therefore, cultures in which such foods are staples need to make children acquire a taste for such stuff. Rocky Mountain Oysters(or goat or sheep testicles) naturally wouldn’t appeal to most people — I gagged when I tasted a bit of it — so that’s the sort of stuff one has to grow up with and become accustomed to. Similarly, what Liberals refer to as ‘homophobia’ has long been a natural and normal reaction of healthy minds to ‘gay’ behavior. After all, the idea of two guys bung-donging each other is hardly appealing to non-homos. Also, when a guy acts like a girl, it looks so ‘gay’. Consider the homo guys in in Martin Scorsese’s MEAN STREETS, something that would likely be suppressed in today’s cinema. Something within us naturally disapproves of homosexuality, just as we are naturally turned off by incest and other forms of sexual deviance, like the idea of a very old man having sex with a very young woman or very old woman with a very young man. HAROLD AND MAUDE is a cult classic, but Harold having sex with Maude is gross(though good for laughs), and there were screams among first-time viewers in all the screenings I attended. I recall reading somewhere that the writer of HAROLD AND MAUDE, Colin Higgins, was a homo who used the young man/old woman sexual consummation to acclimatize us to the notion that love redeems deviance — and this also seems true of PRELUDE TO A KISS, which John Simon sniffed out as a piece of homo propaganda.
Politics of Childhood is at the center of Malle’s AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS and is the least savory thing about it. It’s an intelligent, reflective, and conscientious film, but the Jew kid is elevated from human-hood to angel-hood. Also, there’s something self-serving about films like this where the artist looks back on his childhood and makes a gesture of public atonement. This was the unpleasant aspect of Bergman’s FAITHLESS(directed by Liv Ullmann) despite its greatness. Though Bergman was harshly judgmental of his own failings, there was also an element of self-pitying self-aggrandizement. Self-loathing as a form of exhibitionism perversely becomes a kind of pride. In this sense, Bergman didn’t quite break out of the spell of his father’s Christianity. Christianity has a long history of self-aggrandizement by sanctimonious confessions of self-condemnation and self-abnegation. A Christian will go on and on about what a sinful creature he or she is, but such dramas of atonement only makes him or her feel holier-than-thou. The blatant striving for humility turns into a spectacle of self-righteousness, and there is an aspect of that in FAITHLESS, which is perversely faithful to the paradoxical(some might call it hypocritical)spirit of Christianity, especially the northern Lutheran kind that compensated for the abandonment of color and joy with tight-fisted pride of rectitude and humorless judgmentalism.
I’ve no idea how accurate AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is about France under German Occupation and as to what really happened between Malle-as-child and the Jew-kid, but there’s something dishonest about the film’s pathos. The Jew-kid has been overly idealized and sweetened — into a boy version of the Cult of Anne Frank(as opposed to the real Anne Frank) — to the point of inanity, but then, given the thorny nature of French remembrance of the Occupation, Malle probably felt compelled to anoint the Jew kid. To be sure, the kid is far more natural and realistic than most hokey characters churned out by Hollywood films of the same ilk — the Hug-a-Jew movies with Holocaust as backdrop — , but he is more consecrated as a saint than constructed as a character. He lacks individuality and exists mainly as a sacrificial icon of French Guilt, shared by adults and children alike. (If the kid has survived, he would likely have grown up to support Zionism and Wars for Israel that killed countless Arab lives.) By turning the Jewish Question into a case of Politics of Childhood, Malle evades too many serious issues that were addressed in Paul Verhoeven’s THE BLACK BOOK. If the Jew is presented only as a child, then the issue of French Collaboration during WWII is reduced to a simple matter of ‘pure-as-snow innocent Jews persecuted by Nazis and French collaborators’. It doesn’t deal with the question as to why many French came to dislike Jews and what the French Jews did to incur such anger, distrust, lack of sympathy, antipathy, or indifference from the French community(though, to be sure, the fact that 75% of French Jews survived WWII is a testament that many more Frenchmen didn't hand over Jews to the Germans)? Even if millions of Jews certainly didn’t deserve to get killed, might there have been valid reasons for non-Jews to hate them? (After all, one reason why many Jews became communists was because they came to loathe Jewish capitalists whose greed and lack of scruples were seen as the main reasons for anti-Jewish hatred.) Similarly, even if innocent Japanese women, children, old folks, and civilians didn’t deserve the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wasn't it true that the Japanese committed lots of terrible acts that earned the ire of Asians and Americans alike? So, even if American bombing of Japan was overkill, Japanese were not pure-as-snow victims. Even though, unlike the Germans and Japanese, the World Jewry didn’t have a nation of their own and therefore could not be associated with any particular national crime, there was indeed a global Jewish power network(now greater than ever), and International Jews did things that caused grievous harm to many peoples, especially in what came to be known as the Soviet Union, where so many Jewish radicals collaborated with Josef Stalin in the killing of millions and destruction of national culture. And Jews in Germany and France were hard at work in subverting, perverting, and degrading national cultures and values, as Jews today are doing in the US and the world to spread the bacillus of globo-homo-agenda. Globo-homo agenda is designed to elevate homos in every nation to elite status and to use them as proxies of Jewish Globalist Power. Jews and homos aren’t content with homos in Russia having the freedom to be homosexual and doing ‘gay’ stuff. They are saying that homos in Russia should take over and command the national culture as is the case in the US and EU; they are saying that homos should take over entire city squares and have ‘gay pride’ parades, which really should be called Jewish Victory Processions since Jewish money and media support have been essential in the rise and spread of homo-mania all over the world. (Globo-homo is the backdoor entry for the cock of Jewish supremacism. Jews know that homos of all stripes are vain & narcissistic and, as such, will gladly collaborate with Jewish globalists who anoint homos in every nation as their favored agents.) So, Jews have indeed acted hideously in the past, as they do today. If anything, what is most sickening and pathological in our time is not the preponderance of ‘antisemitism’ — contrary to what rats like Abe Foxman say — but the mindless sheepishness of the elite classes in America, Europe, and the rest of the Western World at the feet of Jews. Even the so-called American and European Right, though the target of vicious attacks by Jews, do little but sing hosannas to Jewish power, Jewish wonderfulness, Jewish nobility, etc. A Jew spits in the face of an American Conservative, and the latter thinks it’s holy water. It’s like Larry David pisses on Jesus, and two stupid Christian conservative women think it’s a miracle! (Larry David’s act was foul but also honest about the nature of current Christianity in the US. It is dumb.) Paranoia is pathological but so is what might be called ‘passivoia’, or pathological passivity. Given the amount of venom spewed by Jews against white gentiles in America and Europe, it is amazing that white gentiles do nothing but shmooze the Jews. Perhaps, one reason why so many white gentiles in America hate the Muslim world and Russia owes partly to something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome. White gentiles are such mental hostages of Jews that they’ve learned to love their masters. Burden of Guilt turned into Bondage of Submission. (In a way, today’s Christians are like Muslims-for-Jews. ‘Islam’ means submission, and the new Christianity is mainly about submission to Jews, homos, and Negroes as the new gods.) So, when they see Muslims and Russians standing up to Jewish power, white Americans want to protect their Jewish master. Of course, the fact that Muslims and Russians can stand up to Jewish Supremacism implies that American whites are cowards and sheeple, but few people want to face the fact of their own servile cravenness. So, even though white Americans are cowardly dogs of Jewish and Homo overlords, they bark madly at Muslims(for having the guts to stand up to Jews) and Russians(for having the guts to say NO to Jewish globo-homo agenda). Barking loudly is supposed to drown out the truth of their servitude with false impression of aggressive power and pride. In truth, a dog that barks(no matter how loudly) for its master has no pride of independence. When a people come to accept the whip and their own bondage, the glimpse of an alternative where they might be free can be as distressing as inspiring. The evidence of freedom elsewhere means that they’ve chosen bondage as the new normal. Some ‘house niggers’ felt that way in the Old South. They had their place in the massuh’s house. Pride was out of the question, but they had a sense of place in the social order, and that meant something, everything. Still, a sense of pride is natural to human nature, and even slaves develop their own kind of pride, the pride of servitude to the rightful power. In a way, military men are armed slaves whose pride comes from mindlessly serving their masters. In religion, it would be the ‘pride’ of prayer to the Lord. So, when such slaves see an alternative reality where others refuse to bow down before the master, a crisis unfolds in their heart. A part of them realizes that they don’t have to be slaves. They too can demand and struggle for freedom. On the other hand, they’ve become so accustomed to the existing social order(that, at the very least, provides them a sense of place and purpose in the system) that it’s difficult for them to ponder an alternative and overcome their addiction to servitude — and there is also the fear of the whip. So, they desperately make believe that the rebels and non-conformists who won’t bow down before the masters are the bad guys, a bunch of bandits who need to be brought to heel. White Americans as a collective used to constitute the greatest power in the 20th century, but they lost authority to a bunch of Jews and homos. An honest assessment of their current situation would be too shameful to confront and ponder. So, they make believe it’s so wonderful that "We’ve come a long way, elected a black president, worship Jews, welcome endless immigration-invasion, wave the globo-homo victory banner, and herald the future where whites will be a minority." In other words, from the bad ole "Live free or die" to the good new "Be a slave or die". It was one thing for white Americans to face up to the dark chapters of American history, but it’s quite another for the great majority to submit to machinations of a hostile minority, the Jews, and cuck to every policy devised to bring about white demise. 'Proposition Nation' is one where Jews propose that whites hold a gun to their own head and pull the trigger, and white goyim are stupid enough to play the Jewish Roulette. Despite all the vile things Jews have perpetuated on white Americans, so many white Americans think the biggest global injustice is Russia saying nyet to ‘Gay’ Victory Parades. And never mind all the horrors committed by Jewish communists, Jewish Zionists, and Jewish oligarchs of the 1990s who looted Russia. Jews posture as perfect little saints and/or god-chosen prophets with eternal moral prestige over us all. They’ve become a truly vile and hideous people.

Anyway, by fixating on the Jew as Child in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS, Malle evades the thornier issue as to why so many French came to dislike Jews. If Jews were so decent and angelic, wouldn’t most people have liked them? In the film, there’s something about the Jewish kid being smarter than the French kid, implying it was mainly French, pride, envy, and resentment that fueled animus toward Jews, but was it ONLY a matter of higher Jewish IQ? Or did it have something to do with how Jews used their disproportionate power and influence gained through higher IQ? Personally, I don’t care if there are high IQ Jews with lots more money and good stuff. In fact, I don’t care how many billionaires are in the US. What should be of concern is how the rich and powerful feel about the rest of us and what grand plans they’ve devised for us atop their ivory towers. This is what conservatives and libertarians all-too-often overlook. In their world view, the rich and intelligent are like free-spirited Ayn Rand heroes of individualism & liberty who only want to be left alone by the government/state to pursue their own dreams and build their own enterprises. In truth, however, the ambitious, rich, and powerful often unscrupulously seek to influence government, gain control of all media, and manipulate institutions through the power of the almighty shekel. When some rich Jew donated ‘generously’ to the Sierra Club, he actually took more than he gave. Sure, he gave away millions, but he essentially bought the organization to push his favored agenda of mass immigration to displace the white gentile population. Some givers give just to give but many more givers give to take back even more. It’s like Don Vito Corleone sometimes gives, but he expects a favor when ‘that day comes’. There’s a saying, "Freedom isn’t free", but it’s also true that "Free Stuff isn’t Freedom". If an organization takes lots of ‘free stuff’ from a super-rich Jew, it becomes dependent on him. Super-rich donations always come with strings attached. Obama was given the presidency by super-rich Jews who donate massively to the Democratic Party and control the media, and unsurprisingly, Obama wasn’t free to do much except serve the Jew-homo agenda . The ‘leader of the free world’ was really a shuffling ho-de-doing fancy-ass slave of the Globo-Zio-Homo elites.

If AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS were just a childhood story set during Occupation years of WWII, it would be less problematic, like FORBIDDEN GAMES by Rene Clement. Instead, the Jew kid is symbolic of Jewish Persecution as a whole, and as such, sweeps historical and moral complexity under the rug with sentimentalism. For this reason, it is actually closer in spirit to Malle’s films like THE LOVERS than to his hard-nosed, unflinching, and probing documentaries. Malle combed India for its sewers as well as its jewels. Also, Malle was tougher and grittier on the subject of the Occupation with LACOMBE, LUCIEN. In contrast, AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS has something of Hans Christian Andersen. Malle turned his childhood memories into a dark fairy-tale of guilt and grief. (Ingmar Bergman’s FAITHLESS is problematic for the same reason: Guilt and shame sanctified into beautiful myth where self-aggrandizement becomes the flip side of self-pity. It’s still a great work nevertheless as we can’t expect art to be totally honest. Malle’s film is more problematic because the personal tragedy is meant as a testament of guilt of ALL Frenchmen toward ALL Jews. Perhaps, Malle-as-child really did befriend a nice Jewish kid, but should that child be a symbol for all the Jews in France and Europe? After all, bad people as well as good people are ‘innocent victims’ in wars.) AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is too soft and gauzy for a tough subject. If indeed most Jews were as thoughtful, quiet, dignified, gentle, and decent like the Jew kid, would antisemitism have been so ‘rabid and virulent’ all across Europe? This isn’t to blame the victim(as the victimizers surely weren’t saints themselves) but to point out that the Jew-gentile relation in Europe was far more complex than the post-WWII iconography of the Holy Jew would have us believe. It certainly wasn’t like the relation between aristocrats and serfs where one side clearly had more power, privilege, and rights than the other. Though Jewish merchants and money-lenders were often reviled and distrusted, some gained privileges by serving as middlemen between kings/aristocrats and the poor masses. Many Jews did very well, and some even amassed vast fortunes and key influence as financiers, businessmen, or tax collectors. Thus, many Jews were richer and more powerful than masses of goyim. And we know that with power and wealth come abuse and corruption, made worse by the Jewish worldview of tribal supremacism, regarding goyim as cattle, and reviling Christianity as heresy. And, even many gentile elites feared the Jews because, though of inferior social status, certain Jews had accumulated more wealth than the aristocrats and formed worldwide networks with other Tribesmen. Also, there is something about Jewish personality that is off-putting to non-Jews(and even to Jews themselves). Very few Jewish girls are like the pure-hearted and ‘innocent’ Nordic girl in Ingmar Bergman’s VIRGIN SPRING or the heroine of Frantisek Vlacil’s MARKETA LAZAROVA. There are lots of Jewish bitches with the personalities of Sarah Silverman, Leona Helmsley, Sandra Bernhard, Jennifer Rubin, Rachel Abrams, and other horrible hags. Even though plenty of Jews have lively personalities — and Jewish assertiveness can be fun and even sexy — , it’s no less true that they make you want to punch them in the face. Even as Albert Brooks makes you laugh, you also want to knock his head around a bit. In the final scene of BROADCAST NEWS, we see the older Albert Brooks character with his cute little son, but the chances are he will grow up to be a smarmy jerk like his dad, not least because it’s part of Jewish identity to be a thorn in the side of humanity; there’s something in Jewishness that hates the idea of being genuinely liked and trusted by goyim as such would require sincere effort among Jews to be good, likable, and trustworthy. Jewish intelligence wants to outwit and out-think others, not get along like earnest 'dummies' with brains tuned into 'nice' mode. Also, Jewish ego wants to act badly and nastily toward goyim yet STILL compel goyim to be nice to Jews — such is the nihilism of Jewish Egotism, i.e. "We can do as we please and act like a**holes, BUT you goyim better kiss our ass and compliment our fart." Well, ain’t that the state of the Current West?
Kids don’t remain kids forever, but the image of Jew-as-Innocent-Child of the Anne Frank cult and AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS would have us believe that Jewish Childhood is an eternal principle. Anne Frank would likely have grown up to be a troublesome bitch, and the Jew kid in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS would likely have grown up to be radical, subversive, or tribal nihilist. We can dote on a tiger cub, but it will eventually grow up to be big and dangerous. Even if we were to commit the terrible crime of nearly wiping out all tigers, it wouldn’t change the fact that tigers are dangerous animals we should be wary about in our midst. Likewise, a Jew kid may seem harmless enough — even though Jews from a young age are often abrasive, nasty, and insulting — , but he could very well grow up to be someone like Michael Bloomberg, Larry Kramer, Howard Stern, George Soros, Roman Polanski, and other nasty Jews. These Jews may be highly talented and even do great things, but they pose a threat to goyim because of the combination of high intelligence, group unity, aggressive personality, and sneaky way of doing things against unsuspecting dimwit goyim.
Children come to awareness of the world from adults as authority figures, teachers, storytellers, and instructors. By the time a child turns nine or ten, he seriously begins develop a certain sensibility and world-view. This process can be corrupting or cleansing(or ‘innocenting’) or both. In some cases, gaining knowledge can make a child more ‘innocent’ as he grows older. For example, a child may be more skeptical and critical BEFORE his mind is molded with dogma, idolatry, and iconography that insist on the unquestionable sanctity of certain ideas, idols, and icons. Thus, the instilling of taboos is ‘innocenting’. This is the very purpose of Political Correctness. Though ‘progressive’ ideology purports to make people more ‘rational’, intelligent, knowledgeable, and etc., — after all, it is called ‘Critical Theory’ — the truth is most human-products of Political Correctness(and Pop Culture) end up yammering and babbling like innocent children on subjects such as racial differences and IQ. Political Correctness fills them with taboos and fairytales, or Santa Claus or Frosty the Snowman for grownups. So, even intelligent Liberals come to ‘believe’ in the myth of the Magic Negro, as with the Oprah Cult or the ridiculous mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE who wuvs a wittle white mouse. And even Ivy League graduates come to believe in the fairytale of ‘gays having a baby’, hardly more sensible than storks delivering babies. Of course, Liberals know that ‘gay sex’ cannot produce life, but Political Correctness made them make-believe ‘gays’ can have babies ‘together’ because the cult of homomania has pretty much sanctified homos and trannies — Progs feel holier-than-thou to have the nicest thoughts about homos, just like Catholics make-believe in miracles despite lack of scientific evidence. Like in THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, it’s as if PC Liberals are growing backwards. An old Mexican villager in THE WILD BUNCH says, "We all dream of being a child again...", but he knew it could only be a dream. But it seems like progs are STUDYING to be children again. But this is also true of Conservatives whose taboo of Jew-worship has rendered them childlike in their absolute dog-like devotion to Jewish authority. Because these truisms are based on lies and deceit, their effect is insidious and corrupting, and yet, in their encouragement of childlike emotions, they are also ‘innocenting’ of the population as they grow older. Consider college-educated fools whose eyes glaze over when they watch Oprah or Michelle Obama. Or all those Conservatives who got the 'truth' from the big fat baby talk of Rush Limbaugh. Consider all those progs who thought themselves ‘hip’ and ‘sophisticated’ for relying on Jon Stewart as main source of news. Or Pat Buchanan’s endorsement of FORREST GUMP, a movie where being a clueless and trusting dumbass is the greatest virtue.

A more interesting view of childhood than in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is found in Roberto Rossellini’s OPEN CITY and GERMANY YEAR ZERO. While Rossellini understood that children live in their own world of relative ‘innocence’, he also showed how they become aware of their environment and are eager to emulate grownups. Thus, the children in OPEN CITY who are eager to join the good fight are heroic but also disturbing for they are willing to fight, die, and kill over things they don’t fully understand. Irony is that adults aren’t all that different, as so many are willing to kill or die without historical understanding. After all, even though Italians are the tragic victims, resisters, and heroes in OPEN CITY, the truth is Italian Fascism predated National Socialism, and the Italian masses childishly glorified Il Duce. Even though children are children and adults are adults, there is a grey area between childhood and adulthood especially where violence is concerned. John Boorman’s HOPE AND GLORY shows children caught up in the thrill of war, and BORN IN THE FOURTH OF JULY shows how Ron Kovic played toy soldier before he became a real one; it’s like wolf cubs play as killers/hunters before they become real killers/hunters. In EMPIRE OF THE SUN, the British boy in a Japanese prison camp is enthralled with Japanese fighter planes, oblivious to the fact that such machines belong to the enemy and caused the havoc that led to his separation from his parents. Rossellini’s GERMANY YEAR ZERO, though problematic, is a work of profound empathy and, moreover, one that overcomes the temptation to depict German children as mere victims. Youth are less culpable than adults, but the toxicity of Nazism seeped into childhood as well. Even though the film is set in post-war Germany struggling to get back on its feet with Hitler’s regime defeated and discredited, the young boy’s anima came to consciousness under Nazism. No longer a Nazi youth but still acting with a Nazi mentality whose solution conforms to the deadly blueprint. There’s a similar sense in MACARTHUR’S CHILDREN by Masahiro Shinoda, though it ultimately soft-peddles the gravity of Japanese crimes in WWII. So, children too have a sense of the world, a rather brutally elemental sense of which side to root for, which side to hate, which side to fight for or ‘die’ for. (Furthermore, the mentality of adults in war seems hardly more sophisticated than those of boys playing war games in the park, not least because military training is meant to turn young men into mindless obedient killers than thinking individuals. Hollywood, the creator of mass myths that shape our imagination, doesn’t help either.) And in time, these relatively ‘innocent’ excitements morph into ‘adult’ passions. In BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, the Ron-Kovic-as-child is a wide-eyed dreamer about heroics-in-battle and the American Way, and he carries this ‘innocence’ into adulthood. Ironically, when an adult continues to believe as he did as a child, it’s no longer called ‘innocent’ but ‘grownup’. So, where is the clear line between innocence and knowledge? Paradoxically of course, the desire to ‘put away childish things’ can itself be a childish thing. Ron Kovic as a young boy wanted to grow up fast and become a proud warrior, serve as a noble defender of America, learn to use real guns than toy guns, and fight in a real war than in a play war. But this desire to grow up and ‘be a man’ stunted the natural process of mental development and emotional growth. He was so deadset on ‘being a man’ that he just childishly followed the official script of what-a-true-man-is-like. (Ironically, his 180 turn into an anti-war protester was no less simpleminded. He went from being one kind of a true believer to another, and it mostly had to do with his injury.)

Though Jews want us to believe in the rosy image of the pure-hearted, angelic, and harmless Jewish child — like the innocent red-coated girl in SCHINDLER’S LIST or the boy hiding in lavatory shit — , they’ve done the exact opposite with Arab and Muslim children. So, Jewish media constantly remind us that Arab/Muslim children are not to be trusted since they’ve all been raised to be the Devil’s Spawn(which is what the vile Rachel Abrams called them). In the film DANIEL(based on the novel by E.L. Doctorow) directed by Sidney Lumet, the children of the Rosenbergs are pure innocents who are clueless about politics. Now, innocence is a universal fact of childhood, but children don’t stay children forever(like Emmanuel Lewis or Gary Coleman characters), just like cute tiger cubs don't remain cuddly forever. Furthermore, Jews often raise their children to be tribal, paranoid, and strategic from a very early age — even as Jews push arrested development on goyim, they encourage their own children to grow up quicker in perspective and acumen. But Jews use the media to push forth the cult of Eternal Jewish Innocence via tropes of childhood centered around Anne Frank and others — indeed, one of the most famous ‘Holocaust’ photos is that of the Jewish child with his hands up; it was used in Ingmar Bergman’s PERSONA. In a way, Roman Polanski has been able to get away with so much rotten behavior because he did suffer as a child under the Nazis. He capitalized his tragic childhood into a get-out-of-jail card. You see, whatever he may have done as an adult, let’s remember poor and innocent Roman-as-child in Warsaw. Jewish childhood absolves Jewish adulthood. Jews use their own childhood as a Human Shield against criticism of their rotten behavior. If it's not the Holocaust, it's some story of how some Jewish kid was bullied by Big Dumb Polacks. In contrast, most depictions of Arab/Muslim kids in movies and the news feature them as the Devil’s Spawn who’ve been brainwashed and indoctrinated to kill Americans and Jews. So, the media could never get enough of showing us images of Palestinian kids throwing rocks and taunting Israeli soldiers. Never mind that Zionists have been occupying Palestinian lands and oppressing Palestinian people, men, women, and children. The most vicious slant on Arab children has to be in THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, a movie so dishonest and vile(though very well made by William Friedkin) that it has to be seen to be believed. Even for a Jewish Hollywood movie, it makes one’s jaws hit the floor. Even Nazi films about Jews were never as insane and murderous as this one. Throughout the film, we see a poor little Arab girl hobbling around on crutches. She is one of the ‘victims’ of US firepower unloaded on a civilian mob ‘protesting’ outside the US embassy. Naturally, we think she stands for the child-victim in any violent conflict, i.e. regardless of which side you’re on. But near the end of the movie, testimony given by Samuel Jackson’s character reveals that the Arab militiamen used the ‘peaceful’ protestors as a cover/veil to fire upon the Americans first... and the little girl was one of the crazed gun-wielding Arabs. And that justified the US war machine to unleash fearsome firepower on the crowd(made up of Arab militiamen and faux-peaceful protesters serving as a ‘human shield’). Now, the notion of militants and civilians acting in concert is nothing new in theaters of conflict. After all, US often couldn’t tell friend from foe in Vietnam where Viet Cong combatants could be one of the villagers or hiding among them. So, why would it be any different in the Arab world and why would it be so wrong, especially since the Jew-run US military has been invading and occupying the Middle East? We also know certain Arab children have been radicalized and used by Arab militiamen as terrorists and ‘human shields’. It’s been asserted that Hamas in Gaza even planted children near certain sites either to deter Israeli bombing or, worse, to use the deaths of children as cheap propaganda. So, the notion that ‘peaceful’ civilians could aid & abet radical militants and that Arab children could themselves be used as killers shouldn’t be controversial to anyone who knows about the Middle East. And if RULES OF ENGAGEMENT had soberly pondered that phenomenon, it might have been a provocative and thoughtful film. But the way the whole thing is set up(ultimately for cheap sensationalism and bogus moralizing), the only conclusion is "they are all animals and should be mowed down like foot-and-mouth-infected cattle or rabid dogs." Indeed, the emotional core hinges on the crippled Arab girl, especially as even haters of Arabs will feel some sympathy for the child. But when she too is revealed as a Devil’s Spawn, the movie’s message can only be read as, "All Arabs are animals, even little girls too." She is used as bait-and-switch. She baits us with sympathy and makes us believe that the movie is fair-minded and ambiguous, for it doesn’t flinch from the sight of an Arab girl crippled by the US military. But then comes the switch where she’s made out to be a vile creature as crazed and murderous as the rest of them. Besides, an appeal to realism cannot justify her portrayal because it’d be ludicrous for us to believe that a momentary glimpse over the rooftop amidst massive gunfire led Samuel Jackson’s character to see not only the militants but the pistol-wielding girl. Bullets are flying all over, and every US soldier hunkered down, lest he get his head blown off, but somehow Jackson’s character got such a clear look at the crowd that he even noticed the little girl(surrounded by adults towering over her) firing a pistol. It would only make sense in Absurdistan. It’s a shame because RULES OF ENGAGEMENT could have been an important courtroom drama — like PATHS OF GLORY, BREAKER MORANT, and THE CONSPIRATOR — about the difficulty of differentiating combatants and civilians in war and the thorniness of determining guilt and innocence — among both the enemy and one’s side as well — , especially in the era of global media where much of the fighting is done through the art of propaganda(perfected by Gandhi in the struggle for Indian independence and by North Vietnamese communists during the Vietnam War), but the movie betrays its potential and turns into shameless Neocon Zionist propaganda, the sort that made Michael Medved wet his pants. It ends on a note of absolute clarity, which is, "Arabs are animals, and America’s enemies are rabid dogs, and they should be handled as such." And of course, by having the accused officer played by a black guy, the movie peddles its ‘race’ hatred of Arabs while fending off charges of ‘racism’ since it was a Noble Black Guy who ordered the troops to fire on the Arabs. (As blacks are holy in the US Narrative, Zionist Neo-Imperialism is baptized with black 'patriotism'.) No wonder then why Jews found Obama so useful: If Magic Negro Obama done it, it must be wonderful. ‘Put the nigger behind the trigger’, and Jews can get away with a lot of shit. Since ‘white’ Zionists are so often accused of ‘racism’ for their ill-treatment of Palestinians and their Wars for Israel waged by the Jew-controlled US government, Jews will often use black characters as leads in movies about the Middle East crisis. Since ‘blacks cannot be racist’ and since blacks are doing a lot of fighting with Arabs and Muslims, it makes Arabs/Muslims the bad guys while Zionist-American policy is made ‘un-racist’ through its movie-association with noble/heroic blacks. If Nazis were smart, maybe they should have recruited blacks to kill Jews. Then Nazis couldn’t have been accused of ‘racism’ since they were associated with noble blacks who done the killing.

AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS was presented as an honest and courageous film that lays bare the truth of French antisemitism during the Occupation and the personal guilt of young Malle who might have subconsciously betrayed his Jewish friend. And yet, ‘honesty’ so often manifests itself in the form of dishonesty(especially a hallmark of Louis Malle who was equally an artist and sensationalist, humanist and narcissist, vulgarian and snob), and a seeming display of courage could conceal an essential cowardice. Furthermore, memory racked with remorse can nestle a certain nostalgia. To a degree, what Malle was reaching for is moving and penetrating. In a way, Malle’s alter ego’s ‘subconscious’ betrayal of the Jew-kid was worse than if he’d pointed to him in class and shouted, "YID KID OVER HERE, TAKE HIM AWAY, S’IL VOUS PLATI!!" That would have been awful but at least honest and straightforward. He would have revealed his true feelings about the Jew kid and acted on them. But Malle’s alter ego, Julien, tries to have it both ways. He wants to be the good-hearted and sympathetic friend of the Jew-kid, but he also wants to be rid of his rival, this Jew-kid who is smarter than him(and dearly protected by school authorities). He feels like the kid in John Knowles’ A SEPARATE PEACE who admires his friend but also envies him, even enough to see him destroyed. Thus, Julien’s act can be seen as an act of subtle treachery worse than outright treachery. (Ironically, Jews pull such things all the time, pretending to be your friend while doing everything to bring you down, but then acting like they are still your friend. Currently, the main victims of Jews are white conservatives, but they are too stupid to crack the codes and read the signals. Of course, Jews pull this on blacks as well, officially promoting the grand ‘people of color’ coalition, all the while employing various means to displace blacks from the nice parts of big cities to be reserved mostly for Jews, homos, yellow dogs, and libby-dib whites. And Jews encourage Asian students in elite colleges to vent their frustrations against ‘white racist privilege’ but then make movies like the RED DAWN remake that encourage white masses to freak out about Yellow Peril. Few real Jews are as nice, kind, and decent as the Jew kid in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS. Your average French Jew is more like the vile scumbag Mathieu Kassovitz who made LA HAINE where a Jew kid hangs with a Negro & an Arab and fights with ‘skinheads’. Even though there’s no real love among French Arabs, Jews, and blacks, the foul film(though well-made and acted) would us believe they are brothers under the skin against ‘white racists’. Another dirty French Jew is Agnes Jaoui who made THE TASTE OF OTHERS, a film that insists on ‘tolerance’ but goes batshit crazy over some guy making a less-than-admiring comment about homosexuals. In one scene, a guy doesn’t know that someone is a homo and uses the French equivalent for ‘fag’, whereupon the homo throws a fit and says something like, "Fagois!!?? What you mean, eh? You mean, like a butt-fookeer???!!!" Well, homos DO fuc* each other in the ass. The rest of the movie has the guy who said ‘fag’ doing everything to redeem himself by winning the approval of the snotty and affluent homo. Now, it’s true that homosexuals ‘fuc*’ each other in the ass, but the homo in the film somehow thinks it’s offensive to regard homos that way. Imagine that. Homos do each other in the ass, but we are supposed to think of homos as fine, well-cultured, wonderful, upstanding people. And of course, there are French laws that fine and even imprison people who say insulting things about homos, and of course, vile Jews like Agnes Jaoui supports such laws, so it’s downright foul of her Jewish ilk to be lecturing us about ‘tolerance’. Anyway, AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is dishonest in so many ways. For one thing, whatever may have happened between Malle-as-child and the Jew kid, it’s sickeningly sanctimonious to turn their story into a subdued passion play about ‘spiritual’ betrayal.
Apparently, Julien’s betrayal wasn’t merely a personal revelation but that of French Civilization as a whole. In a nutshell, the French, for all their grandiose displays of culture and declarations of liberty & justice, will go back on their word the moment their egotistical privilege is threatened — French talk universal but act tribal; they speak of courage but are essentially craven; justice becomes just-us, and it’s more about pomp than principle. A nastier variation of AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS is CACHE by the vicious Michael Haneke. Now, such indictment of the French may somewhat be warranted given it’s difficult to think of another civilization(though traditional China comes to mind) whose boundless conceits were so at odds with reality. Usually, bigger the claim, bigger the shame. Of course, the French problem was less akin to a poor man pretending to be rich than a rich man pretending to be super-rich — likewise, unlike Fascist Italy that was a weak power pretending to be a great power, the problem of National Socialist Germany was it was a great power pretending to be a super-power. Paradoxically, French cultural-national arrogance was made worse by the French Revolution. Though the radical transformation was anti-elitist and egalitarian, the overall effect was to spread the haughty pride of French Culture to EVERY French man and woman. In the end, the French Revolution didn’t so much put an end to French elitism as spread it far and wide as the defining principle of being French. Thus, each and every Frenchman was imbued with the national-aristocratic sense that he or she wasn’t merely a citizen but the inheritor and practitioner of the greatest culture known to mankind. In a way, this was the compromise between old elitism and new populism. The masses would be heard and represented in the new order but also imbued with the pride of culture once associated with the elites. As the French elites had never tired of reiterating their own greatness, the danger of national-universalization of elite culture was that every Frenchman might become excessively inflated with self-regard. Such cultural garb hardly guaranteed individual worth in achievement or virtue, and the great shame of the Occupation was that the French, for all their pretensions, acted like anyone else would under the circumstances. For most people, such compromise and failing would have been accepted as mundane facts of life. It was traumatic for the French because reality exposed the hollowness of their vain self-regard. In AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS, the Jew kid is used as a magic mirror that forces the French to confront what they REALLY are. But, the problem is the dichotomy of the specious French and the special Jew because Jews have their own issues of self-delusional claims and actuality. After all, if the Nazis had loved the Jews and hated the French, many Jews would likely have collaborated with the Germans to exploit and even kill the French. Jews certainly had no problem working with Muslim Moors during the Arab colonization of Spain. Sickeningly, the Jew kid is less an individual than an iconography of Jewish martyrdom. Granted, what individuals do and what happens to them are often reflective of a larger pattern, but Malle's film pushes it into the realm of mythology. And even though the film was made as an act of atonement, there is also the pride of remorse, as if we’re supposed to feel sorry for him for feeling sorry for what he did(or thinks he did). Also, even though the film bemoans the victim-hood of 'powerless' Jews, there’s a certain nostalgia and even idealization of Jews as a powerless people whose well-being, even existence, relies on the goodwill of good goyim — the suggestion is Jews are sympathetic only if they're without power. We may feel sorry for Jews in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS, but there’s the feeling that Jews, having been ‘put in their place’, are preferable as objects of pity than agents of rivalry. It’s like a lot of Liberals find nostalgic value in stuff like DRIVING MISS DAISY and THE HELP since such works make them feel a sense of beneficent power over blacks. White Power bad, but White Power of Love good. Compassion is often inseparable from condescension because it's usually the case that the powerful feel compassion toward the powerless. So, even if white compassion is 'anti-racist', it can only exist from the perspective of superior white power. So, the fuzzy vibes that Liberals feel from movies like TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and GREEN MILE are far from pure. Because white Liberals are often confused about current racial realities(where black violence, pathologies, and craziness are intractable) , they sometimes prefer to wax romantic about the good ole bad ole days when whites were in a position to help the Negroes who appeared more grateful, deferential, and tame back then(even though, in fact, there was plenty of black violence then as well). This is the emotional hook of something like Douglas Sirk’s IMITATION OF LIFE. Sure, white Liberals bawl and weep over the tragic Negress mama, but their compassion derives from the sense of power. They feel in the position to feel sorry for the powerless and nobly suffering Negress. It is so much simpler than being confronted with the current reality of race where many blacks are threatening to whites, cause so many problems, keep demanding more and more, and show zero gratitude(except to hustle white sucker dweebs for more freebies, favors, and preferences). So, even as AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS revisits the good ole bad ole days and grieves, "We wish it hadn't been so", it also waxes nostalgic about a time when the GOOD French had power of life-or-death over Jews who, during the Occupation, were less arrogant, pushy, and vile(as they utterly depended on the goodwill of the French — as that of the decent priests in Malle’s film — for survival). Indeed, if Jews were faced with great horrors in the present and relied on our support to protect them, they would be acting a lot nicer — still, it would just be an act, and once they regain power over us, they will do anything to push more Nakba on more goyim, often by making one bunch of goyim invade and replace other goyim around the world. In a way, when Jews say good goyim should protect Jews from bad goyim, they are not appealing to goyim as people of free will; rather, they are demanding upon goyim to be servile dogs. Thus, the goyim's protection of Jews is less a matter of moral decision than blind obligation. If Jews were truly committed to freedom of conscience and morality, they would insist that goyim should stand with Jews when Jews are good and stand against Jews when Jews are bad; in other words, if Jews act like Nazis toward a certain group, free-thinking whites as moral agents should side with the victims of Jews, such as Palestinians and Syrians. But Jews insist that white goyim serve Jews regardless of whether Jews are good or bad, or even pretend that Jews are always good. It's like dogs bark and bite to protect their master no matter what; they serve the logic of Master Morality, or whatever-the-master-does-is-right. Thus, there is a dark element to the sham-moral cult of Good Whites saving Jews from the Nazis. The intended lesson is less about white moral agency than about white servitude to protecting Jews simply because Jewish lives are more precious than any other. Though sold as anti-supremacism, it is really Jewish Supremacism. In the present, Jewish control over US foreign policy has led to horrors visited upon millions all over the world, but all we get from cuck goy politicians is WE MUST SERVE THE JEWS. Even when Jews act like the New Nazis or Judeo-Nazis and spread destruction around the world, cuck goy elites keep invoking the Holocaust in support of Jewish Evil. This suggests that the main lesson of the Shoah hasn't been universal morality that applies equally to all but a blind cultish servitude to Jews. Jews are like the communist in the film ELENI. When seeking refuge from right-wing forces, the Greek communist acts so gentle and friendly toward the matriarch of a Greek family, but when the communists take control over the region, he turns into a ruthless commissar and even orders her execution when she disobeys communist decrees.

Paradoxically, it could be one reason why Americans are so easily fooled is due to their faith in the free press protected by the First Amendment and the principles of journalism premised on facts and truth over bias or favor. Consider the title of Harrison Salisbury’s book about the New York Times: WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR. There is the impression of journalists being courageous idealists working tirelessly to get at the facts, no matter how inconvenient or disapproved(especially by the powers-that-be), for the sake of truth and justice — Hollywood movies have especially propagated such tropes about journalists. Thus, not only is the American system of government controlled by checks and balances, it is also vigilantly watched over by the ‘fourth estate’ of the free press; and since the media are not owned by the government but by private individuals and since journalists come from the best schools after years of training in the proper methodology of journalism and fact-gathering, we can rest assured and trust the media. And clearly, the American/Western/democratic way of journalism is generally more reliable than, say, the authoritarian, let alone totalitarian, way. (What is often overlooked is the importance of the general outlook and core passions of the owner class. When US media went from Anglo-American-Liberal hands to Jewish-American-Liberal hands, it wasn't a case of one form of liberal media giving way to another. Given the rather colorless personality of Anglo-American liberals, their liberalism eventually prevailed over Anglo identity, whereas given the tenacity of Jewish personality, Jewish identity took front seat among Jewish Liberals. Indeed, the notion of 'Jewish Liberal' is essentially an oxymoron because, whereas Christianity is universalist and egalitarian, Judaism is tribal, particularist, and even supremacist. So, if Anglo-American Liberals did their best to serve liberalism, Jewish-American Liberals did their best to make Liberalism serve Jewish interests. Wasps believe in Ideology > Identity whereas Jews live by Identity > Ideology. And yet, 'idology' or ideology-of-idolatry > ideology among Anglo-American Liberals. After all, if White Liberals truly favored ideology over identity, they would side with universal justice for Palestinians and oppose Wars for Israel, and yet, they suck up to Jewish Power just like cucky White Conservatives in the GOP do. It suggests that white commitment to ideology wilts under the 'idology' of Jewish holiness, globo-homo worship, and Magic Negro cult. This distinction between Wasp Liberalism and Jewish Liberalism is key to understanding why the triumph of Jewish Liberalism made the US less truly liberal in liberty and freedom. Not all 'liberalisms' are alike, just like Neocons and Paleocons are worlds apart. Jewish-driven Liberalism or Conservatism is a different vehicle than one driven by goyim.) Nevertheless, one advantage of living under an authoritarian or repressive system is you learn to be more wary and skeptical of the powers and the sources of information. You learn to glean the news with caution. Thus, you learn to trust less and hone skills of reading between the lines. You become more savvy about interpreting the narrative. You take NOTHING for granted. In contrast in a democracy, the masses may drop their guard and just believe in the truth disseminated by the 'free press'; no wonder so many were duped by something like WMD hysteria and Russia Collusion Hoax. In a repressive order, there is little truth but also little trust of those who dispense the ‘truth’. In a democratic order, the trust in the system blinds so many people(though, of late, the declining trust in the mass media in the US suggests a rising consciousness that MSM is a conveyor of oligarchic propaganda than an upstanding practitioner of freedom of inquiry). (Also, the fact that most Americans are economic animals preoccupied with material wealth and hedonism means that most of them regard World News as irrelevant to their lives. Many Americans simply don't care because their attitude is, "I got mine." Even most of American Politics is centered around consumerism and pop culture as right-and-wrong is essentially a matter of what celebrities promote or what one sees on TV shows. Same goes for much of American spirituality, which is about je$u$. And in Pop Spiritual works like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and E.T., it appears the main mission of space aliens is to raid American refrigerators for fast food, beer, soda pop, and chocolates; or they love to tinker with electronics and toys as they hover over American suburbs. They act like the Russians in NY in MOSCOW ON THE HUDSON. They may be from more advanced civilizations on the far side of the galaxy, but America is #1 when it comes to fun and yummies.) Why be critical when one has been assured of the 'freedom of the press'? Furthermore, the partisan-ization of news has both decreased and increased levels of trust. While Liberals totally distrust FOX NEWS and Conservatives totally distrust MSNBC, the former are more likely to be blindly trustful of MSNBC while the latter are of FOX NEWS. The notion of truth has become ever more problematic with the rise of Political Correctness as journalistic policy and with the dissolution of the barrier between editorializing and the news or between the agenda and the facts; there is also the overwhelming tendency to spin all news into fave fables for Israel and Jewish Supremacism. Nascent forms of political correctness had a somewhat salutary effect in nudging the media to use more neutral language in favor of objectivity. Initially, linguistic reforms in journalism opted for less judgmental language and deconstructed conventions where words themselves had an instant-editorializing effect. For example, if the Cowboys vs Indians wars were happening today, it wouldn’t be fair or very objective to refer to Indians as ‘savages’. But the objectives of Political Correctness eventually went from less bias and judgmentalism toward more in service to certain agendas. Terms like ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ should only be used in editorials. Besides, ‘ism’ means belief, so just how did ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ come to mean, respectively, hatred of other races based on feelings of supremacism and misogynistic contempt/oppression of women? Also, the insistence on the term ‘gender’ over ‘sex’ is an endorsement of the notion that sexual identities are essentially ‘social constructs’. But then, Liberals say homos are naturally born homos, and nothing can be done about it. So, ‘male’ and ‘female’ are social constructs but a ‘homosexual’ is a biological fact; it's not true that girls naturally want to play with dolls, but homo boys most certainly naturally do.
And then, there is the term ‘gay’. It is a positive adjective meaning light-hearted, happy, blissful, elegant, and etc. To ascribe such an (positively)celebratory and descriptive adjective on an entire group is a form of editorializing. It is no more fair and indeed far less factual than calling homosexuals ‘sodomites’. It isn’t entirely factual because not all homosexuals are gay-ish. Some are macho, tough, and vulgar. But ‘sodomite’ does apply to most homosexual men since most of them do practice fecal penetration. The term ‘gay’ makes us fixate on the social style of homosexuals than on the biological fact of what makes a homosexual truly a homosexual: he likes to suck other men’s penises and have them thrust in-and-out of his fecal hole. While non-homo men can act gayish, even non-gayish-acting men into fecal penetration are homosexuals. Thus, physical substance of homosexuality should trump the social style of homosexuality. But the media and academia have associated homosexuality with superficial mannerisms than with underlying facts of its physicality. Since the physicality of homosexuality is clearly gross — even homomaniacs wouldn't be heartened by a sight of a man having his fecal hole being pummeled by another man’s penis that becomes stained with fecal matter and juice. No wonder there’s been an concerted attempt to make us focus on the happy and light-hearted style of homos in order to divert our eyes from the real physical facts of homosexuality. Meanwhile, those who oppose the radical homo agenda are condemned by the media as ‘homophobic’, which means that if you think ‘gay marriage’ is a debasement of real marriage, you are clinically sick in the head. Because ‘phobia’ is a medical term, one might mistake ‘homophobia’ as an objective phenomenon, but it was concocted by the Jew-run queer cottage industry in college campuses and media outlets. Whole bunch of Liberal Jews and homos in psychology have done everything they could to undermine scientific principles to push through their agenda; they’ve succeeded because psychology is, as yet, not a pure science but a field associated with 'social sciences' such as sociology, political science, and the humanities. Thus, even while Political Correctness in the media pretends to be about fairness and reduction of conventional/traditional bias, it really pushes an agenda geared to dupe us into supporting certain dubious policies, trends, fashions, and movements. And consider the oft-used terms ‘white supremacist’ and ‘antisemitic’ in ‘objective’ news reporting. But why aren’t Zionists referred to as ‘Jewish Supremacists’? Why aren’t people like David Sirota and Tim Wise referred to as ‘Anti-white Jewish Haters’? Why aren’t homo elites called ‘radical homosexual activists’? Why aren’t black gangsta rappers referred to as ‘black thuggery promoters’? You see, the so-called 'objective' and 'neutral' news employ judgmental and condemnatory language to describe white people who happen to care about their own racial interests, but Jews, homos, and blacks get a free pass, no matter how hate-filled they may be. And of course, the manipulation of images works the same way. Only handsome and/or pleasant-looking homosexuals are featured in news about homosexuals whereas the most unpleasant and unappetizing folks — usually of fat ugly people — are used to represent those who won't bow down to the homo agenda.
How did things come to this? Long ago, when many journalists lacked proper training in journalism, one can understand why reporting could have been sloppy. But the rise of journalism schools all across America since the 1950s should have produced entire generations of truth-seeking journalists whose main loyalty is to objectivity and fairness. In other words, just as doctors treat and save the lives of people they don’t like(and even hate) and just as public defenders are sworn to represent people they loathe, journalists have a responsibility to the truth regardless of their own personal biases, preferences, and agendas. If they want to spout off on their personal ideological, social, or political commentary, it should be in the editorial section. And of course, many journalists do attempt to write objectively, fairly, and accurately. When it comes to apolitical journalism, there isn’t any reason for a journalist to lie or suppress facts. He needs only to contact the experts and report on the prevailing consensus while also lending an ear to certain dissenting views. But when it comes to political and social matters, objectivity is understandably problematic. For starters, even the very act of choosing one story over another is a form of judgement and selectivity. Suppose there’s a case of a black man killing a white man and a case of a white man killing a black man. Suppose reporters have been sent to cover the stories, and both reporters submitted a perfectly fair and accurate description of the known facts without bias or favor. But if the media company decides to report or highlight one story while rejecting or minimizing the other(by shunting it to page 11), a de facto editorializing has taken place by the simple act of selection itself. Because all news stories are chosen and emphasized to varying degrees by people who run the media, selectivity can trump objectivity. The media can, of course, go for a certain proportionality. Even if it can’t cover every story of racial violence, if crime statistics show that for every black attacked by whites, there are twenty whites attacked by blacks, the media can proportionally report race-related crime and violence in a manner as to convey the impression that black-on-white aggression is a bigger problem than white-on-black aggression. But of course, the current Liberal Media controlled by Jews don’t do that. It overlooks and even suppresses most of black-on-white crime. It also uses code words like ‘teens’ and ‘youths’, even when some of the ‘youths’ involved in the crime are past their teens. Indeed, the impression created by the Jewish-controlled media(and esp. Hollywood) is that most racial violence in this country is white-on-black. Given the amount of press that the Duke Lacrosse case received — by a media that jumped to conclusions and rushed to judgement — , one would think there is an epidemic of rich white males raping poor black women when the real shame of America is that so many black thugs rape white women and girls. But of course, the problem isn’t merely the imbalance of selectivity decided by the Jew-run industry(to perpetuate 'white guilt' to keep whites morally subservient to Jews and minorities) but the barbed-wire-fencing of contextuality that has an 'idological' effect on those in the media. Since the contextual framework prevalent among the Liberal Hive Mind in media/academia is the ‘legacy of slavery and Jim Crow’, 'racism', ‘white guilt’, and refrains of ‘there is so much to be done’, and etc., there’s either a willful compunction on the part of White Liberals(and even white conservatives who are into MLK worship) to overlook black violence or even to rationalize/justify it as understandable response to Evil White America. Indeed, even when a black-on-black crime happens in the American South, it is often narrated in the framework of white-on-black violence, as was the case with the murder of the homosexual black guy by another black guy — because it happened in Mississippi, once the hotbed of white 'racism', the story was treated like a lynching narrative — by the way, lynching is the most common way of justice in black Africa. (The power of industry, 'idology', and hysteria undermine objectivity even among the most intelligent and well-trained journalists. The industry hires and fires, and as journalists are employees, they would rather not report or write anything that might get them fired. Also, humans are naturally 'spiritual', and idolatry often trumps intelligence/integrity. No matter how smart and capable a journalist may be, if he was raised or inculcated to revere and idolize Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Wise Jews, his modus operandi will be 'idology' > intelligence/integrity. We see the same thing among Catholic conservatives. No matter how smart and perceptive they may be about most things, they may still reject evolution because it goes against what they deem to be Holy according to Scripture. Finally, there is the general fear of hysteria, and this means the news industry will be more sensitive toward individuals and groups that are more likely to make a big stink. This is why the news media don't hesitate to spew endless invective against Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and etc. Such groups in the US aren't very vocal. But the media are very mindful of angry blacks, hysterical homos, and bitchy feminists. Also, as the media are owned and controlled by vicious and nasty Jews, they are likely to go easier on groups deemed as the most useful allies of Jews.)

To Be Continued.